104.-109.

The Commission insisted on including the “three-offer” rule for the sake of sound financial management. These three offers should be reasonably comparable. However, this system is not in any way similar to public tendering. The beneficiary retains a free choice of supplier. In certain circumstances it might be difficult to obtain three entirely comparable offers. For example the choice of machinery is often made on the basis of information regarding qualities and prices, which could be obtained from different sources (agricultural exhibitions, regional seminars, direct contacts with suppliers). Other issues which could influence the choice are previous experiences gained with a particular make, distance to the closest point of repair or service, reaction time or the price of spare parts after the expiry of the warranty period. The rule of submitting three quotations can provide some evidence that the final beneficiaries have searched for at least three alternatives on the basis of which a choice has been made. The cost element is only one of the factors to be taken into account in assessing sound financial management. Both the quality of the goods purchased and the services provided, and securing the results expected in terms of the costs borne form part of this analysis. The Commission’s opinion is that the provision of an adequate after-sales service, even though it cannot be part-financed, increases the life of the investment financed and is an acceptable justification for the choice of supplier. In the case of private beneficiaries, the Commission considers that, in addition to the three prices system, the fact that the beneficiaries have to bear part of the investment also helps meet the criteria of economy and cost/efficiency. The Court’s findings do not concern the acceptability of excessive invoices, i.e. an invoice where the price paid is excessive in terms of the value of the goods or service provided, which is not the case in this instance. Conformity audits undertaken by the Commission revealed that comparison to reference prices is done, at least to some extent, in Bulgaria, Latvia, Slovenia and the Czech Republic. In countries where this was not done, the Commission has made appropriate recommendations. Offers do not need to be entirely comparable under private purchasing. This does not mean that they are of little value. Nevertheless, the Commission agrees with the Court that a justification should always be received and examined if the beneficiary does not select the cheapest offer. In the cases where this procedure was not found to be fully or effectively in place recommendations for improvement have been made. However, in most cases the Commission has obtained evidence that justifications are given if the cheapest offer is not chosen. It will recommend that this is done by Sapard systematically. In Bulgaria, the Court has identified one case where the general costs exceeded EUR 10 000 without three offers. As stated above, this case is subject to examination under the clearance of accounts procedure. On the basis of its detailed examination of payments in eight Sapard countries so far, the Commission did not find widespread failures of the Sapard control and management system.