In the Chamber’s view, the deadline for the Public Procurement Review Committee’s decisions must not be extended from 30 to 60 days

The Ministry of Finance has prepared a draft act seeking to give the Public Procurement Review Committee the right, for good reason, to extend the decision-making deadline from the current 30 days up to 60 days, and to increase the state fee rates for public procurement disputes. The Chamber informed the Ministry that it does not support the proposed amendment, as the extended deadline would reduce entrepreneurs’ access to legal remedies and increase uncertainty in concluding procurement contracts.

As a result of the amendment, decision-making would take up to 60 days
According to the proposed amendments, the Public Procurement Act would include a provision giving the Review Committee (VAKO) a new option to extend the decision-making deadline by up to 60 days for good reason. The parties to the proceedings must be notified of the extension and informed of the expected time of completion. Under the current law, all disputes must be resolved within 30 days regardless of their complexity. The amendment would allow VAKO to extend the review period by 1–30 days depending on the complexity of the case or other circumstances.

Efficiency and speed of proceedings must be preserved
The Chamber takes the view that the extended deadline undermines entrepreneurs’ access to legal remedies, increases uncertainty in the conclusion of procurement contracts, and contradicts the principle of procedural speed, which has been one of the strengths of the Estonian system.

The administrative court must review a procurement case within 45 days from the submission of a complaint. If the dispute resolution deadline at the Review Committee becomes longer than the court proceedings, the Review Committee loses its practical meaning and advantage for entrepreneurs. In that case, this separate stage of proceedings would no longer make sense, as it would not fulfil its primary objectives.

We find that in order to serve its purpose, the Review Committee must remain fast, simple, and inexpensive. If it becomes a lengthy and time-consuming process, it will be unreasonable for entrepreneurs and will no longer provide a necessary alternative to court proceedings.

The amendment would put both bidders and contracting authorities in a difficult position
Extending the deadline up to 60 days would create problems for both bidders and contracting authorities, as a bidder may not be able to keep its offer valid throughout the dispute, especially if it requires guarantees, resource reservation, or updated price offers.

If the offer expires before the dispute is resolved, the contracting authority can no longer conclude a contract based on it. From the contracting authority’s perspective, this means the risk of having to organise a new procurement, find temporary solutions (e.g. contract extensions or new framework agreements), and bear additional costs. In summary, this would lead to instability, wasted time and money, and jeopardise the timely achievement of public procurement objectives.

Alternative solutions have not been considered
In its opinion sent to the Ministry, the Chamber pointed out that possible alternative solutions have not been analysed. The proposed amendment, which doubles the procedural deadline from 30 to 60 days, has significant impact, but its scope has not been sufficiently analysed or justified. For example, the possibility of applying a more moderate extension, such as 10 or 15 days, has not been considered, nor has the option of extending deadlines only in specific and clearly defined cases. Considering that the Review Committee serves a fast and flexible pre-court legal protection function, it would be necessary to consider less burdensome alternatives.

According to the draft, the planned amendment will enter into force under the general procedure, and at this point it is not known when the amendment will take effect.