Article 165¹⁵ and its purpose
Article 165¹⁵ of the Code of Administrative Offences of Georgia establishes administrative liability for failing to carry out market research in a public procurement. Market research is one of the foundational stages of the procurement process: through it the purchasing organisation assesses the market, potential suppliers and the real value of the resource required, which forms the basis for a well-founded decision. Skipping this stage means that the procurement begins with incomplete information, creating risk both for budgetary funds and for the legality of the procedure — which is why the legislator attaches an administrative penalty to this conduct.
What counts as a violation
Under the first part of the article, the administrative offence consists in the failure to carry out market research according to the procedure established by the Law of Georgia on Public Procurement and/or by the order of the Chairperson of the Public Procurement Agency, a legal entity of public law. The case therefore concerns situations where market research is not conducted in the manner prescribed by that law or by the Chairperson's order. The detailed procedure for conducting the research — when, in what format and with what instruments it must be carried out — is defined precisely in those normative acts, and their violation or omission constitutes the offence described here.
An important distinction should be drawn: liability arises for the failure to carry out market research prescribed by the established procedure. The quality, completeness and sufficiency of the research are assessed separately when the case is examined, but the core of the administrative composition is precisely the non-performance — the research not carried out according to the procedure fixed by the regulations of the procurement field.
The fine for a first violation: GEL 1,000
The first part of the article provides that the failure to carry out market research entails a fine of GEL 1,000 imposed on the responsible person of the purchasing organisation. The amount is fixed under this part: where a first violation is established, the responsible person bears precisely this sum.
A repeat violation: GEL 2,000
The second part of the article establishes a separate, stricter composition: the same act, committed within one year of the imposition of an administrative penalty for such an act, entails a fine of GEL 2,000. These two tiers must be kept clearly apart: a first violation — GEL 1,000, and a repetition within one year of the imposition of the penalty — GEL 2,000. Collapsing them into a single general range would distort the meaning of the norm.
The starting point of the repeat-offence period is the imposition of the administrative penalty. That is why the case materials always fix exactly when the previous penalty was imposed on the person — this is the pivotal fact that determines which part of the article applies.
Who is liable
The article makes clear that the subject of the penalty is the responsible person of the purchasing organisation. Liability thus falls on the natural person who acts in the role of a responsible person in the procurement process and whose duty it was to ensure that market research was carried out according to the procedure. In a concrete case, establishing liability depends on the factual circumstances, while the existence of guilt is assessed under the general rules of the Code.
Procedural questions
The drawing up of the protocol, the time limits for examining the case, the procedure for adopting the decision and the appeal procedure are not regulated directly by this article — they are determined by other provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences. Where a case exists, it is important to observe the time limits and to prepare evidence, including substantiation of whether the research was carried out and in what form.
Practical recommendations
For purchasing organisations it is advisable to document the market research process: the fact of the research, its format, its results and the normative basis on which it was conducted should all be recorded in the case file. This does not remove liability, but it allows the position to be defended effectively when the case is examined. Before starting a procedure, it is preferable to verify the obligation to conduct research against the current regulations of the field — consulting a lawyer or a sector specialist on this point substantially reduces the risk.
The value of market research for procurement planning lies in the fact that before starting the procedure the purchasing organisation receives a real picture of the market: who offers the required goods or services, on what terms and at what quality. A procurement planned without this information is far more exposed to error, and skipping the research creates precisely that exposure — which is why it is the object of an administrative penalty.
In terms of documentation, it is advisable that every element of the research — the procedure on which it was based, the sources used and the conclusions drawn — be reflected in the procurement file. Such records allow the examination of a case to establish easily whether the research was carried out according to the established procedure, which is the foundation for defending the position of the responsible person.