Article 165¹⁶ and its purpose
Article 165¹⁶ of the Code of Administrative Offences of Georgia establishes administrative liability for the incorrect application of the monetary thresholds in a procurement and for the artificial splitting of a procurement. Both forms of conduct counter the same danger: simplifying or avoiding the procedures that the law prescribes for procurements of a certain value. Monetary thresholds exist precisely so that small and large procurements fall under procedures of different strictness, and their incorrect application undermines that system. The norm therefore protects not an abstract formality but the very architecture that matches the intensity of public control to the value of what is being bought.
What counts as a violation
Under the first part of the article, the administrative offence consists in the incorrect selection of the monetary thresholds or/and the artificial splitting of a public procurement. The first form concerns the purchaser choosing incorrectly the threshold that determines which procedure the procurement must follow. The second form — artificial splitting — as a rule means dividing a single procurement need into several parts so that each part falls below the threshold and the procedure is simplified. The specific amounts of the thresholds and the detailed rules for their application are defined by the legislation on public procurement, and those norms provide the benchmark against which the correctness of the selection is assessed.
The two forms are linked in one article by the conjunction or/and — the offence may consist of either conduct or both together. What is assessed in a concrete case are the actual circumstances: what the real need was, how it was divided into parts, and which threshold was applied.
The fine for a first violation: GEL 1,000
The first part of the article provides that the incorrect selection of monetary thresholds or/and the artificial splitting of a public procurement entails a fine of GEL 1,000 imposed on the responsible person of the purchasing organisation. This is the base tier of the penalty, applied when a first violation is established.
A repeat violation: GEL 2,000
The second part of the article regulates a repeat offence: 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. This is a separate tier, and compressing it with the first one — for example, by the formulation "a fine from GEL 1,000 to GEL 2,000" — changes the meaning of the norm: for a first violation GEL 1,000 is prescribed, and for a repetition within one year of the imposition of the penalty, GEL 2,000.
The period is counted from the moment the administrative penalty was imposed, and it is the date of that previous penalty that determines which part of the article applies to the new facts.
Who is liable
The subject of the penalty is the responsible person of the purchasing organisation. Liability falls on the natural person who played the role of the responsible person in planning and conducting the procurement and whose decision underlay the selection of the thresholds or the splitting of the procurement. The existence of guilt and the assessment of whether the division was artificial are made in each case on the basis of the factual circumstances.
Procedural questions
The drawing up of the protocol, the time limits for examining the case, the adoption of the decision and the appeal are not regulated directly by this article — these matters are determined by other provisions of the Code. Likewise, which threshold a procurement must follow, and when a division counts as artificial, are assessed under the legislation on public procurement and the facts established in the case.
Practical recommendations
When planning a procurement, it is advisable to estimate the value on the basis of the single, real need rather than separate fragments: if one need naturally constitutes one procurement, breaking it into several procedures carries risk. Documenting the grounds of the decision — why a particular threshold was chosen and why a split was necessary, if it was — is an important means of defence if the case is examined. In doubtful situations a preliminary consultation with a lawyer or a procurement specialist prevents the very errors that this article punishes.
The essence of the threshold system is simple: the greater the value of the procurement, the more attention and transparency the procedure requires. Breaking that logic — conducting a large procurement under the rules of a small one — restricts competition and weakens public control, which is why the legislator treats it as a separate offence.
When planning, it is useful to follow one guiding idea: the unit of procurement is the real need, not an artificially separated part of it. Where several separate procedures are launched to cover one need, the body examining the case will assess whether that division was natural, and in this assessment the grounds documented by the offender in advance play a decisive role.