Evaluation of public procurement Directives DG Internal Market UK LGA Annual Conference Thursday 30 June 2011
Thursday 30 June, F8 - Cutting through EU procurement tape, Sara Piller, European Commission
Jun 25, 2015
As spending pressures continue, councils are working more innovatively to find efficiencies. However buying and sharing goods and services and working as a ‘super council’ is not as straightforward as it should be. All of this is guided by current EU rules, which can be inconsistent and confusing, making it more difficult for councils to deliver value for money procurement.
We have been voicing these local concerns to EU decision makers in Whitehall and Brussels, and they are listening. A wholesale review takes place in 2011/2012. This session will:
Evidence why these rules matter to councils
Present the LG Group vision for the EU procurement review
Hear from those reforming the EU rules in Brussels and Whitehall.
Come and join the debate, and have your say…find out what we are saying and how you can help influence EU policy makers in Whitehall, Westminster and Brussels.
Speakers:
Sara Piller, Deputy Head of Unit, Public Procurement Policy Directorate, European Commission
Nigel Kletz, Head of Procurement and Assistant Director, Birmingham City Council
Matthew Wynn, Efficiency and Reform Group, Cabinet Office
We have been voicing these local concerns to EU decision makers in Whitehall and Brussels, and they are listening. A wholesale review takes place in 2011/2012. This session will:
Evidence why these rules matter to councils
Present the LG Group vision for the EU procurement review
Hear from those reforming the EU rules in Brussels and Whitehall.
Come and join the debate, and have your say…find out what we are saying and how you can help influence EU policy makers in Whitehall, Westminster and Brussels.
Speakers:
Sara Piller, Deputy Head of Unit, Public Procurement Policy Directorate, European Commission
Nigel Kletz, Head of Procurement and Assistant Director, Birmingham City Council
Matthew Wynn, Efficiency and Reform Group, Cabinet Office
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Evaluation of public procurement Directives
DG Internal Market
UK LGA Annual Conference Thursday 30 June 2011
Average person days for procedure
Pwc, London Economics, Ecorys from OJEU data 2006-2010
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Luxe
mbo
urg
Malt
a
Czech
Rep
.
Belgium
Franc
e
Icela
nd
Irelan
d
Finlan
d
Germ
any
Poland
Austri
a
Estonia
Norway
Slovenia
Nether
lands
Sweden
EEA-30
Hungar
y
Spain
Denmar
kUK
Latvi
a
Lithu
ania
Romania
Portu
gal
Slovak R
ep.
Greec
eIta
ly
Cypru
s
Bulgar
ia
Authorities Firms
Person-days required
Best performer
Worst performer
Difference
Authorities 11 68 57
Firm 10 43 33
Authorities and winning firm combined
22 93 71
PwC, London Economics, Ecorys
Total cost of procedures
Average cost per procedure €28 000
€22 500 - cost of average 5 – 6 bids € 5 500 contracting authority costs
Total Costs €5.3 billion Less than 1.3% of total contract value
Savings
Econometric model Save 1% on the final contract value if contract
notice advertised further 3 % if open procedure
or 1.1 % if restricted procedure Total 2.1 - 4 per cent compared with the initial
estimate.
PwC, London Economics, Ecorys
SME access and success
By Number of contracts
18
18
18
18
22
21
24
20
19
39
42
39
4022 20
20
2006
2007
2008
Total
Micro Small Medium Large
By value of contracts
6
5
6
6
9
11
13
16
15
69
69
62
6611 17
19
2006
2007
2008
Total
Micro Small Medium Large
GHK
Cross border procurement
Ramboll as % of total (above threshold) procurement
13,9
11,4
3,6
1,4
13,712,4
11,211,7
3,23,7
1,81,60
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
2007 2008 2009
%
indirect cross-borderthrough affiliates(value)
indirect cross-borderthrough affiliates(number of contracts)
direct cross-borderthrough affiliates(value)
direct cross-borderthrough affiliates(number of contracts)
Cross border participation
Ramboll
How often did your company participate in public procurement tenders (domestically and abroad) in the last three years?
76,1
10,9
6
7
0
6,4
5,3
4,9
11,1
72,3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
more than 20 times
10 to 20
5 to 10
1 to 5
Never
% of respondents
Participation abroad N=1011
Participation overall (domestically and abroad) N=1026
Reasons for not bidding cross border
Reasons for not bidding cross-border
32,5
34,2
34,6
36,6
47,6
48,6
50,3
61,3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Exchange rate risk
Administrative requirements
More resources to tender
Higher costs
Legal barriers
Too much local competition
Language barriers
No experience doing business abroad
Ramboll
Evaluation: overall conclusion
Savings outweigh costs Scope for improving balance of costs and
benefits particularly for small contracts Potential for more cross border procurement
Timetable
End June: Publish evaluation results & synthesis of replies to January 2011 Green Paper
30 June: Conference on the Modernisation of EU Public Procurement Policy
End 2011: Present legislative proposals
Total public expenditure
Eurostat and Commission estimates As % EU GDP (2008)
Published in OJEU 3,14
Below threshold 2,10
Health 4,12Social
Protection 1,18
Education 0,81
Fuel for energy 2,46
Defence 0,59
Other 2,30
VAT on OJEU published
0,61
Use of procedures
Pwc, London Economics, Ecorys from OJEU data 2006-2010
73%
9%
8%
7%0%
52%
23%
14%
5%4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Number Value
Competitive dialogue
Accelerated procedures
Negotiated withoutpublication
Negotiated
Restricted
Open
N Cumulative
€Cumulative
80%
50%
20%
0
400
800
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000Value of purchase ('000)
Frequency of contract values
PwC, London Economics, Ecorys
Evaluation: main findings
Effectiveness Relevance Efficiency Consistency with other policies EU added value
Effectiveness
Transparency Competition Savings Cross border Differences in implementation
Relevance
Value for money CPB’s and Frameworks Equal treatment Non discrimination
Efficiency
Positive cost benefit analysis Compliance costs Difference across MS Unintended consequences
Consistency with other Policies
Green public procurement Socially responsible Innovation Lack of monitoring Different requirements, standards, labels…
EU Added Value
Single Market Coordination Still large differences in implementation
Related Documents
