Evaluation of public    procurement DirectivesDG Internal MarketUK LGA Annual ConferenceThursday 30 June 2011
Lu                                                                xe                                                      ...
Person-days required                          Best        Worst     Difference                        performer   performe...
Total cost of procedures Average cost per procedure €28 000 €22 500 - cost of average 5 – 6 bids € 5 500 contracting au...
Savings   Econometric model   Save 1% on the final contract value if contract    notice advertised   further 3 % if ope...
SME access and successBy Number of contracts                     By value of contractsTotal    18     22      20        40...
Cross border procurement  %   16                       13,7                      indirect cross-border   14               ...
Cross border participation              How often did your company participate in public procurement tenders              ...
Reasons for not bidding cross border                           Reasons for not bidding cross-border                       ...
Evaluation: overall conclusion Savings outweigh costs Scope for improving balance of costs and  benefits particularly fo...
Timetable End June: Publish evaluation results &  synthesis of replies to January 2011 Green  Paper 30 June: Conference ...
Total public expenditure                                        Published in              Other 2,30                OJEU 3...
Use of procedures                0%           4%    100%        7%           5%     90%        8%                         ...
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...
EU Added Value Single Market Coordination Still large differences in implementation
Fringe   eu procurement - sara piller
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Fringe eu procurement - sara piller

278

Published on

Published in: Technology, Economy & Finance
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
278
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Fringe eu procurement - sara piller

  1. 1. Evaluation of public procurement DirectivesDG Internal MarketUK LGA Annual ConferenceThursday 30 June 2011
  2. 2. Lu xe m 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 bo ur g M Cz a ec lta h Re p Be . lg iu m Fr an ce Ic el an d Ire la n Fi d nl a G nd er m an y Po la nd Au st ria Es to ni a No rw ay Sl ov Ne e th nia er la nd Sw s ed e Authorities EE n A- 3 Hu 0 ng ar y Sp Firms aPwc, London Economics, Ecorys from OJEU data De in nm ar k UK La tv Li i th a ua n Ro ia m an P o ia Sl rtug ov a ak l Re p. G re ec e Ita ly Cy2006-2010 pr u Bu s lg ar Average person days for procedure ia
  3. 3. Person-days required Best Worst Difference performer performerAuthorities 11 68 57Firm 10 43 33Authorities and 22 93 71winning firmcombinedPwC, London Economics, Ecorys
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. SME access and successBy Number of contracts By value of contractsTotal 18 22 20 40 Total 6 11 17 662008 18 24 20 39 2008 6 13 19 622007 18 21 19 42 2007 5 11 15 692006 18 22 20 39 2006 6 9 16 69 Micro Small Medium Large Micro Small Medium LargeGHK
  7. 7. Cross border procurement % 16 13,7 indirect cross-border 14 13,9 through affiliates 12,4 12 (value) 11,4 11,7 indirect cross-border 10 11,2 through affiliates 8 (number of contracts) direct cross-border 6 through affiliates 3,7 4 3,2 (value) 3,6 direct cross-border 2 1,6 1,8 1,4 through affiliates 0 (number of contracts) 2007 2008 2009Ramboll as % of total (above threshold) procurement
  8. 8. Cross border participation How often did your company participate in public procurement tenders (domestically and abroad) in the last three years? 72,3 Never 0 11,1 1 to 5 7 4,9 5 to 10 6 5,3 10 to 20 10,9 6,4more than 20 times 76,1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % of respondents Participation abroad N=1011 Participation overall (domestically and abroad) N=1026Ramboll
  9. 9. Reasons for not bidding cross border Reasons for not bidding cross-border 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Exchange rate risk 32,5 Administrative requirements 34,2 More resources to tender 34,6 Higher costs 36,6 Legal barriers 47,6 Too much local competition 48,6 Language barriers 50,3 No experience doing business abroad 61,3Ramboll
  10. 10. Evaluation: overall conclusion Savings outweigh costs Scope for improving balance of costs and benefits particularly for small contracts Potential for more cross border procurement
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. Total public expenditure Published in Other 2,30 OJEU 3,14 Defence 0,59 VAT on OJEU published Fuel for 0,61 energy 2,46 Below threshold 2,10 Education 0,81 Social Protection Health 4,12 1,18Eurostat and Commission estimates As % EU GDP (2008)
  13. 13. Use of procedures 0% 4% 100% 7% 5% 90% 8% Competitive dialogue 14% 80% 9% Accelerated procedures 70% 23% 60% Negotiated without publication 50% Negotiated 40% 73% 30% 52% Restricted 20% Open 10% 0% Number ValuePwc, London Economics, Ecorys from OJEU data 2006-2010
  14. 14. Evaluation: main findings Effectiveness Relevance Efficiency Consistency with other policies EU added value
  15. 15. Effectiveness Transparency Competition Savings Cross border Differences in implementation
  16. 16. Relevance Value for money CPB’s and Frameworks Equal treatment Non discrimination
  17. 17. Efficiency Positive cost benefit analysis Compliance costs Difference across MS Unintended consequences
  18. 18. Consistency with other Policies Green public procurement Socially responsible Innovation Lack of monitoring Different requirements, standards, labels…
  19. 19. EU Added Value Single Market Coordination Still large differences in implementation
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×