This document summarizes an empirical study on the use of transparency notices in public procurement in Denmark, Sweden, and the United Kingdom from 2010-2013. It finds that there is variety in use between the countries, with Denmark having the highest percentage of transparency notices to contract awards. Reasons for use also varied by country. The study analyzed notices by directive, contract type, industry, and reasons given. It raises questions about the broad use of "technical reasons" and notes uncertainty could be reduced by improving the quality and information in notices.

1. Transparency Notices in the EU
Public Procurement Regime:
An Empirical Study on the use of
Transparency Notices in Denmark, Sweden
and the United Kingdom
Presented by Professor Lisbeth La Cour and Associate professor Grith Skovgaard Ølykke,
Department of Economics, Copenhagen Business School
International Public Procurement Conference 6, Dublin, 15. August 2014

2. 2
Country Transp. notices (TN)
Number
Contract Awards (CA)
Number
TN/CA
%
Population (P)
Mill. 2010
TN/P
Number/mill
Austria 328 9650 3.4 8.4 39.2
Belgium 24 15032 0.2 10.8 2.2
Bulgaria 96 13061 0.7 7.4 12.9
Cypress 47 1590 3.0 0.8 57.4
Czech Rep. 95 18555 0.5 10.5 9.1
Germany 181 79144 0.2 81.8 2.2
Denmark 1429 8546 16.7 5.5 258.2
Estonia 18 4434 0.4 1.3 13.5
Spain 349 39151 0.9 46.5 7.5
Finland 843 10498 8.0 5.4 157.5
France 27305 155762 17.5 64.7 422.3
Greece 27 5403 0.5 11.2 2.4
Croatia 57 359 15.9 11.2 5.1
Hungary 3 9158 0.0 10.0 0.3
Ireland 31 3247 1.0 4.5 6.8
Italy 935 31940 2.9 59.2 15.8
Lithuania 198 8847 2.2 3.1 63.0
Luxemburg 3 2117 0.1 0.5 6.0
Latvia 102 4889 2.1 2.1 48.1
Malta 0 735 0.0 0.4 0.0
Netherlands 196 15104 1.3 16.6 11.8
Poland 3531 92602 3.8 38.2 92.5
Portugal 17 4947 0.3 10.6 1.6
Romania 1 15079 0.0 20.3 0.0
Sweden 291 15140 1.9 9.3 31.2
Slovenia 705 5557 12.7 2.0 344.4
Slovakia 559 4442 12.6 5.4 103.7
UK 1741 34408 5.1 62.5 27.9

3. 3
Our data: TED – very time consuming
to use. But also very rich!
• Tenders Electronic Daily (TED) is for free – if you thank the EU for
making the TED data available.
• It consists of various types of text contracts notices – we focus here on
a specific type: transparency notices
• You can extract data from 5 year back (on a running basis). It is a bit
unclear right now whether it is possible to buy older data (from 2003
onwards).
• For a statistical analysis the main challenge is to extract useful
information from the text documents.
• For the present study we focus a lot on the reasons for choosing to use
a transparency notice (classification done by a member of our research
group)
• Other info that can be extracted (when also other types of notices are
studied): Award criterion, Value, International, Procedure, Type of
contract, number of bids, identity of the winner, geografic info (NUTS
codes), industry information (CPV codes)

4. 4
Why bother about all these data if
it is so difficult to work with TED?
We have in principle all EU data over the threshold level.
We can try to either confirm or reject myths about behaviour
in public procurement.
Changes over time.
Country comparisons.
Degree of internationalization.
Sub sample studies like the present for a specific type of
notice. But also possible for specific types of goods or
services.

5. 5
Number of transparency notices
over time in UK, S and DK
Denmark
Sweden
UK
Monthly data
Timespan:
Jan 2010 – Dec 2013
(total: 1712)
(total: 290)
(total: 1429)

6. 6
Simple regression analysis
RQ 1: Is there a positive trend in the number of transparency notices?
Confirmed for UK and DK - but not for Sweden
RQ 2: Is there a seasonal pattern - more notices - around main holiday
periods (July/August and December)?
July/August: UK
December: DK, S
- May also be budgetary considerations involved when discussing number
of notices in December.
Caveat: Still a limited time span leading to low power of the tests.

7. 7
Transparency notices – divided on Directives
– pooled data
2004/18
2004/17
2009/81
82,20 %
4,54 %
13,26 %

8. 8
Directive by country

9. 9
Type of contract – pooled data
51.26 %
4.96 %
41.90 %
Supply/Services
Supply
Services
Other: 1.88 %

10. 10
Type of contract – by country

11. 11
Industry (CPV) – pooled data
35.00 % - other
5.12 % - business
services
4.79 % - construction
4.11 % - health/social
18.66 % - It services
5.14 % - software
4.71 % - security,
police
4.14 % maintenance
4.11 % - energy
9.09 % - medical
equipment
5.14 % - lab. equipment

12. 12
Industry (CPV) by country
Forestry?
hardware
Tv/radio
Transport
equipment
R&D

13. 13
Reasons for the use of
transparency notices
• No formal need to publish
transparency notice
Excluded
• No reason
Best guess…
• Several reasons
Reason 1 and reason 2
The most ”important” reason
Need for more than one reason?

14. 14
Reasons - pooled data
Framework
agreement
Exclusive rights
Below
threshold
Annex II B
Amendment of contracts
Additional supplies
Other
UrgencyTechnical
reasons
13.93 %
12.01 %
4.67 %
11.86 %
4.40 %
8.27 %
14.32 %
4.55 %
26.00 %

15. 15
Reasons by country
DK: Sweden: UK:
Frameworkagreement Technical reasons Technical reasons
Technical reasons Urgency Annex II B
Exclusive rights
Additional works/
services

16. 16
Peculiarities
Denmark
Commodity market – electricity, Article 31(2)(c) + Article 16(d)
of the Public Sector Directive (2011: 10; 2012: 24; 2013: 11)
Gifts/donations (2010: 2; 2011: 3; 2012: 1; 2013: 1)
Sweden
Prolongation of contract due to complaint over new
procedure (2010: 5; 2011: 2; 2012: 1; 2013: 3)
Procurement of art (2011: 2; 2012: 3; 2013: 1)
United Kingdom
Sale of land/property (2010: 1; 2011: 4; 2012: 1)
Land/works (2012: 5; 2013: 14)
DK: (2010: 1; 2011: 5; 2012: 4; 2013: 5)

17. 17
Greatest challenge: technical
reasons
Perceived as a broad exemption:
• Product characteristics (one particular product
wanted)
• Interoperability (when Article 31(2)(b) does not apply?)
• Staff training
Case law:
• Narrow interpretation – so far not granted, but old
case law on works
• Economic reasons would not be sufficient

18. 18
Conclusions and perspectives
Great variety in use between the examined Member
States
No certain statistical conclusions due to short period
– but we are following up!
Great variety in the quality of transparency notices
(legal basis, references to case law, several reasons
provided – uncertainty?, some simply no
information…)
Fastweb-judgment comming up – possible effects?

19. 19
Thank you for your attention –
questions welcome!