According to an investigation completed by the European Commission, about four out of ten European firms will not participate in the process of public procurement, as they do not have trust in public principal. The same investigation shows that the implementation of the deferred period between contract award and signing the contract is the most popular in the EU enforcement directive.
In the period between 24th April and 20th July, the EU commission completed a survey on the experiences with the current enforcement directive (full survey in Swedish here). The result of the survey gave 170 responses, The Commission particularly examined principals, supervisory and complaint authorities, market and legal environments.
Benefit of the Directive
In the European investigation, it was shown that the directive had its advantages, as a direct and effective way to respond quickly to the allegation of breach of the public procurement regulations. The directive gave a more transparent, fair, open and transparent procurement process, while it made it more likely that contractors would follow procurement rules.
According to the investigation, there was also enthusiasm over the deferred period and the possibility of automatic debriefing (grounds for those who did not contract).These were the elements of the directive that received the greatest support when questioned what the advantages the directive brought. The cost of applying a complaint system is high, but the benefits even the costs, according to those that assets in the directive of enforcement.
Reasons for complaint
A third of the suppliers in the investigation gave four reasons to complain: Discriminating specifications where the point from contractor seemed to be that the chosen supplier must be located a specific place. Another reason is in cases where there is not required a minimum wage, and a third reason is that the announcement is not clear and precise enough. A final reason to complain according to the suppliers also entails acquisition without transparency, for example, no open invitation to submit bids.
The most sought-after form of sanction proved to be in breach of the contractor's decision, followed by suspension of access to a contract. The list was also required to remove discriminatory specifications. The latter applied for the most demand that the supplier had to hold at a specific location.
Important for legal environments
Suspension access and the deferred period are the two key elements of the enforcement directive, said representatives of the legal communities in the investigation.
The European Commission questioned why some companies had no interest in participating in public contract competitions. 43 % replied that it was due to lack of confidence. According to the investigation, important reasons for the supplier's dissatisfactions with the public was little to acquire, lack of transparency, low confidence, discriminating specifications and difficult legislation.
>> Would you like to stay up to date with the latest content in public procurement? Subscribe to our newsletter here.
This article first appeared at Anbud 365, Norway's leading online newspaper for public procurement, published by Lennar Hovland on 25. January 2017. The full article can be found in Norwegian here.