Posted by - Scorecard, instructions for SE -aspects and EU procurement law
- General in the case of (AB) use of public purchase power
- Scorecard, instructions for SE -aspects and EU procurement law
- General in the case of (AB) use of public purchase power
The British Crown Commercial Service and the Cabinet Office have started a new Scorecard system to use its Huge shopping To support economic growth (emphasis added). Ultimately, the British government believes that it can play an important role Support for economic growth by helping to improve the conditions of competition through the way it buys public goods, Work and services. It can maximize the economic benefits of what it provides for by public procurement, through the results of great investments or through a catalytic role in the development of market capabilities and competitiveness through the way the procurement and requirements. (Added emphasis). Honestly and right from the start, I have difficulty understanding the evaluation of the competitive area in all terms that do not indicate the protectionism of local industry as a means of promoting (domestic / local) economic growth (which is also a claim open on disputes).
In very similar lines, they also indicate that the goal of this guideline is to maximize the value of the money of taxpayers by public procurement in one way Make sure that the full price -performance ratio is taken into account. The contract regulations for public contracts 2015 are more clarity about how broader political considerations such as social and ecological factors can be integrated into procurements. Consideration of relevant wider political considerations It will contribute to the fact that a price -performance ratio is fully considered and is reflected in the procurement process, if necessary, Contribution to economic growth in Great Britain (Added emphasis). Therefore, there seems to be a fairly strong connection between the goal of promoting economic growth in Great Britain, and the inclusion of social and ecological considerations. Certainly, clever. The procurement can contribute to economic growth (for example, by investing in the infrastructure that enables the development of new economic activity), but this is a topic for decisions about what to invest in investments / what is to be bought instead of making decisions about it how you can buy it / who is buying it. In my opinion, the entire guideline seems to concentrate more clearly in the second type of questions that some flags regarding.
In this regard, a possibly cynical remark is that politics is equipped with an excusatio non petita when it emphasizes that on 23. June the EU referendum took place and the population of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. Until the end of the exit negotiations, Great Britain remains a full member of the European Union and all rights and obligations of the EU membership remain in force. During this time, the government will continue to negotiate, implement and apply EU laws. . This was not necessary at all. It could be seen as an indication that the government is trying to implement Brexit-oriented guidelines (whatever that means) within the (recognized?) Restrictions of the EU right. Two points here. If everything in this directive is EU -compliant, what is the point of mentioning Brexit? And two when everything that strives for politics?
Overall, it seems necessary overall to the new scorecard together with the very newer CCS guidelines on social and ecological aspects of public procurement (instructions on se aspects, criticized here) and more generally with regard to the economic analysis of the effects that the exercise of a can create such buyer power.
Scorecard, instructions for SE -aspects and EU procurement law
After the press release,
The new Scorecard system was developed to ensure that large government procurements have a positive impact on economic growth and the best value for taxpayers leadership … introduces a balanced scorecard approach that should use government departments in the design of important work, infrastructures and capital investment procurement in which the value is more than 10 million. GBP Beträs Scorecard helps the trialer, the project requirements and needs with criteria such as the costs against social, economic and ecological considerations. The use of this method can clearly determine government departments, such as priority issues such as the development of employment, engagement in small businesses and sustainability Procurement activities can be integrated to the supplier underlines the general effects that the department wants to achieve and signals how this is evaluated if it is considered to create individual tenders a project -specific, balanced scorecard that is to be published with their procurement documentation.
The full scorecard paper contains additional details. It emphasizes that a balanced scorecard (BSC) approach is a way to develop procurement (e.G. The requirements and evaluation criteria), so that more uncomplicated matters such as the costs against more complex questions such as social and broader economic considerations are compensated for (Added emphasis). This seems to indicate that the BSC is actually a new method that aims to operationalize social and broader economic considerations in such a way that they are compatible with cost -based and legal requirements.
However, the document clearly states that it is important to remember that nothing within the [BSC] directive … should be interpreted in a way that exceeds the obligations of the departments to comply with PCR 2015 or The obligations of the departments to determine whether potential requirements would be associated with the subject of the contract and the appropriate application (Added emphasis).
Therefore, the Scorecard cannot create more space for broader economic, social or ecological considerations than to create the applicable rules itself. However, this raises the practical questions (a) why if the BSC is nothing other than a method that has to be assessed against regulatory requirements for the inclusion of social, ecological and broader economic considerations. Se aspects and (b) to what extent the BSC is actually a useful instrument for contractual companies.
In addition, the complete scorecard paper consists of the risk of incorrectly presenting the regulatory requirements, as is the case for the creation of the discretionary area for the application of the BSC. In fact, it emphasizes that
The EU Directive and the PCRS 2015 make it clear that the contracts should be awarded on the basis of the most economically advantageous offer (meat). The price or cost assessment part of the evaluation of offers must insist on a living cost basis of life, And as explained in the 2015 PCRS, The entire cost efficiency of the project should be examined, not just the initial price. The cost efficiency can include the assessment of the costs for transport, insurance, assembly and disposal as well as the costs for the life cycle of a product, service or work, including: costs such as energy consumption and other resources, and maintenance costs; and costs in connection with environmental impacts, including emission costs (highlighting added).
In my opinion, this is problematic because Art 67 you 2014/200/EU and Reg.67 PCR2015 does not undertake to assess the price or the costs of an entire living cost basis, however, simply allow the contracting authorities to do this. This is technically more precise in a separate guide to awarding contracts that were also published by CCS in October in 2016, where it says: If a contracting authority uses costs as a price criterion, this should be the case based on an approach to cost effectiveness. Life cycle calculation (LCC) is an example of this approach, but the contracting authorities can use other approaches (Added emphasis).
In fact, Art 67 (2) 2014/24 stipulates that the most economically advantageous offer is identified from the perspective of the contracting authority on the basis of the price or the costs, Use of a cost efficiency approach, such as z. B. Life cycle, according to Article 68, and can include the best price quality ratio that is to be assessed using criteria, including qualitative, ecological and/or social aspects associated with the topic of the public contract in question. (Added emphasis).
This requires that costs or price (ie cost efficiency) part of the price criteria (which is nothing new) and only opens up the possibility /24, which in turn determines The method that the contracting authority uses to determine the life cycle costs based on this data. And it also requires that this method is based, among other things, based on objectively checkable and non -discriminatory criteria. In particular, If it has not been set for repeated or continuous application, it must not be excessively drunk or disadvantage (Added highlights).
Therefore, the UN contract authorities have a predefined (and published) methodology for evaluating the life cycle calculation (which at least not at least not at the moment), on the basis of the total living costs, the award of contracts no longer does the analysis is subject to the double request that they are subject Concentrated on requirements associated with the subject of the contract and is not the case that certain business operators are exaggerated or disadvantaged. In my opinion, this can be sufficient in order to call up the contracting authorities from lending contracts on the basis of homemade in order to actually issue contracts for life cycle cost methods and the BSC can only be effective if such a method of CCS itself develops for general use became.
In addition, it seems difficult to squares that the instructions emphasize on the one hand that the BSC must be tailored for every procurement process (which would lead to evaluation methods that are not designed for repeated or continuous application) Develop your own life cycle cost method, but also create ensure.
The detail of the BSC is not helpful in this regard either, since it contains discriminatory criteria, such as z. B. number of United Kingdom Jobs created or maintained by new government contracts. In relation to the employment effects; Or the assessment of the advantages and inheritance of the community, which will benefit more domestic contractors. In my opinion, the contracting authorities will be in a difficult position if they try to translate these general criteria into legal and useful evaluation criteria that are not discriminatory.
The biggest reason why start-ups are successful | Bill Gross
General in the case of (AB) use of public purchase power
The second perspective that it is worth considering is that of the long -term effects of the government's attempt to use its enormous shopping power to support economic growth. This again opens the discussion about the desirability of the instrumentation of public procurement for foreign political goals. It is sufficient to say here in relation to the reduced dynamic competition. This is a problem that I have repeatedly raised (see here here), and a structured analysis is available here.