PUBLIC PROCUREMENT - Lexnet

Konkurrencestyrelsen - Executive Summary https://www.ks.dk/publikationer/udbud/1997/rgudland/003/?print=1
Executive Summary
Konkurrencestyrelsen:
Danske virksomheders muligheder ved offentlige EU-udbud i udlandet
Executive Summary
The present EU rules on public procurement represent a much needed strategy for opening the markets, and it has proved to
be right to start the process of liberalisation. But there is still a long way to go before the rules start to work as intended, and
it is extremely important that the European Commission and the national competition authorities support the further
development of this important market. The rules need more time to be fully implemented, before major changes are made,
and in the meantime it would be of great value for enterprises as well as for those responsible for public procurement if
clarifications were made on a number of essential points in the directives.
These are amongst the conclusions of this study of barriers for the participation of Danish enterprises in the European market
for public procurement. The study has been financed by the Danish Competition Secretariat, the body responsible for the
implementation of the rules in Denmark.
The study is based on 21 extensive interviews with Danish enterprises with experience in the European public procurement
market, and with 17 representatives of public authorities involved in public procurement on a regular basis in Germany, the
Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom and France. Furthermore interviews have been made with the Council of
Ministers (EU) and the European Commission. The European Parliament did not wish to be interviewed for the survey.
The interviews show that the experience in working with the EU directives is so far relatively limited. Enterprises and public
procurement officers indicated that the market is still rather small and in particular that successful bids won by companies
from countries other than country of the procurement authority are still very limited. The interviews also showed that both
parties find the rules quite difficult and rigid to work with. Publication rules and consequent delays were often criticised. A
further effect of the procurement rules has been more costly procedures, but as the rules have formalised the procedures,
many authorities have developed more stringent and more efficient procurement policies.
It can also be concluded that in general the procurement authorities prefer to deal with companies from their own culture, and
in particular with companies with whom they have a working relationship and experience from previous deliveries. As such
criteria can not be applied under the EU rules an important explanation of the perceived rigidity and difficulties could very well
originate from such considerations.
It has been disappointing to note that most companies find that the rules have not made it much easier to penetrate foreign
markets. On the other hand, many authorities have noted more bids under the EU rules, but mostly from domestic companies.
Therefore the rules seem to have increased local competition on public supplies rather than cross-border competition.
Public procurement is not very popular with either enterprises or with authorities. This form for procurement does not
necessarily provide for many bids, and it does not ensure the participation of the most qualified companies. Many companies
regret the lack of opportunities to negotiate with the procurement authorities. This gives them limited possibilities to adapt
their offer to real needs. The lack of opportunities to negotiate is also regretted by the public authorities.
Concerning prices, there is agreement amongst the interviewed that prices have been marginally lower during recent years,
but very few of the interviewed were willing to accept the procurement rules as the reason for this. Instead they referred to
the increased competition at the European market after the introduction of the Single Market as a plausible reason for lower
prices.
The report concludes that a part of the explanation of the limited effects of the EU procurement rules is that the rules still are
new and need to be integrated into procurement policies in general. But also that a more important reason seems to be that
structural difficulties still exist in the market for the proper effect to take place. Companies have in reality to accept that they
in most cases must be represented in the markets where they wish to participate in public tenders, as procurement authorities
want to deal with companies which can offer immediate service and provide installation advice and training in the local
language.
Most companies do not find much help in the Official Journal. In fact most companies indicate that they do not use the
Journal, and they will have to know about forthcoming bids before they are advertised officially to have a chance in a bid.
Other barriers indicated are based on a too wide use of the accelerated procedure in a number of countries, on too late
publication, on too late dispatch of material for the tender, on incorrect definitions and standards and what companies often
characterise as irrelevant demands for tests and documentation. It seems to be a problem that the information requested is
only harmonised to a limited degree in the EU. This could concern information such as yearly reports, information from banks,
and company statutes.
It also seems that the system established to deal with complaints is not very widely used.
Preliminary conclusions in the report concerning the situation of Danish enterprises are accordingly:
Denmark has a clear interest in a better application of EU public procurement rules in the country's largest markets
There is a need for assisting Danish enterprises in overcoming the barriers in the market
There is a need to strengthen the complaints system and the dialogue between competition authorities
1 of 2 14/03/2005 17:02