1

EU Policy for Electronic Public Procurement Julia Ferger,European Commission, DG Internal Market & Services

III GLOBAL CONFERENCE ON ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT

IDB, Washington, 9 -11 November 2009

2

Public procurement rules make a difference

• The public sector: by far the biggest buyer in the economy– Estimated total EU public procurement (2007): 1.900 bn EUR

(16% of EU GDP)

– Estimated total above thresholds (TED): 377 bn EUR (3% of EU GDP)

• Recent trends– Public procurement is characterised by greater transparency– Greater transparency means more competition– Potential for tangible macro-economic effects

3

EU legal framework: Who procures?

EU public procurement directives

2004/18/EC ‘classic’ (supplies, services, works)

2004/17/EC ‘utilities’ (water, energy, transp, postal services)

Everybody is concerned…

• Classic sector– State– Regional and local authorities– Bodies governed by public law

• Special sectors (water, energy, transport, postal services)

– + public undertakings– + private undertakings (special and exclusive rights)

In 2008 39.000 purchasers published a notice on TED

4

EU legal framework: How to procure?

• Above the thresholds Directives• Below the thresholds Treaty

• BUT the Directives do not harmonise, they coordinate• Even above the thresholds national and local legislation and

practice are important (especially in organising the practical details of the procurement process )

5

EU legal framework: principles

• Use of electronic communication methods by contracting authorities & suppliers possible for all steps of procurement process

• Contracting authority free to choose method ...• ... but fundamental principles (Treaty, case law) & EU Directives’

rules apply– Non-discrimination– Transparency– Fair competition

• Avoid barriers: interoperability• Flexible and technology-neutral framework

= Dematerialise what is done on paper= Employ new purchasing techniques using electronic means

6

EU legal framework: scope

Ordering +Invoicing+Payment

Contracting +Ordering

Monitoringof Contract

Outside the scope of EU public

procurement Directives

Related legislation

- E-commerce Directive

- Electronic Signatures Directive

- E-invoicing (VAT Directive) - Payment Services Directive

- Data protection directive

Publication+Access to

documents

Define contract

specifications

Bidding+Submissionof offers

Evaluation of offer

+Contract award

Choice ofprocedure

Thresholds /Rules of aggregation

Shorter time-limits for online notices & electronicaccess to tender documents

- Online standard forms for OJEU-CPV- SIMAP, TED

Data integrity

Confidentiality

Security &

Authentication

TraceabilityNon- discrimination

- e-certificates- e-catalogues- DPS- e-signatures

Automatedevaluation

Automated award

- e-auctions

Electronic Purchasing Methods

7

What are the advantages of e-proc?

• Efficient & inclusive procedures: – Reduce transaction costs for authorities and tenderers

(expected reduction of 50-80% of transaction costs);– Accelerate procedures;– Increase participation rates in tenders – including by SMEs

(IT MEPA: 70% of contracts awarded are to micro or small firms).

• Market aggregation: centralisation of procurement on e-platforms increases market transparency.

• Technology test-bed: e-procurement can stimulate the development of ICT solutions for business processes of wide market relevance.

8

Challenges to deployment

• Legal and policy: create legal environment that supports on-line procedures, removes policy barriers to use.

• Technical: Availability of applications that ensure data integrity, confidentiality, security & authentication, traceability;

• Market infrastructure: some standardisation systems, applications, classifications and protocols;

• Behaviour: inertia by contracting authorities and operators.

• Investment and up-front costs; who pays? in start-up phase, cost of operating paper and electronic circuits.

9

What is EU objective?

1. Ensure that the EU legal and policy environment supports the speedy roll-out of e-procurement by Member States;

2. Remove technical, practical and administrative obstacles to cross-border participation in e-procurement. The introduction of e-procurement must not close procurement markets - neither in EU nor internationally.

10

EU level activity: Action Plan for e-procurement (2004-08)

• Enabling legislation: change EU procurement rules to permit electronic procedures (2004), allow new e-procedures; explain and support compliant and timely transposition

• Common basic tools: provide standard forms for online procurement notices, Common Procurement Vocabulary

• Monitor and remove other legal/policy barriers (e.g. encourage e-signatures, change VAT rules to facilitate e-invoicing)

• Promote inter-operability: ensure national systems can receive submissions from operators using generally available technology / applications; investigate / promote new tools (e-catalogues, e-attestations)

• Encourage standardisation (e.g. CEN ICT standardisation)• Invest in inter-connectivity: support research on ICT to accelerate use of

new tools and to inter-connect participants in procurement markets (PEPPOL)

• Evaluation and review of EU policy - 2010

11

How is market evolving?

• Proliferation of platforms; over 800 national e-procurement and other specialised platforms identified in EU;

• Volumes of put-through unknown: some platforms have high volumes (e-proc Scotland = 30% of Scottish govt purchasing of goods & services);

• E-proc platforms seem best suited to purchasing of repeated small volumes of standard supplies (through framework agreements, qualification systems).

12

Assessment of progress so far

• E-procurement takes root – but use varies across MS. n° of MS with functioning e-procurement up from 6 (2004) to 17 (2009).

• Some procurement phases are heavily automated, others less so: notification and access to documents fully automated. Post-award less so – solutions coming on stream.

• Most frequent e-tools are framework agreements and e-auctions (both price only/MEAT). e-auctions seen as useful but not well understood.

• factors limiting x-border e-procurement: main obstacle = e-signatures/identification; then lack of interoperability & language.

• Price effects are perceptible but tentative: minority observing changes noted decrease of >5%. Price effect most noticeable for e-auctions (>15%).

• Positive assessment by all stakeholder groups: investments in e-procurement already paid off or expected to in near future.

13

Availability of e-procurement platforms

Country National

URLs Other URLs

TotalNational

URLs Other URLs

Total

Austria 6 14 20 Liechtenstein 5 5 10Belgium 5 25 30 Lithuania 7 3 10Bulgaria 10 10 20 Luxembourg 6 4 10Croatia 5 5 10 Malta 9 1 10Cyprus 9 1 10 Netherlands 12 18 30Czech Republic 14 16 30 Norway 5 5 10Denmark 6 14 20 Poland 21 29 50Estonia 6 4 10 Portugal 20 10 30Finland 7 13 20 Romania 15 15 30France 20 30 50 Slovakia 14 6 20Germany 11 39 50 Slovenia 6 4 10Greece 24 6 30 Spain 10 40 50Hungary 17 13 30 Sweden 7 13 20Iceland 5 5 10 Switzerland 10 10 20Ireland 3 7 10 Turkey 25 25 50Italy 9 41 50 United Kingdom30 20 50Latvia 7 3 10

+ national eprocurement platform and other specialized platforms

Source: IDC (2009) i2010 e-procurement indicator

14

Usage of e-procurement platforms

Up-Take of e-Procurement is still low:• In 2004, 6 MS had implemented a system • In 2009, 17 MS had implemented a system

Factors limiting use, especially across borders• Difficult use of e-signatures• Lack of interoperable systems and tools• Linguistic issues • Need to operate double circuits (paper and electronic)• Lack of trust• Resistance to change

15

The PEPPOL project

- ‘Pan-European Public Procurement On-line’ -

Objective: Enabling EU-wide public eProcurement

A Large Scale Pilot focused on Interoperability– Key actors: Member States/national authorised representatives– Outcome: an open, common interoperable solution – EU contributes up to 50% of costs for achieving interoperability

From 1.11.2009 – based on enlargement proposal– 19 beneficiaries from 13 countries– Total budget 30,8 M€ – 8 work packages, <1.600 person months – Project start up: 1 May 2008, duration 42 months

16

PEPPOL vision

Any business in the EU can communicate electronically with any public purchaser for all procurement processes

17

National solutions will not be replaced. Instead they will be aligned with common European standards and linked through a common interoperability infrastructure

PEPPOL strategy

Common EU Standards and Infrastructure

Source: PEPPOL

18

PEPPOL expected results

A secure, reliable and scalable European electronic transport infrastructure

Demonstrator software supporting public procurement processes

Guidance and building blocks for connecting national e-procurement solutions to the PEPPOL infrastructure

A methodology to encompass all Member States Long term sustainability

19

Thank you

European CommissionInternal Market and Services DGC4 - Economic aspects of public

procurement, e-procurement

Julia FERGER

Tel.: (32 2) 2998389Fax: (32 2) 2950127E-mail: Julia.FERGER@ec.europa.eu

20

SIMAP http://simap.europa.eu - TED http://ted.europa.eu (standard forms, CPV, publication of notices, links)

Commission – e-procurement pageshttp://ec.europa.eu/comm/internal_market/publicprocurement/e-procurement_en.htm (Action Plan, explanatory documents, studies)http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/eprocurement(tools, technical background documents, demonstrators)

PEPPOL project www.peppol.eu (large-scale cross-border pilot project)

eProcurement Forum at ePractice (user forum) http://www.epractice.eu/community/eprocurement

FOR MORE INFORMATION

21

Background slides

22

Points for discussion

(1) Do findings reflect situation in your country?

(2) How satisfactory is the shift from paper to e-procurement?

(3) What factors do you consider most important in explaining observed delays?

(4) In your country, is there a trend towards fragmentation or consolidation? At regional/local level?

(5) In light of the market situation, is the evolutionary approach still appropriate or is more prescriptive action needed? Of which kind?

23

COM stakeholder survey: SampleCountry

Intitutions Responsible

Economic Operator

Contracting Authorities

Central Purch. Bodies Sub-totals

AUSTRIA 3 32 35 3 73BELGIUM 13 59 34 3 109BULGARIA 5 19 26 1 51CYPRUS 8 14 11 0 33CZECH REPUBLIC 6 27 22 2 57DENMARK 11 33 41 5 90ESTONIA 9 24 23 1 57FINLAND 6 33 69 4 112FRANCE 12 68 270 7 357GERMANY 9 101 201 6 317GREECE 13 39 29 1 82HUNGARY 11 24 19 1 55ICELAND 7 19 14 0 40IRELAND 7 26 48 3 84ITALY 16 83 135 8 242LATVIA 4 29 25 0 58LIECHTENSTEIN 4 2 2 0 8LITHUANIA 7 21 28 1 57LUXEMBOURG 5 11 14 1 31MALTA 7 19 13 3 42NORWAY 9 24 34 1 68POLAND 5 31 105 5 146PORTUGAL 17 21 26 1 65ROMANIA 7 39 54 2 102SLOVAKIA 8 23 21 1 53SLOVENIA 10 29 22 1 62SPAIN 10 77 123 0 210SWEDEN 9 30 41 2 82THE NETHERLANDS 11 72 75 6 164UNITED KINGDOM 17 119 156 13 305ORGANISATIONS 23 23Sub-totals 289 1148 1716 82 3235

24

COM stakeholder survey: Response rate

25

What is e-procurement?

EU legal framework: Time-table

Apr 2004 Entry into force of new EU public procurement directives

- 2004/18/EC ‘classic’ (supplies, services, works) - 2004/17/EC ‘utilities’ (water, energy, transp, postal services)

Dec 2004 Action plan on e-procurement (2005-2008)

31 Jan 2006 Transposition by MS (21 months)

2009-2010 Review of Action Plan & follow-up strategy

26

1. Common Basic Tools

• E-notification – Regulation (EC) n°1564/2005 on standard forms

• Common Procurement Vocabulary (CPV)– Regulation (EC) n°213/2008 of 28 Nov 2007

(published 15 March 2007, effective 15 Sept 2008)

– Online explanatory notes (on-going)

• Accessible at EU public procurement portals – SIMAP http://simap.europa.eu– TED http://ted.europa.eu

27

0

25

50

75

100

janv-

04

mar

s-04

mai-

04

juil-0

4

sept

-04

nov-

04

janv-

05

mar

s-05

mai-

05

juil-0

5

sept

-05

nov-

05

janv-

06

mar

s-06

mai-

06

juil-0

6

sept

-06

nov-

06

janv-

07

mar

s-07

mai-

07

juil-0

7

sept

-07

nov-

07

janv-

08

mar

s-08

Jan – 2008 84,0%

% struct2004 13,09%2005 36,50%2006 59,20%

2007 76,40%

Example: N° of notices received in XML format

Dec – 2008 86,0%

28

2. Interoperable tools & standards

• Explanatory tools

– Explanatory Document on EU Directives (2005)

– Preliminary functional requirements & Learning demonstrators (2005)

– IDABC XML model schemas (2005)

• Interoperability studies

– Compliance verification mechanism(s) (2007)

– e-catalogues (2007)

– e-certificates & attestations (2008)

– e-signatures (2007) e-signatures Action Plan (2009-2010)

29

3. Interoperability pilot projects

• CIP large-scale cross-border e-procurement pilot ‘PEPPOL’ (2008-2010)

– Provide common specifications & building blocks in 4 areas • e-signature

• Virtual Company Dossier (e-certificates)

• e-catalogues (pre- and post-award)

• e-invoicing

• CEN BII e-procurement and ePPS standardisation workshops (2008-2009)

• eSignatures Action Plan (28 Nov. 2008)

• eProcurement Forum at ePractice http://www.epractice.eu/community/eprocurement

30

MOVING AHEAD: Action Plan Progress Review

Objectives • Evaluate the effective up-take of e-procurement

– extent to which PP procedures have been digitised– How: legal, organisational, economic, technical aspects

• How the AP contributed to it• 4 work packages

1) Overview of the state of play2) Assess extent to which AP objectives have been reached3) Identify issues, gaps + recommendations 4) Provide a methodology for future monitoring

• Results available by mid-2009

31

MOVING AHEAD: Action Plan Progress Review

Preliminary findings (mid-2009)• Transposition of PP directives

- All MS have completed transposition

• E-Procurement portals and functionalities- All MS implemented some form of portal; 25% more than one- 22 MS developed eNotification module- 15 MS do not yet permit e-submission- 17 eAccess, 9 eAuctions, 5 eInvoicing

• eNotification- 86% of all notices transmitted electronically to OJEU (2008)- From 2006-2007 n° of visits to TED website increased by 36%

• New tools referenced in TED notices (2006-2007)- Buyer Profile (200 notices), eAuction (1500), DPS (50)

32

Availability / exposure

e-procurement is still in its infancy, but there is now real momentum across MS towards greater use

Accumulated number of countries implementing an e-procurement system, over years 1999-2009

12 2

56

8

11

1314

15

17

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Co

un

trie

s

33

Specific phases and tools

Certain phases are heavily automated, others less so

• Processes: e-notification and e-access to documents first to be

made electronic and most used • Tools: framework agreements and e-auctions (both on price and

MEAT) most used • Post-award phases (e-ordering, e-invoicing and e-payment) not

frequent today but forecast for future use

34

Specific phases

• Today 87% of notices in structured format

• Majority of MS ready to make e-notices mandatory …• … but buyer profiles are not well understood

eSenders 44%

eNotices 40%

paper 4%

fax 4%email 8%

Notices – means of transmission to TED (2008)

35

Specific tools

• e-auctions

– Large majority of all stakeholders considers useful

– but often not well understood

– … as confirmed by TED data

• Dynamic Purchasing Systems

– very little operational usage of DPS today, but

– 2/3 of respondents consider DPS useful, although not well understood at all

– … as confirmed by TED data

13

12

1

6 Useful

Useful, but notsufficiently well understood/ applied

Not useful

Don't know

Usefulness of e-Auctions (answers by MS)

6

13

1

4

6

Useful

Useful, but notsufficiently wellunderstood / applied

Make no difference

Not useful

Don't know

Usefulness of DPS (answers by MS)

36

Factors limiting cross-border use

Opinions differ…

• MS– difficult use of e-signatures– lack of interoperable systems and tools – linguistic issues

• CAs, CPBs – need to operate double circuits (paper and electronic)

• CPBs– lack of trust – resistance to change by CAs

• Note: Lack of interest from suppliers not often noted

37

Cost and benefits

• Effects on price perceptible but still inconclusive– majority of MS do not know the impact on prices– those available indicate a decrease of at least 5%

• Price effect strongest for e-auctions on price only (15% <)

• Overall positive experience– CAs, CPBs and operators say investments have already paid

off or are expected to in near future– only a few CAs say expected benefits have not materialised