Monitoring of SPP · Done in november 2015 First results are positive . May 11,2016 │17 0,01%...
20
Monitoring of SPP Practical approach to SPP monitoring within the Flemish Environment, Nature and Energy Department (ENED) Els Verwimp │ May 11, 2016
Transcript of Monitoring of SPP · Done in november 2015 First results are positive . May 11,2016 │17 0,01%...
Monitoring of SPP
Practical approach to SPP monitoring within the Flemish Environment, Nature and Energy Department (ENED)
Els Verwimp │ May 11, 2016
May 11,2016 2 │ │
Introduction
May 11,2016 3 │ │
Procurement within ENED
• ENED → Personnel: ± 640 → 12 divisions → 10 locations
• Procurement → Dispersed (everyone = potential procurer) → Framework contracts are often used
(1 framework contract = 1 procurer) → Lots of small orders (< €8.500: 84% in number ↔ 6% in €) → Procurement in 2015 ± 4.900 tenders / orders ± €18.000.000
May 11,2016 4 │ │
Why monitoring of SPP
• Government of Flanders: 100% SPP by 2020 SPP = sustainable public procurement (↔ GPP)
• ISO 14001 within ENED → 3 goals for SPP 2015 ≥ 25% 2018 ≥ 75% 2020: 100%
→ For product groups for which minimum criteria are available Vehicles Cleaning products and services Furniture
Paper products PCs, laptops and monitors Imaging equipment
Electricity Textiles and clothing Websites
Studies Office supplies (pen, pencil …) Wooden products
May 11,2016 5 │ │
The ENED monitoring system
May 11,2016 6 │ │
History
• No system → In place until 12/31/2012 → No data
• ‘Old’ system (SPP: yes / no) → In place: 2013 – 2014 → No useful data
• ‘New’ system → Developped and tested (in 1 division) in 2014 → In place since January 1, 2015
May 11,2016 7 │ │
History
Old system New system
Includes all types of products, services, works No criteria for what is sustainable: based on ‘gut feeling’ of the procurer Takes wide range of criteria & techniques into account chance to discover good examples No comparable data Risk of ‘green washing’
Limited number of product groups Measures SPP using a predefined set of criteria Misses out on other good examples (e.g. other criteria & techniques used) Comparable data / data on level of product groups Risk of (transparant) ‘green washing’
May 11,2016 8 │ │
The ENED monitoring system
• Mandatory form for procurement / orders ≥ €8.500 (< €8.500 – mandatory handwritten reporting) → Form used to collect data for accounting system → To be filled out before closing contract / confirming order
(= internal proposal for supplier / service provider)
→ Form not used no money reserved no contract / order • 3 simple, mandatory questions in form:
→ Type of expenditure (Procurement / Subsidies / …)
Only visible when expenditure = procurement:
→ Product group → SPP criteria used (when available) Answers registered in 1 project code in the accounting system
• Information on SPP criteria in the form
May 11,2016 9 │ │
The ENED monitoring system
Source: Clipping from the mandatory form (fictitious example)
Stored in accounting system / Used for data analysis
L Z 0 0 H 1
Type of expenditure
Product group
SPP criteria used (yes/no)
May 11,2016 10 │ │
Results (1/1/2015 – 12/31/2015)
May 11,2016 11 │ │
Results (1/1/2015 – 12/31/2015)
Results 2015 → % SPP in €: 72,40% → % SPP in numbers: 66,83%
May 11,2016 12 │ │
From results to actions
May 11,2016 13 │ │
60%
0%
29%
11%
40%
Use of SPP criteria (€)
No SPP criteria available
No SPP criteria available (in development)
SPP criteria used
SPP criteria not used
Results (1/1/2015 – 12/31/2015)
76% study / research Information for future criteria actualisation
Information for future criteria development
59,87% ICT services / Software 7,58% Infrastructure works 5,29% Legal counsel 3,89% Communication 3,44% Maintenance of vehicles 19,94% Other
May 11,2016 14 │ │
99,50% 100,00%
38,66%
78,32%
100,00%
33,30%
0,00%
70,39%
7,25% 9,92%
40,50%
12,13%
0,00%
20,00%
40,00%
60,00%
80,00%
100,00%
% Use of SPP criteria (€)
3 types of action necessary 1) Use of SPP in framework contracts
Framework contracts: - Use of SPP criteria
- Monitoring on contract level Through influence (ENED ≠ contracting authority)
May 11,2016 15 │ │
99,50% 100,00%
38,66%
78,32%
100,00%
33,30%
0,00%
70,39%
7,25% 9,92%
40,50%
12,13%
0,00%
20,00%
40,00%
60,00%
80,00%
100,00%
% Use of SPP criteria (€)
3 types of action necessary 2) Talk to procurers on SPP
Talk to procurers: - Use of SPP criteria - Use of framework contracts (if sustainable)
May 11,2016 16 │ │
3 types of action necessary 3) Improve reporting
81,79%
42,71%
0,00%
20,00%
40,00%
60,00%
80,00%
100,00%
% of wrong project codes
Margin of error (in €)
Form not used (< €8.500) Form used (≥ €8.500)
Form not used (handwritten reporting) - Short term: talk to procurers (december 2015) - Long term (2017): mandatory digitalisation
Unclear productgroup descriptions - Change descriptions Done in november 2015 First results are positive
May 11,2016 17 │ │
0,01% 0,13% 0,22% 0,38% 0,51% 0,70% 1,23% 3,77% 3,98% 4,74% 8,32%
76,01%
0,00%
10,00%
20,00%
30,00%
40,00%
50,00%
60,00%
70,00%
80,00%
% within indicator % SPP_€
Prioritise your actions
• Time is limited: prioritise your actions!
0,0064% 76,01%
May 11,2016 18 │ │
Conclusions
May 11,2016 19 │ │
Conclusions on SPP monitoring
• SPP monitoring is important: → To check weather you’ve reached your goal (results) → To improve the system (actions) Improve the monitoring Improve the (knowledge and availability of) SPP criteria
• Every system has it’s downsides – Think about why and what you want to monitor
