documente-945 (1)

  • View
    216

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Text of documente-945 (1)

  • 8/12/2019 documente-945 (1)

    1/16

    Benchmarking

    and best practices

    EXPP/2011/07 ENpoint 6 of the Agenda

    Meeting of the Comm ission GovernmentExperts Group on Publ ic Procurement

    07 December 2011

  • 8/12/2019 documente-945 (1)

    2/16

    Best practice benchmarking Evaluation of processes and performance in

    relation to best practice organisations processesand performance, usually within a peer group

    defined for the purposes of comparison allows organizations to

    develop plans on how to make improvements

    adapt specific best practices, usually with the aim of increasing

    some aspect of performance May be a one-off event, but often treated as a

    continuous process in which organizationscontinually seek to improve their practices

  • 8/12/2019 documente-945 (1)

    3/16

    Best practice benchmarking Dimensions typically measured

    time

    cost

    quality The participants can

    identify the performance metrics and targets

    learn from the best performers

    and, more importantly, understand why the bestperformers are successful

  • 8/12/2019 documente-945 (1)

    4/16

    Benchmarking in the evaluation Exemplary aspects/dimensions where

    comparisons across Member States can be made

    Level of cross-border procurement* Duration of procedures*

    Costs of procedures (time spent in person-days)**

    Quality of data in notices published*

    Based on: *OJ/TED data; **survey based on OJ/TED data

  • 8/12/2019 documente-945 (1)

    5/16

    PROPOSED DIMENSION

    Duration of procedures

  • 8/12/2019 documente-945 (1)

    6/16

    Duration of procedures

    241230

    1 61 1 61

    145 1 40 1 40 1 40 138 133124 123 120 117 116 115

    1 08 1 08 105 10 2 1 02 10 2 99

    84 84 81 78 77

    0

    50

    100

    150

    200

    250

    300

    Malt

    a

    Gree

    ce

    Portu

    gal

    UK

    Cypr

    us

    Belgi

    um

    Luxe

    mbo

    urg

    Finla

    nd Italy

    Irelan

    d

    Austr

    ia

    Denm

    ark

    Bulga

    riaSp

    ain

    Czec

    hRe

    p.

    Fran

    ce

    EEA-

    30

    Neth

    erlan

    ds

    Esto

    nia

    Germ

    any

    Slov

    akR

    ep.

    Swed

    en

    Lithu

    ania

    Rom

    ania

    Slov

    enia

    Hung

    ary

    Polan

    dLa

    tvia

    Fig. 1): Time for the entire procurement process (from the day of dispatching of the CN to the

    date of award)median number of days

    Source: PwC, Ecorys, London Economics

  • 8/12/2019 documente-945 (1)

    7/16

    Duration of procedures Potentially influenced by

    Structure of procedures used

    e.g. in the UK the restricted procedure is used more

    frequently (++ duration)

    More procurement in sectors where purchasing

    tends to takes longer Business services, construction (++ duration)

    Commodities and food (-- duration)

  • 8/12/2019 documente-945 (1)

    8/16

    Durationcountry effects

    Malta,

    144

    Greece,

    142

    Portugal,45

    Bulgaria,

    35

    Italy,

    32

    Cyprus,

    24

    Ireland,

    23

    Belgium,

    16

    Luxembourg,

    16

    UK,

    13

    Finland,

    4

    CzechRep.,-3

    Austria,-4

    France,-6

    Lithuania,-12

    Spain,-13

    Slovenia,-19

    Netherlands,-20

    Estonia,-21

    SlovakRep.,-21

    Sweden,-23

    Germany,-27

    Romania,-28

    Denmark,-29

    Poland,-34

    Hungary,-43

    Latvia,-43

    -100

    -50

    0

    50

    100

    150

    200

    Fig. 2): Number of days relative to the average

    Source: PwC, Ecorys, London Economics

  • 8/12/2019 documente-945 (1)

    9/16

    PROPOSED DIMENSION

    Costs of procedures

    (time spent in person-days)

  • 8/12/2019 documente-945 (1)

    10/16

    Costs of procedures (person-days)Costs (person-days) Quickest Slowest Difference

    Authorities 11 68 57

    Firms 10 34 24

    Duration of procedure(authorities + firms)

    22 93 71

    Significant discrepancies in efficiency amongst Member States

    importance of enhancing correct and smart application of the rules

  • 8/12/2019 documente-945 (1)

    11/16

    Costs of procedures - CAEs

    11 1215 16 16 16

    17 18 18 19 19 20

    21 21 22 23

    25 26 26 27 27

    31

    3538

    4043 44

    68

    0

    10

    20

    30

    40

    50

    60

    70

    80

    Luxe

    mbo

    urg

    Malt

    a

    Czec

    hRe

    p.

    Belgi

    um

    Fran

    ce

    Irelan

    d

    Finla

    nd

    Germ

    any

    Polan

    d

    Austr

    ia

    Esto

    nia

    Slov

    enia

    Neth

    erlan

    ds

    Swed

    en

    EEA-

    30

    Hung

    ary

    Spain

    Denm

    ark

    UKLa

    tvia

    Lithu

    ania

    Roma

    nia

    Portu

    gal

    Slov

    akR

    ep.

    Gree

    ceIta

    ly

    Cypr

    us

    Bulga

    ria

    Fig. 3): Cost of procedures in man-dayscontracting authorities and entities

    Source: PwC, Ecorys, London Economics

  • 8/12/2019 documente-945 (1)

    12/16

    Costs of procedures - firms

    10 10 11 11

    12 13 13

    14 14 14 15 15 15 15

    16 16 16 17 17 17

    18

    20 20

    25 25

    29 30

    34

    0

    5

    10

    15

    20

    25

    30

    35

    40

    Fran

    ce

    Finla

    nd

    Luxe

    mbo

    urg

    Polan

    d

    Slov

    enia

    Neth

    erlan

    ds

    Lithu

    ania

    Belgi

    umSp

    ainLa

    tvia

    Czec

    hRe

    p.

    Irelan

    d

    Hung

    ary

    Roma

    nia

    Esto

    nia

    EEA-

    30

    Portu

    gal

    Germ

    any

    Swed

    en UK

    Denm

    ark

    Austr

    iaIta

    ly

    Gree

    ce

    Bulga

    ria

    Cypr

    us

    Slov

    akR

    ep.

    Malt

    a

    Fig. 4): Cost of procedures in man-daysfirms

    Source: PwC, Ecorys, London Economics

  • 8/12/2019 documente-945 (1)

    13/16

    Costs of procedures - combined

    11 16 17 18 15 16 16

    20 21 18 19 21 23

    19 25 27 27 26 26

    12

    31 35

    43 40 38 44

    68

    11

    10 10 11 15 14 15

    12 13 17 16 17 16 15 20

    14 13 14 17 18

    34

    15

    16

    20 25 30

    29

    25

    22

    0

    10

    20

    30

    40

    50

    60

    70

    80

    90

    100

    Luxe

    mbo

    urg

    Fran

    ce

    Finla

    nd

    Polan

    d

    Czec

    hRe

    p.

    Belgi

    um

    Irelan

    d

    Slov

    enia

    Neth

    erlan

    ds

    Germ

    any

    Esto

    nia

    Swed

    en

    EEA-

    30

    Hung

    ary

    Austr

    iaSp

    ain

    Lithu

    ania

    Latvi

    a UK

    Denm

    ark

    Malt

    a

    Rom

    ania

    Portu

    gal

    Italy

    Gree

    ce

    Slov

    akRep

    .

    Cypr

    us

    Bulga

    ria

    Firms

    Authorities

    Fig. 5): Cost of procedures in man-dayscombined

    Source: PwC, Ecorys, London Economics

  • 8/12/2019 documente-945 (1)

    14/16

    PROPOSED DIMENSION

    Quality of data in notices published

  • 8/12/2019 documente-945 (1)

    15/16

    Quality of notices

    35%

    36%

    46%

    63%

    65%

    68%

    70%

    71%

    73%

    74% 78

    % 88%

    89%

    89%

    91%

    94%

    96%

    96%

    97%

    97%

    97%

    98%

    98%

    98%

    99%

    100%

    100%

    100%

    0%

    20%

    40%

    60%

    80%

    100%

    120%

    Netherlands

    Sweden

    Ireland

    Denmark

    France

    Belgium

    UK

    Germany

    Luxembourg

    Austria

    EEA-30

    Portugal

    Italy

    Slovenia

    Bulgaria

    Spain

    Hungary

    Cyprus

    CzechRep.

    Latvia

    SlovakRep.

    Finland

    Malta

    Greece

    Poland

    Lithuania

    Romania

    Estonia

    Fig. 6): Percentage of CANs with data provided in value field (2010)

    Source: DG MARKT

  • 8/12/2019 documente-945 (1)

    16/16

    Discussion - questions Are these indicators appropriate?

    Proposals for other indicators / dimensions that

    should be taken into account

    Can Member States that rank high share

    their expertise with the others?

    What makes them successful (methods,instruments introduced)?