Competitive dialogue: an economic and legal assessment

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss the economic and legal rationale for the use of the competitive dialogue in complex procurement. The authors use the data set of public contracts awarded by European Union (EU) member states between 2010 and 2017 to analyse its usage patterns. In particular, the authors identify the types of contracting authorities that mainly use the procedure, the sectors and contract characteristics and the role of institutional factors related to the country’s perceived corruption and level of innovativeness. Design/methodology/approach The authors discuss economic and legal issues in the use of the competitive dialogue. The authors use a data set of public contracts awarded by EU member states, published on the EU’s public procurement portal Tenders Electronic Daily (TED) to analyse usage patterns and explore the types of contracting authorities that use the procedure, the sectors and type of tenders. The data covers a sample of 1.242.090 observations, which relates to all the contract award notices published on TED in the period 2010-2017 for all the 28 European member states. A probit model is used as a methodology. Findings The empirical analysis reveals that the use of competitive value is greater for larger value contracts, for national rather than local authorities, for the supply of other manufactured products and machinery; for research and development and business, as well as information technology services; and for construction works. The level of perceived corruption and the gross domestic product/capita do not have explanatory power in the use of the procedure, whilst a country’s degree of innovativeness, as measured by the global innovation index, positively affects the probability of adopting the procedure. A decreasing trend in the use of competitive dialogue over time is observed. Research limitations/implications In conclusion, the countries examined benefited from a long tradition of public–private partnerships (PPPs) and from a transposition of the 2004 directive, able to provide an inclusive interpretation of complexity, and therefore, stimulate the adoption of the competitive dialogue in different sectors. Conversely, the countries, which postponed a concrete transposition and the overcoming of the confusing concept of complexity, limited the scope for the application of competitive dialogue, relying on the easier alternative: the negotiated procedure. Those circumstances lead to visible difficulties in stimulating the adoption of the procedure even in the traditional sectors; indeed, only with the new directive’s provisions a slight change in the trend can be seen. Practical implications To foster the use of the competitive dialogue in countries that have so far used it to a limited extent is important to improve upon the definition of complexity and learn from the experience of the top usage countries, as identified in the analysis. Social implications Helping the use of the procedure may facilitate the procurement of complex contracts such as PPPs, and thus, ease the building and management of public infrastructures for the provision of public services. Originality/value The authors are not aware of previous studies that have used the TED data set and studied the law in a number of European countries so as to understand the usage patterns for the competitive dialogue.

Compras públicas para inovação no Brasil : novas possibilidades legais

“…A fase do diálogo, etapa crucial no fluxo deste mecanismo de contratação, permite a interação dos potenciais contratados com a administração pública. As informações trocadas no diálogo são de natureza técnica, econômica -custos e formação de preços -e jurídica -entendimentos sobre o desenho contratual, responsabilidades e garantias (Buccino et al, 2020). A administração pública poderá optar por reunir as propostas dos potenciais contratados que irão participar da fase de diálogo, e as interações podem ser realizadas individualmente, para fins de proteção à confidencialidade e de afastar vieses na seleção (op.…”

“…Ocorre que, decorridos mais de quinze anos desde a incorporação do diálogo competitivo na Diretiva 2004/18/EU, estudos evidenciam que a implementação desse mecanismo ainda permanece limitada (Arrowsmith e Treumer, 2012;Buccino et al, 2020;Haugbølle, Pihl e Gottlieb, 2015;Hoezen e Dorée, 2008). Em levantamento realizado a partir da base de dados de compras públicas no mercado comum europeu (Tendering Electronic Daily -TED, uma espécie de suplemento sobre compras públicas no Diário Oficial da União Europeia), Buccino et al (2020) identificaram que, no período 2010-2017, apenas 0,32% do total de contratos de compras públicas da União Europeia usou os procedimentos do diálogo competitivo. A título ilustrativo, o maior número de contratos celebrados na União Europeia com base no diálogo competitivo ocorreu em 2012, e somou 601 contratos, enquanto o ano com menor número de contratações por este instrumento foi 2015, somando 464 contratos (op.…”

“…Em relação aos serviços públicos, destaquem-se as compras voltadas a: moradia, tecnologias da informação, iluminação pública, segurança pública, fornecimento de água bem como P&D relacionadas a infraestruturas destinadas à fruição coletiva (por exemplo, escolas, espaços comunitários para lazer e prática esportiva etc.). Mais recentemente, a partir de 2017, a utilização do diálogo competitivo no direito europeu foi difundida para compras no setor de educação (Buccino et al, 2020).…”

“…Por sua vez, a experiência em contratações complexas não foi suficiente para que países como Alemanha e Holanda, bem-sucedidos na incorporação das diretrizes das compras públicas europeias para inovação, difundissem o uso do diálogo competitivo até o momento. Países nórdicos, como a Finlândia e a Dinamarca, indicaram ter interesse no mecanismo por sua rápida incorporação nacional -a Dinamarca foi o primeiro país a incluir o diálogo competitivo em sua legislação -, mas esses países ainda fazem uso restrito do instrumento (Buccino et al, 2020).…”

Public Contracts in Holding Companies Operating in the Construction Industry – A Case of the Czech Republic

“…In this respect, when considering the situation in the European Union, the study by Buccino et al (2020) reveals that the use of competitive value is greater for larger value contracts, for national rather than local authorities, for the supply of other manufactured products and machinery; for research and development and business, as well as information technology services; and for construction works. Moreover, at the same time, a decreasing trend in the use of competitive dialogue over time is observed.…”