Competitive dialogue in Denmark

Treumer, Steen

doi:10.1017/cbo9781139152334.009

Cited by 1 publication

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…48. Treumer (2004) argues over apparent lack of transparency on specifications in the stage after having conducting the competitive dialogue with individual candidates, to which this writer totally agrees. 51.…”

mentioning

confidence: 80%

“…It is submitted that the protection against undue treatment of contract candidates in this post-tender stage is somewhat fragile, and possibly more likely than under the current directives. As correctly pointed out by Treumer (2004), "…the possibilities for conducting illegal negotiations after the submission appears to be excellent and can be normally performed at a low risk.' 48…”

Section: Competitive Dialoguementioning

confidence: 97%

“…Leniency in this may undermine the compromise character of the Article 29 provisions. 'Cherry picking' would favour the contracting entity and a provision as suggested by Treumer (2004) could therefore be 'the rule' and thus run counter to directives' policies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…42. Advocated already in the 1998 Commission's White Paper (1998), but in a premature form, see criticism voiced by S Arrowsmith (2001), Boyle (2000), Brown (2004) and Treumer (2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Ban-on-negotiations in tender procedures: undermining best value for money?

Krüger

2004

Journal of Public Procurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Markets for public contracting are in the process of transition. Various public/private partnership arrangements replace conventional purchasing, especially within the local and regional government area. Municipal entities may not be in a position to define their needs up-front because they would not have the overview of what the market may have to offer. So one should ask: Is the traditional ban-on-negotiations in mandatory tender procedures (sealed bidding) - such as it is in EU public procurement law - counter-effective to genuine best value for public money? The article displays significant differences between European Union (EU) law, U.S. law and other regimes such as United Nations Model law, The World Trade Organisation’s Government Procurement Agreement (WTO/GPA), The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), and the NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). New avenues for public/private demand a new agenda and the recent EU 2004 directive scheme attempts to respond to the market challenges. The author accepts that the new directive on public contracting facilitates a more smooth approach than in current EU law with regard to high-tech complicated contract awards, but questions whether the ’competitive dialogue’ really can afford tailor-made solutions to cope with long-term public/private partnership arrangements of the kind now spreading all over Europe

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Competitive Dialoguementioning

confidence: 97%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…42. Advocated already in the 1998 Commission's White Paper (1998), but in a premature form, see criticism voiced by S Arrowsmith (2001), Boyle (2000), Brown (2004) and Treumer (2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Ban-on-negotiations in tender procedures: undermining best value for money?

Krüger

2004

Journal of Public Procurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Competitive dialogue in Denmark

Cited by 1 publication

References 0 publications

Ban-on-negotiations in tender procedures: undermining best value for money?

Ban-on-negotiations in tender procedures: undermining best value for money?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About