FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4313492858> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4313492858 endingPage "85" @default.
• W4313492858 startingPage "80" @default.
• W4313492858 abstract "It is common knowledge that the current directives on public contracts 2014/23/EU, 2014/24/EU and 2014/25/EU allow the use of award rules to foster sustainability. In particular, the main directive on public procurement, i.e. Directive 2014/24/EU, states that ‘this Directive clarifies how the contracting authorities can contribute to the protection of the environment and the promotion of sustainable development while ensuring that they can obtain the best value for money for their contracts’ (recital 91). It stems from it that this new ‘horizontal’ objective must be conciled with the core of public procurement rules, best value encapsulating free access to public contracts, equal access and transparency. In other words, there might be situations where those core principles may limit the use of public procurement for enhancing sustainability. Bearing in mind this potential conflict, can the new award procedures put in place in 2014 be an efficient tool to promote the sustainability objective? Here lies the question we propose to deal with in this article. One must first make clear what the expression of new award procedures covers since the 2014/24/EU directive does not refer to any ‘new procedures”. When it comes to novelties, it only refers to ‘new rules’ for cross border joint procurement (recital 72). But making no reference to any new procedures does not necessarily means that no new award procedure was introduced. Indeed, at least one may be ranked in this category. Strictly speaking, the only real new procedure introduced in 2014 is the innovation partnership. It is aimed ‘at the development of an innovative product, service or works and the subsequent purchase of the resulting supplies, services or works, provided that they correspond to the performance levels and maximum costs agreed between the contracting authorities and the participants’ (article 31.2 of directive 2014/24). ‘In the procurement documents, the contracting authority shall identify the need for an innovative product, service or works that cannot be met by purchasing products, services or works already available on the market. It shall indicate which elements of this description define the minimum requirements to be met by all tenders. The information provided shall be sufficiently precise to enable economic operators to identify the nature and scope of the required solution and decide whether to request to participate in the procedure’. There can be either just one or several partner in developing the innovative solutions (article 31.1 of directive 2014/24) (Cerqueira Gomes, 2021). However, two other procedures are relevant for the topic we are addressing: the competitive procedure with negotiation and the competitive dialogue. They actually existed before – the former under a different name – but they can be treated as new non just because their legal regimes have been slightly updated but because, and more importantly, the legal conditions set for their use have been considerably extended. For instance, under the 2004 directive, competitive dialogue was only allowed when a procurement contract was ‘particularly complex’ i.e. when contracting authorities where not objectively able to define the technical means capable of satisfying their needs or objectives, and/or were not objectively able to specify the legal and/or financial make-up of a project (article 1.11.c of Directive 2004/18/EU). Negotiated procedures, as they were then called, where allowed in a limited number of exceptional situations. Both procedures are now subject to the same conditions so widely drafted that they are very likely to be easily met in practice (article 26.4.a. of Directive 2014/24/EU) (Telles and Butler, 2021). The following reflections are based on the analysis of the text of the Directives, of the legal and economic literature regarding sustainable public procurement (SPP) and on a survey that the Chair on public contracts law is currently running1. This Chair uses on the field investigation methods (interviews, online surveys) in order to assess the impact of public contracts rules on the actual purchasing practice. We will first analyse why these new procedures could have been a good tool for sustainable public procurement and then why this has not the case before drawing some conclusions." @default.
• W4313492858 created "2023-01-06" @default.
• W4313492858 creator A5023684845 @default.
• W4313492858 date "2023-01-01" @default.
• W4313492858 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W4313492858 title "Sustainability public Procurement using new procedures of the 2014 Directives" @default.
• W4313492858 doi "https://doi.org/10.54611/xhbr1548" @default.
• W4313492858 hasPublicationYear "2023" @default.
• W4313492858 type Work @default.
• W4313492858 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4313492858 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4313492858 hasAuthorship W4313492858A5023684845 @default.
• W4313492858 hasBestOaLocation W43134928581 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConcept C119857082 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConcept C162853370 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConcept C201650216 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConcept C2776291640 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConcept C2779547435 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConcept C2780233690 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConcept C38652104 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConcept C66204764 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConcept C98147612 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConceptScore W4313492858C119857082 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConceptScore W4313492858C144133560 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConceptScore W4313492858C162324750 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConceptScore W4313492858C162853370 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConceptScore W4313492858C17744445 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConceptScore W4313492858C18903297 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConceptScore W4313492858C190253527 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConceptScore W4313492858C199360897 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConceptScore W4313492858C199539241 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConceptScore W4313492858C201650216 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConceptScore W4313492858C2776291640 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConceptScore W4313492858C2779547435 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConceptScore W4313492858C2780233690 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConceptScore W4313492858C38652104 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConceptScore W4313492858C41008148 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConceptScore W4313492858C66204764 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConceptScore W4313492858C86803240 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConceptScore W4313492858C94625758 @default.
• W4313492858 hasConceptScore W4313492858C98147612 @default.
• W4313492858 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W4313492858 hasLocation W43134928581 @default.
• W4313492858 hasOpenAccess W4313492858 @default.
• W4313492858 hasPrimaryLocation W43134928581 @default.
• W4313492858 hasRelatedWork W2010633105 @default.
• W4313492858 hasRelatedWork W2559639759 @default.
• W4313492858 hasRelatedWork W2593187274 @default.
• W4313492858 hasRelatedWork W2601303830 @default.
• W4313492858 hasRelatedWork W2934474861 @default.
• W4313492858 hasRelatedWork W3121923851 @default.
• W4313492858 hasRelatedWork W4205939820 @default.
• W4313492858 hasRelatedWork W4239505296 @default.
• W4313492858 hasRelatedWork W4320083925 @default.
• W4313492858 hasRelatedWork W2400371078 @default.
• W4313492858 hasVolume "1" @default.
• W4313492858 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4313492858 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4313492858 workType "article" @default.