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)?