Experience in adopting framework agreements

1. EU Learning Lab 2006-11-10 Experience in adopting framework agreements Urbain BRUGGEMAN Head of the Belgian Consultancy and Policy Office on Federal Public Procurement

2. Summary • Introduction • Questionnaire • Reactions of the members • Conclusions

3. 1. Introduction • EU Directive 2004/18/EG of 31 March 2004 • Framework Agreements (FA) possible for ‘classic public sector’ • Many new possibilities for the public purchase services

4. 2. Questionnnaire • Questionnaire sent to all the EU Learning Lab members • Aims: • Collect information about application of FA • Share ‘good practices’ • Belgium leader of this project

5. 3. Reactions of the members • Completed questionnaire received from: • France • Ireland • Italy • Denmark • Cyprus • Hungary • Latvia • Sweden

6. 3. Reactions of the members • Probable reason for not receiving any reaction of the other countries: • Directive not yet transposed in many EU countries (Belgium) • Too early for communicating experiences on FA

7. 3. Reactions of the members • Cyprus: • Didn’t conclude yet FA for the 4 options • Intention to establish a working group with • representatives of main purchasers of the government sector • representatives of PPD

8. 3.1. General Information 8 2. Reaction of the members

9. 3.2. Options already adopted 9 2. Reaction of the members

10. 3.3. Details about option 2 10 2. Reaction of the members

11. 3.4.1. Details about option 3 – Questions not answered Not answered for option 3: • Hungary • Cyprus • Latvia • Italy • Belgium 11 2. Reaction of the members

12. 3.4.2. Details about option 3 – Questions answered 12 2. Reaction of the members

13. 3.4.2. Details about option 3 – Questions answered 13 2. Reaction of the members

14. 3.4.2. Details about option 3 – Questions answered 14 2. Reaction of the members

15. 3.4.2. Details about option 3 – Questions answered 15 2. Reaction of the members

16. 3.4.4. Details about option 4 – Questions not answered Not answered for option 4: • Hungary • Cyprus • Latvia • Italy • Belgium • Ireland 16 2. Reaction of the members

17. 3.4.4. Details about option 4 – Questions answered 17 2. Reaction of the members

18. 3.4.4. Details about option 4 – Questions answered 18 2. Reaction of the members

19. 3.4.4. Details about option 4 – Questions answered 19 2. Reaction of the members

20. 3.4.4. Details about option 4 – Questions answered 20 2. Reaction of the members

21. 3.4.4. Details about option 4 – Questions answered 21 2. Reaction of the members

22. 3.4.4. Details about option 4 – Questions answered • Only Sweden applies the following system: • Central Purchasing body selects more than one offer in the first stage of the procedure • The customers of the CPB the selected firms,receive the definitive offer of the selected firms,evaluate the offers and award the contract. 22 2. Reaction of the members

23. 3.4.5. Details about the case – Questions not answered The following countries did not give an answer for thequestions mentioned on the questionnaire for the case: • Hungary • Cyprus • Italy • Belgium 23 2. Reaction of the members

24. 3.4.5. Details about the case – Questions answered 24 2. Reaction of the members

25. 3.4.5. Details about the case – Questions answered 25 2. Reaction of the members

26. 3.4.5. Details about the case – Questions answered 26 2. Reaction of the members

27. 3.4.5. Details about the case – Questions answered 27 2. Reaction of the members

28. 4. Conclusions • A part of the EU Llab members already awarded FA • The duration of the FA is adapted according to the advantage they can obtain from FA • By choosing the products/services they evaluate the estimated added value of a FA