Martin Trybus, Marta Andrecka

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 12 (2017), Issue 3, Page 224 - 238

This article argues that the four main measures introduced in the 2014 reform of the Procurement Directives to promote Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs) cannot be classified as measures favouring SMEs. A measure favours SMEs when it compromises the main objectives of competition, non-discrimination and value for money. The discussion covers the regimes on the division of larger contracts into lots, the European Single Procurement Document (ESPD), minimum turnover requirements, and direct payments to subcontractors.

Marta Andrecka

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 12 (2017), Issue 3, Page 217 - 218

Marta Andrecka

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 12 (2017), Issue 3, Page 333 - 345

The new EU Procurement Directives reinforced the importance of sustainable development by facilitating the strategic use of public procurement to achieve broader societal goals and as such offer significant new opportunities for sustainable public procurement. The task of today is to better understand the continuously developing concepts of SPP, as well as to identify the drivers and barriers that promote or hinder its further implementation. This article firstly deals with the relationship between the concepts of sustainability, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and public procurement. Secondly, as Denmark has been known as a pioneer in sustainable development, including implementation of it in public purchasing this article focuses on recent developments in the areas of CSR and sustainable public procurement in Denmark, and analyses relevant Danish Public Procurement Complaints Board decisions.

Marta Andrecka

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 10 (2015), Issue 4, Page 231 - 242

Framework agreements have become a very popular procurement tool in the European Union, since their recognition in the 2004 Public Sector Directive. Meanwhile, there has been a lot of discussion regarding the need to balance the benefits that these agreements bring. Such benefits include efficiency through economies of scale (as one procedure can subsequently be used to award several contacts) and administrative efficiency. It is also vital to consider the risk that is associated with framework agreements, such as the significant risk for competition and lack of transparency in the award process. The latter will be the focus of this paper. Throughout the paper the author argues that the rules on framework agreements do not ensure enough transparency in the award process for call-off contracts.

Abby Semple, Marta Andrecka

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 10 (2015), Issue 3, Page 171 - 186

The deadline for implementation of the 2014 procurement directives falls in April 2016. In transposing the Public Sector Directive (2014/24/EU) a close look at the text reveals a number of ambiguities – in particular regarding the classification of mixed contracts; application of remedies to contracts for social and other specific services (‘light touch regime’ contracts); the provisions on conflicts of interest; and the rules on modifications to contracts as these affect change of contractor. This article analyses these provisions in light of prior CJEU case law and relevant soft law, proposing interpretations which best reflect these sources. It identifies areas where national law or guidance may be able to provide a greater degree of clarity than the Public Sector Directive.

Marta Andrecka

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 9 (2014), Issue 3, Page 174 - 186

The reformed EU public procurement regime established in Directive 2014/24/EU1 (further: the Directive) is likely to have the side effect of hindering the development of Institutionalised Public-Private Partnership (IPPP) contracts by introducing uncertainties regarding their classification for the purpose of their tendering and award. Even though a number of simplified rules and procedures were introduced, the issues regarding IPPP contracts’ classification and uncer