Stéphanie De Somer, Laura Hofströssler

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 15 (2020), Issue 3, Page 242 - 251

Over the past twenty years, the Court of Justice of the European Union rendered multiple judgments on the subject of exemptions from public procurement law. This case law has been consolidated in the current Public Procurement Directive. The cases examined in the present annotation offered the Court a first opportunity to further clarify the non-institutionalised cooperation exemption in light of this Directive. The Court has seized this occasion to emphasise its strict position on exempted non-institutionalised cooperation once again.

Jun Chong

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 15 (2020), Issue 2, Page 168 - 173

Under the epidemic situation, materials are in short supply, but traditional procurement cannot meet the needs of emergency speed. This article compares and analyses the regular Chinese procurement methods with the US and EU emergency procurement methods, so as to obtain the methods suitable for China's emergency situation, and calls for emergency procurement legislation. At the same time, this article discusses the scope and principles of emergency procurement, emphasising that emergency procurement should not be abused and still follow the principle of value for money. Keywords: COVID-19, emergency public procurement, procurement methods, value for money, US public procurement, EU public procurement, China public procurement

Stephen Clear, Gary Clifford, Dermot Cahill, Barb Allen

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 15 (2020), Issue 2, Page 83 - 106

Despite over 30 years of legal harmonisation, stubbornly low levels of cross-border public procurement continue to persist in the EU. In 2016 the European Commission sought new thinking to address this long-standing problem. Drawing on a number of cross-border studies undertaken by the authors, the reasons for low level cross-border procurement penetration are identified. A new action-based framework to increase cross-border procurement is proposed, as are new ideas to make it easier to identify public contracts outside national borders. Suggestions for reforming tender evaluation practices that could encourage SMEs to overcome their aversion to ‘home bias’ are proposed, alongside a ‘balanced scorecard tool’ to guide SMEs making critical cross-border public procurement decisions. Keywords: SMEs, cross-border, EU public procurement, non-tariff-barriers, harmonisation

Vincent P. Wangelow

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 15 (2020), Issue 2, Page 107 - 123

In 2014, a newly enacted set of directives sought to reform the EU Public Procurement Regime, promoting stronger harmonisation but also more flexibility in procurement activities throughout the European Union. Amendments to public contracts after the award have long been a grey area, both for contracting authorities and tenderers alike. However, given the economic importance of public procurement for the European economy, the sound functioning of procurement rules is key. Hence, the article aims to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the new provisions, especially as far as amendments to public works contracts due to the necessity of additional works (following, inter alia, inadequate planning) and unforeseeable circumstances (typically entailing delays, cost overruns etc.) are concerned. In this respect, drawing on sources from legal scholarship of different EU Member States (eg, Germany, France, Spain) and the UK, this article provides an analysis of the rules on post-award amendments to public contracts with an emphasis on Article 72 of Directive 2014/24/EU. To identify the underpinning ideas of these rules, the article considers policy goals and constraints as well as the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Keywords: public works contracts, EU public procurement, amendments, modifications, additional works and unforeseeable circumstances, Directive 2014/24/EU