EPPPL - European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review

«
1
»

The search returned 3 results.

Mukesh Rawat, K D Raju

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 18 (2023), Issue 3, Page 209 - 220

Government procurement has emerged as a complex and crucial national and international trade policy subject in the contemporary era. The United States of America (US) and the European Union (EU) are recognised as economies with some of the most advanced procurement regimes. Globally, developing countries have struggled to develop robust procurement regulatory frameworks for government procurement. This paper analyses the evolution of procurement in the US and EU and the valuable lessons for developing countries willing to improve their procurement regimes. The findings will be helpful to achieve harmonisation of procurement rules at the international level and to promote efficacy in the procurement process at the domestic level. Keywords: Public Procurement; US; European Union; Developing Countries; India

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

Sarah Schoenmaekers

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Volume 13 (2018), Issue 1, Page 3 - 17

Leniency policies within the framework of competition law make it possible for companies involved in a bid rigging cartel to obtain either total immunity or a reduction of fines. Such policies have proven to be very successful as most cartels that have been detected in the EU were revealed by a cartel member applying voluntarily for leniency. While leniency policies in the course of competition law are also very successful in the United States, self-cleaning possibilities within the framework of public procurement law, such as voluntary disclose of wrongdoings, exist as well but have been sparingly used by firms and individuals involved in misconduct. To overcome the lack of incentive effects, the US Federal Acquisition Regulation was revised in 2008 so that firms and individuals face the risk of suspension or debarment not only for misconduct itself, but also for the failure to report such misconduct. A system of mandatory disclose of information was hence introduced. By studying the underlying rationale of leniency and self-cleaning policies and by comparing the EU and US system of self-cleaning, this articles tries to explain the level of success of leniency programmes vis-à-vis incentive-based self-cleaning policies and tries to establish whether the EU’s self-cleaning policy as codified in Directive 2014/24/EU will be effective to increase integrity in public procurement.

«
1
»

News

Current Issue