COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of the 2004 ACTION PLAN FOR ELECTRONIC PUBLIC PROCUREMENT    Accompanying document to the   Green Paper on expanding the use of e-Procurement in the EU
Date: 2010-10-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: action programme, electronic document, electronic government, electronic signature, information system, invitation to tender, public contract

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 18.10.2010 
SEC(2010) 1214 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

EVALUATION of the 2004 ACTION PLAN FOR ELECTRONIC PUBLIC 
PROCUREMENT  

Accompanying document to the 

Green Paper on expanding the use of e-Procurement in the EU 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 6 

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 15 

2.1. 

Purpose of this report ................................................................................................. 16 

2.2.  What is "e-Procurement"?.......................................................................................... 16 

2.3.  Why do e-Procurement?............................................................................................. 18 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

3.4. 

Legal and policy background ..................................................................................... 18 

E-Procurement: The situation in 2004 ....................................................................... 18 

The role of the EU in promoting e-Procurement ....................................................... 19 

The Public Procurement Directives ........................................................................... 20 

The 2004 Action Plan................................................................................................. 21 

3.4.1.  Content of the Action Plan......................................................................................... 22 

3.4.2.  Strategic approach of the Action Plan........................................................................ 23 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

4.4. 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

Evaluation Methodology............................................................................................ 24 

Scope and limitations of the evaluation ..................................................................... 24 

Our approach.............................................................................................................. 24 

Data sources ............................................................................................................... 26 

Intervention logic and evaluation questions............................................................... 27 

State of Play ............................................................................................................... 31 

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 31 

How have countries implemented the possibilities offered by the 2004 Directives? 31 

5.2.1.  E-Auctions.................................................................................................................. 32 

5.2.2.  Framework agreements .............................................................................................. 33 

5.2.3.  Buyer profiles............................................................................................................. 33 

5.2.4.  DPS ............................................................................................................................ 34 

5.2.5.  E-Signatures ............................................................................................................... 35 

5.2.6.  Transposition: time taken and approaches adopted ................................................... 35 

5.3.  What e-Procurement strategies have been adopted?.................................................. 35 

5.3.1.  National level approaches .......................................................................................... 35 

5.3.2.  Centralisation ............................................................................................................. 37 

EN 

2 

   EN 

5.3.3.  Simplification............................................................................................................. 38 

5.3.4.  Mandatory requirements ............................................................................................ 39 

5.4.  What infrastructure has been put in place? ................................................................ 39 

5.4.1.  Different types of infrastructure identified ................................................................ 39 

5.4.2.  Overview of existing infrastructure ........................................................................... 41 

5.4.3.  Straight through e-Procurement: pre-award and post-award ..................................... 43 

5.5. 

5.6. 

Resultant use of e-Procurement ................................................................................. 45 

Assessment of the availability and use of specific e-Procurement tools ................... 47 

5.6.1.  E-Catalogues .............................................................................................................. 47 

5.6.2.  Certificates and attestations........................................................................................ 48 

5.6.3.  E-Signatures ............................................................................................................... 49 

5.6.4.  Framework agreements .............................................................................................. 49 

5.6.5.  DPS ............................................................................................................................ 50 

5.6.6.  Buyer profiles............................................................................................................. 50 

5.7. 

Technical approaches present in e-Procurement systems .......................................... 50 

5.7.1.  Authentication ............................................................................................................ 51 

5.7.2.  Standardisation........................................................................................................... 51 

5.8. 

5.9. 

Savings ....................................................................................................................... 51 

Comparison with the experiences of international partners....................................... 53 

5.10. 

Summary – where are we today? ............................................................................... 54 

6. 

How has the Action Plan Contributed to this Progress? ............................................ 55 

6.1. 

Ensure a well functioning Internal Market in electronic public procurement ........... 56 

6.1.1. 

Implementing the legal framework correctly and on time – measures and results.... 56 

6.1.2.  Completing the legal framework by the appropriate basic tools – measures and 

results ......................................................................................................................... 59 

6.1.3.  Removing / preventing barriers in carrying public procurement procedures 

electronically – measures and results......................................................................... 62 

6.1.4.  Detecting and addressing interoperability problems over time – measures and results

.................................................................................................................................... 66 

6.1.5.  Wider impacts of the measures under Objective 1..................................................... 68 

6.2. 

Achieve greater efficiency in procurement, improve governance and competitiveness
.................................................................................................................................... 69 

EN 

3 

   EN 

6.2.1. 

Increasing the efficiency of public procurement and improving governance – 
measures and results................................................................................................... 70 

6.2.2. 

Increasing the competitiveness of public procurement markets across the EU – 
measures and results................................................................................................... 73 

6.2.3.  Wider impacts of the measures under Objective 2..................................................... 76 

6.3.  Work towards an international framework for electronic public procurement.......... 76 

6.3.1.  Results of these measures........................................................................................... 77 

6.3.2.  Wider impacts of the measures under Objective 3..................................................... 78 

6.4. 

6.5. 

Other issues raised in the Action Plan........................................................................ 78 

Have the objectives of the Action Plan been achieved? ............................................ 79 

6.5.1.  Do we have a well functioning Internal Market in electronic public procurement?.. 79 

6.5.2.  Have we achieved greater efficiency in procurement, improve governance and 

competitiveness? ........................................................................................................ 79 

6.5.3.  Have we progressed towards an international framework for electronic public 

procurement?.............................................................................................................. 80 

7. 

Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 81 

7.1. 

Answers to the evaluation questions .......................................................................... 81 

7.1.1.  To what extent have public procurement procedures been "computerised"? ............ 81 

7.1.2.  To what extent did the EU Action Plan for e-Procurement identify the right priorities 
and strategy? To what extent has it been implemented?............................................ 82 

7.1.3.  How relevant, efficient and effective has the Action Plan been in achieving or at least 
nearing the stated objectives of efficient and unhindered cross-border e-Procurement 
in the EU?................................................................................................................... 86 

7.2.  What are the remaining issues to be addressed? ........................................................ 86 

7.3. 

7.4. 

Next steps ................................................................................................................... 88 

Future Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................................. 88 

ANNEX I - Glossary ................................................................................................................ 91 

ANNEX II - Bibliography...................................................................................................... 102 

ANNEX IV – Measures under the Action Plan and current status ........................................ 122 

ANNEX V– Table of public procurement legislation............................................................ 129 

ANNEX VI - Intervention logics ........................................................................................... 131 

EN 

4 

   EN 

ANNEX VII – List of portals reviewed ................................................................................. 135 

ANNEX VIII – Costs for e-Procurement ............................................................................... 152 

ANNEX IX– Phases or tools made mandatory in certain Member States............................. 159 

EN 

5 

   EN 

1. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Introduction 

This evaluation assesses the advances made in the adoption of e-Procurement since 2004 and 
the contribution of the Commission's 2004 "Action Plan for the implementation of the legal 
framework for electronic public procurement"  to that progress. It also identifies outstanding 
challenges and issues which need to be resolved. The review is timely - there is still a window 
of  opportunity  to  influence  development  and  integration  within  the  e-Procurement  market, 
which has not yet reached a critical mass. However, the market is evolving, different national 
solutions are being developed and the window will not remain open for long.  

EU  procurement  legislation  has  helped  to  embed  a  culture  of  professional  and  value-driven 
procurement, bringing greater transparency to European markets for public contracts. In 2009 
over 150,000 contracts were advertised EU-wide with an estimated value of around 3% of EU 
GDP.  Directives  2004/18/EC  and  2004/17/EC  were  intended  to  modernise  and  simplify 
public procurement procedures and recognised the on-going transition within Member States 
to e-Government in general. For the first time it was possible to use electronic means and new 
modern purchasing techniques. To support and facilitate this introduction of e-Procurement, 
the Commission adopted the Action Plan for e-Procurement in December 2004. 

E-Procurement refers to the use of electronic communications and transaction processing by 
government  institutions  and  other  public  sector  organisations  when  buying  supplies  and 
services  or  tendering  public  works.  However,  there  is  much  more  at  stake  than  the  mere 
changeover from paper-based procurement systems to ones using electronic communications. 
E-Procurement  has  the  potential  to  yield  important  improvements  in  the  efficiency  of 
individual purchases, the overall administration of public procurement and the functioning of 
the markets for government contracts.  

What is e-Procurement? Why is it important? 

Public procurement consists of eight phases – publication of tender notices, access to tender 
documents,  submission  of  tenders,  evaluation,  award,  ordering,  invoicing  and  payment. 
Although each of these phases has a certain role to play in the full e-Procurement process, it is 
not  always  necessary  or  even  appropriate  to  provide  all  these  phases  electronically  e.g.  e-
Evaluation of contracts requiring predominantly qualitative assessments. Some processes e.g. 
invoicing  and  payment  are  not  procurement-specific  and  solutions  developed  for  the  wider 
(B2B) market can be put to work in e-Procurement. Others call for customised solutions; e-
Submission, e-Evaluation and e-Ordering pose the greatest challenges, requiring an agreed set 
of protocols and standards to organise the exchange of complex documents and interactions 
between public purchasers and suppliers  

This  evaluation  assumes  that  the  minimum  requirement  for  a  system  to  be  defined  as 
providing  e-Procurement  is  the  electronic  provision  of  the  publication  of  tender  notices, 
access to tender documents and submission of tenders. 

The  Commission  believes  that  the  wider  use  of  e-Procurement  could  deliver  significant 
benefits.  E-Procurement  has  the  potential  to  streamline  and  accelerate  public  purchasing, 
benefiting both public purchasers and suppliers along the way. It could lead to more efficient 
procurement  administration  resulting  in  cost  and  time  savings.  When  coupled  with  the 

EN 

6 

   EN 

development  of  centralised  purchasing  bodies,  e-Procurement  could  provide  a  way  to 
optimise  these  efficiencies  further,  integrating  resource-consuming  support  functions  and 
delivering  savings  due  to  economies  of  scale.  By  automating  and  strengthening  the  flow  of 
information  about  individual  tender  opportunities,  e-Procurement  should  reach  a  wider 
audience  and  provide  greater  publicity,  which  could  lead  to  increased  participation  by 
economic operators and as a consequence, increased competition. E-Procurement could also 
promote cross-border procurement, not just through greater publicity of contracts, but also by 
enabling  a  certain  degree  of  language  independence  (through  the  use  of  e-Catalogues  for 
example) and standardising certain practices. Equally, e-Procurement presents an opportunity 
to  introduce  more  rigour  within  procurement  systems,  providing  ways  to  apply  more 
objectivity in selecting suppliers and support better governance.  

Ultimately, this should all lead to better value for money for the taxpayer, which in the current 
financial climate could be very welcome, maximising the potential of constrained resources. 
E-Procurement systems have already proved useful in speeding up the expenditure of public 
procurement budgets. 

What role has the EU played to date in promoting e-Procurement?  

The Commission's 2004 Action Plan provided a roadmap, establishing a strategy designed to 
accelerate  the  adoption  of  e-Procurement  whilst  safe-guarding  the  core  principles  and 
provisions  of  existing  EU  procurement  legislation  and  wider  Treaty  principles.  It  was 
intended  to  encourage  the  development  and  use  of  convergent,  accessible,  secure  but 
commercially  viable  solutions  and  disseminate  examples  of  best-practice.  Action  was  also 
required to stimulate and orientate the work of the first movers in the field, who had already 
introduced e-Procurement elements in their legislation or practices, or set up e-Procurement 
systems.  The  policy  vision  underpinning  the  Action  Plan  was  very  ambitious  -  to  create  a 
situation  where  "…  any  business  in  Europe  with  a  PC  and  an  internet  connection  can 
participate in a public purchase conducted electronically."1 

The Action Plan was organised around three main objectives: 

(1) 

(2) 

Ensure a well functioning Internal Market in electronic public procurement;  

Achieve  greater 
competitiveness;  

efficiency 

in  procurement, 

improve  governance 

and 

(3) 

Work towards an international framework for electronic public procurement. 

EU  policy  was  designed  to  play  a  complementary  role  in  support  of  national  or  regional 
efforts to put procurement on an electronic footing. It recognised the need to take into account 
an  EU  level  dimension,  without  which  the  switch-over  could  be  hampered  and  resources 
could  be  wasted  as  the  wheel  was  constantly  re-invented.  A  total  of  31  measures  were 
identified, directed at the Commission, Member States, standardisation bodies and the Public 
Procurement Network. 

1 

Page  10  of  the  Extended  Impact  Assessment  COM  2004(841),  annexed  to  the  Action  Plan 
Communication. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
Approach to this evaluation 

Within the Action Plan, the Commission was tasked, by the end of 2007, to start to "review 
and  report  on  the  results  achieved  and  to  propose,  if  need  be,  […]  corrective  action  or 
additional measures"2.  

The evaluation therefore focuses on pulling together a picture of the current state of play and 
identifying  what  has  changed.  Given  the  fairly  short  reference  period  and  the  absence  of 
detailed, consistent EU-wide data, it has proved difficult to attempt a definitive evaluation at 
this stage. Nonetheless, the evaluation tries to identify where it is reasonable to imply that the 
Action  Plan  has  influenced  any  change  and  to  assess  how  far  it  has  progressed  towards 
achieving its specified objectives. Ultimately, by responding to the three evaluation questions 
(see  later),  the  report  judges  the  progress  made  against  the  expectations  of  2004  and  the 
contribution  of  the  Action  Plan  to  this  process.  It  also  identifies  issues  requiring  further 
attention.  

To assist in this process, two external pieces of work were commissioned and provide much 
of the evidence presented3. Information has also been gathered from practical experience and 
developments,  including:  visiting  and  reviewing  e-Procurement  websites  and  portals;  case 
studies published (particularly on the e-Practice website); meetings and discussions of the e-
Procurement  Working  Group;  and  the  many  conferences  and  seminars  organised  by 
practitioners and associations.  

The state of play – availability and use of e-Procurement in Europe today 

Approaches  adopted:  The  2004  Action  Plan  permitted  authorities  to  develop  solutions  and 
introduce e-Procurement, in the way best suited to them, subject to compliance with the legal 
framework  and  guidance  provided.  The  resultant  kaleidoscope  of  approaches  and  results 
reflects  this  flexibility.  Many  Member  States  adopted  national  action  plans  although  fewer 
countries  appear  to  have  plans/a  clear  strategy  covering  the  future  roll  out  and  use  of  e-
Procurement. Although no examples of plans directed at national buyers were found, Ireland, 
France,  Scotland  and  Italy  did  develop  plans  specifically  targeted  at  improving  SME 
participation  in  e-Procurement  and  report  some  success.  There  is  some  evidence  that  many 
SMEs  find  e-Procurement  solutions  beneficial  saving  them  time  and  money  and  providing 
access to a larger pool of opportunities.  

Whilst  some  Member  States  leave  it  up  to  contracting  authorities  to  decide  whether  to  use 
electronic means or not, others have introduced or plan to introduce mandatory requirements. 
For  example,  Portugal  has  made  e-Procurement  mandatory  for  all  pre-award  phases;  other 
countries  have  (or  will  have)  mandatory  e-Notification  (BE,  CY,  NL)  or  e-Invoicing  (SE, 
DK). Some countries oblige certain levels of government to use e-Procurement e.g. in Austria 
federal authorities must use electronic framework agreements when purchasing specific goods 
and  services.  Some  countries  tend  towards  centralisation  of  procurement  and  the  use  of 
Central  Purchasing  Bodies  (which  often  make  extensive  use  of  electronic  methods)  whilst 
others have a more decentralised approach. Some systems are run by public agencies, while 

2 

3 

Page  10  of  the  Action  plan  for  the  implementation  of  the  legal  framework  for  electronic  public 
procurement 
The resultant study published alongside this evaluation is "Study on the evaluation of the Action Plan 
for the implementation of the legal framework for electronic procurement" by Siemens-time.lex. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
others are provided by private sector companies; contracting authorities then pay on a flat-rate 
or per-use basis.  

Availability  of  technical  solutions:  E-procurement  is  now  possible  in  practice  –  not  just  in 
theory.  The  technology  exists  and  is  being  used  in  several  countries  to  permit  all  the 
procurement  phases  to  be  completed  on-line.  However,  technology  has  not  provided  the 
expected  (high  tech)  solutions  to  all  procedural  steps.  In  some  cases,  progress  has  resulted 
from  a  more  pragmatic  approach  –  in  the  form  of  practical  'workarounds'  involving  less 
technically demanding solutions or combining on/off-line communication e.g. the approaches 
adopted to the provision of evidentiary documents for exclusion and selection criteria; the use 
of user name and password solutions to authenticate a bidder. Such solutions are valid – they 
simply provide alternative ways to reach the end result. Certain limits to "straight through e-
Procurement" have been identified e.g. difficulties in using automated evaluation approaches 
to  complex  purchases;  absence  of  a  recognised  EU-wide  time-stamping  system.  Although 
some  progress  has  been  made  towards  developing  standards  for  e-Invoicing  and  e-Ordering 
there are in general still too many standards relating to e-Procurement and their content is too 
broad. Approaches to authentication issues vary widely.  

Investment  in  and  availability  of  e-Procurement  capacity:  E-procurement  is  beginning  to 
make  its  presence  felt  in  Europe.  The  success  of  a  number  of  platforms  demonstrates  the 
business  case.  Today  systems  offering  some  level  of  functionality  exist  in  30  of  the  32 
countries  (26  Member  States),  although,  the  services  provided  vary  quite  markedly,  both  in 
terms  of  the  number  of  phases/tools  supported  and  in  the  level  of  sophistication  of  the  ICT 
solutions adopted. In 25 of the 32 countries considered (24 Member States) there are systems 
capable  of  e-Submission  and  hence  fulfil  the  definition  of  e-Procurement  used  for  this 
evaluation. 18 countries (17 Member States) offer the full pre-award phases to some degree. 
A number of successful systems have adopted an e-Procurement model provided by 3rd parties 
over a network, often offering their services to several organisations at the same time.  

Actual  use  of  e-Procurement:  Actual  use  of  e-Procurement  is  difficult  to  measure,  but  is 
estimated to be much lower than might be inferred from the infrastructure which has been put 
in place. The EU average figure is estimated to be less than 5% of total value, other than in 
Portugal, where the mandatory approach results in nearly 100% use of e-Procurement. France 
and  Italy,  first  mover  countries  in  e-Procurement,  estimate  that  only  4%  and  2.5% 
respectively of their total procurement is conducted electronically. Uptake is likely to increase 
as  experience  with  e-Procurement  grows  –  many  systems  are  still  fairly  new  and  there  are 
signs  that  momentum  is  building  in  the  e-Procurement  market.  Wider  anecdotal  evidence 
suggests  that  many  contracting  authorities  and  economic  operators  who  have  made  the 
switch-over to e-Procurement would not contemplate a return to paper based procedures.  

Good progress has been made in the simpler e-Notification and e-Access phases which only 
require a one-way flow of information. This may also be due to the incentives within the 2004 
Directives,  permitting  the  reduction  of  deadlines  when  these  phases  are  provided  via 
electronic means. There is now a single, accepted and well used system for the publication of 
above  threshold  notices  across  the  EU  (Tenders  Electronic  Daily  or  TED),  supported  by 
compatible infrastructure at national level. In 2009 just over 90% of forms sent to TED were 
received  electronically  and  in  a  structured  format.  The  electronic  publication  of  notices  for 
below threshold procurement has also advanced at national or regional level. Although figures 
are not available for e-Access it is also expected that its use is fairly high. This success tails 
off  as  the  two-way  communication  phases  are  entered  and  more  complex  technical 
requirements are encountered. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

Cross-border  accessibility of e-Procurement systems: Whilst there may be some  grounds to 
believe  that  there  is  a  certain  degree  of  consistency  in  relation  to  legal  compliance, 
technologically there is little doubt that within the EU different systems have been developed 
to different requirements and standards with the resultant negative impacts on authentication 
and  interoperability  between  systems.  Examples  of  functioning  interoperability  between 
systems  are  limited  and  mainly  rely  on  solutions  being  found  to  integrate  support  for  non-
national solutions which meet the applicable national standards.  

In  today's  market,  economic  operators  wishing  to  participate  in  on-line  procurement 
procedures  in  other  Member  States  are  faced  with  a  range  of  practical,  technical  and 
administrative  obstacles.  National/regional  e-Procurement  procedures  are  designed  by 
reference  to  local  administrative  or  technical  practices  which  may  differ  significantly.  As  a 
result,  little  concrete  progress  has  been  made  towards  unhindered,  cross-border  electronic 
procurement.  

Some significant success has been achieved in areas where a common EU-level infrastructure 
has  been  set  up  –  TED  has  helped  make  the  use  of  e-notification  wide-spread  in  the  EU. 
Several  actions  are  on-going  which  may  improve  the  cross-border  accessibility  of  e-
Procurement. 

Commission financed and steered actions to support e-Procurement: 

PEPPOL:  a  joint  project  between  the  European  Commission  and  several  EU  public-sector 
organisations,  PEPPOL  is  a  major  cross-border  project  intended  to  provide  large-scale, 
standards-based IT infrastructure and services to set up and run on-line pan-European public 
procurement operations.  

Open e-PRIOR: the European Commission has developed and deployed e-PRIOR to allow 
the exchange of structured e-Catalogues, e-Ordering and e-Invoicing documents between the 
Commission  and  its  suppliers.  Open  e-PRIOR  publicly  provides  this  solution  in  a  re-usable 
open-source format. 

E-CERTIS:  e-CERTIS  is  a  free,  on-line  information  tool  which  will  provide  details  of  the 
different  certificates  and  attestations  frequently  requested  in  procurement  procedures  across 
the  27  Member  States,  Candidate  and  EEA  countries.  It  will  help  interested  parties  to 
understand  what  information  is  being  requested  or  provided  and  to  identify  mutually 
acceptable equivalents.  

Savings  from  the  use  of  e-Procurement:  There  is  a  small  but  growing  body  of  proof  that 
savings are being realised as a result of e-Procurement use. Often these savings are substantial 
(€millions); experience suggests these investments can be recouped in administrative savings 
within short time-frames. Investment costs in national and regional e-Procurement facilities – 
spanning  e-portals  to  more  comprehensive  solutions  –  range  from  0.5m€  to  5m€.4 
Maintenance  costs  vary  from  several  thousand  Euros  to  several  million,  presumably 
depending on the size and sophistication of the system. Time savings are also reported – not 
just as a result of the possibility to reduce deadlines, but also through the introduction of more 
efficient processes.  

4 

Based on information available from the e-Practice website 

EN 

10 

   EN 

                                                 
Have the objectives of the Action Plan been achieved? 

As  at  end  2009,  13  of  the  31  measures  in  the  Action  Plan  had  been  completed,  three  were 
partially completed (i.e. some action has been undertaken but at present little advance is being 
made), 13 were on-going and two had been delayed.  

In  broad  terms  it  is  clear  that  whilst  progress  has  been  made  to  introduce  and  use  e-
Procurement, the overall objective of unhindered cross-border electronic procurement has not 
yet been achieved. Realistically, given the complexity of the change required and the inherent 
challenges in moving towards electronic systems, these objectives were always unlikely to be 
achieved in such a short time-frame – it is perhaps fairer to ask if greater progress could have 
been expected.  

Do we have a well functioning Internal Market in electronic public procurement?  

Progress  has  been  made,  particularly  at  the  national  level,  but  there  is  currently  no  internal 
market  in  e-Procurement  –  greater  availability  of  e-Procurement  infrastructure  has  not  yet 
translated to wide-spread use and cross-border e-Procurement is virtually non-existant. Whilst 
different "island" solutions exist, the bridges to connect them do not and the lack of common 
standards  and  interoperability  problems  create  barriers  to  cross-border  e-Procurement.  The 
legal framework appears to have been correctly implemented and many countries now have 
the appropriate basic tools in place, although some legal issues still need to be addressed. The 
current  situation  bears  marked  similarity  to  the  baseline  scenario  of  the  extended  impact 
assessment i.e. the situation  expected to  develop in the absence  of  Community level action. 
Given that action was taken, it would seem fair to conclude that less has been achieved than 
might have been expected. 

Have  we  achieved  greater  efficiency 
competitiveness?  

in  procurement, 

improved  governance  and 

At a national level, there is some evidence that efficiency has improved due to e-Procurement 
–  certainly  many  portals  promote  the  savings  made  by  using  their  systems.  Some  initial 
improvements  in  governance  have  been  seen  –  at  least  during  the  process  of  introducing  e-
Procurement, when many countries followed national plans; future strategies appear less well 
developed. Goal oriented policy making does not seem to have been widely adopted – only 
seven countries have systems for regularly collecting procurement data and information and it 
is  not  clear  how  much  e-Procurement  monitoring  is  conducted.  There  are  indications  that 
competition has increased – some countries report increased numbers of bidders per tender – 
certainly many economic operators appear to be registering with the various portals. So some 
improvements  have  been  seen,  although  again  they  are  probalby  less  than  might  have  been 
expected. 

Have we progressed towards an international framework for electronic public procurement?  

Although the Commission has made progress and carried out the actions identified under the 
Action Plan, there has not been much progress in developing an international framework for 
e-Procurement. Here expectations were perhaps not that high as success relied on a multitude 
of factors and was not always within the control of the EU.  

EN 

11 

   EN 

How the Action Plan has contributed to the current situation 

The contribution of the Action Plan to the current situation is best addressed by considering 
the answers to the three evaluation questions. 

To what extent have public procurement procedures been "computerised"? 

As  discussed  above  much  progress  has  been  made  to  introduce  national  level  solutions,  but 
actual use appears to be low and there is a still a long way to go to achieve the vision of the 
Action Plan. Some countries have developed "state of the art" systems; others have adopted 
simpler, lower-tech solutions. As yet, no evidence has been presented that approaches based 
on  lower  levels  of  technology  have  experienced  any  problems  in  relation  to  providing 
acceptable levels of security and trust. Many of the necessary technical building blocks which 
were expected to develop over this period have not advanced to a point where the market has 
converged  on  common  standards  or  approaches.  Whilst  e-Procurement  in  the  EU  may  be 
nearing the Manchester target5 of 100% availability in 2010, at least in theory, it is currently 
far short of the 50% use target. 

To  what  extent  did  the  EU  Action  Plan  for  e-Procurement  identify  the  right  priorities  and 
strategy? To what extent has it been implemented?  

The Action Plan appears to have identified the main priorities for developing e-Procurement 
although  more  emphasis/action  could  have  been  directed  at  aiding  and  encouraging 
organisational  change.  It  correctly  identified  the  need  to  create  a  single  consistent  EU 
legislative framework and provide related guidance. It stressed the need to develop solutions 
for  interoperability,  standardisation  and  authentication  and  promoted  clear  planning  and 
monitoring  to  efficiently  manage  the  introduction  of  procurement  using  electronic  means. 
Many  measures  encouraged  sharing  best  practices  and  experience.  Perhaps  a  little 
prematurely,  it  also  promoted  advancing  EU  solutions  on  the  international  stage  and 
encouraged consistency with international developments. 

A  few,  perhaps  subtle  exceptions  may  be  highlighted  however.  One  relates  to  the  emphasis 
placed  on  the  adoption  of  qualified  signatures.  These  technologically  demanding  solutions 
may be creating an unnecessary barrier to access and cross-border use and to-date, no "lower 
tech" solutions have caused problems relating to security / trust. Also, there has been a certain 
trend to develop and use more practical workarounds rather than higher tech solutions which 
were implicit in the Action Plan (e.g. in respect of e-Certificates and e-Attestations. 

The  soft  law  approach  of  the  Action  Plan  has  certainly  been  fruitful  and  encouraged  the 
development of creative solutions. Whilst appropriate in the context of a developing market, 
the  strategy  could  have  gone  slightly  further  and  been  more  pro-active,  putting  in  place 
control  mechanisms  to  ensure  actions  were  conducted.  Often  the  more  targeted  actions, 
accompanied  by  the  use  of  clear  incentives  –  for  example  the  changes  to  TED  and  e-
Notification, produced greater success, more directly attributable to the Action Plan. Perhaps 
the  greatest  flaw,  although  no-one  could  know  this  at  the  time,  was  the  reliance  on  faster 
technological  developments  expected  to  create  the  optimal  conditions  for  introducing  and 
adopting e-Procurement.  

5 

Manchester ministerial declaration, 24 November 2005  

EN 

12 

   EN 

                                                 
How relevant, efficient and effective has the Action Plan been in achieving or at least nearing 
the stated objectives of efficient and unhindered cross-border e-Procurement in the EU?  

The evaluation shows quite clearly that the majority of priorities identified by the Action Plan 
were relevant in 2004 and many remain relevant today, although some shifts of emphasis may 
be  appropriate  in  relation  to  issues  such  as  authentication  and  e-Attestations.  It  is  more 
difficult  to  judge  how  well  resources  from  the  Action  Plan  have  been  used  to  achieve  the 
results  identified.  Reviews  of  the  existing  systems  imply  that  the  studies  and  projects  have 
contributed  to  the  progress  made  but  it  is  not  possible  at  present  to  assess  the  overall 
efficiency  of  the  Action  Plan.  Many  of  the  Action  Plan  measures  have  contributed  in  some 
degree to the progress made, but the actual objectives of the Action Plan have not been met in 
full  and  hence  its  actual  effectiveness  is  limited.  To  achieve  the  vision  of  the  Action  Plan, 
further co-ordinated action is required.  

Remaining 
Procurement 

issues  and  challenges 

to  developing  wide-spread,  cross-border  e-

A number of challenges and weaknesses have been identified which prevent the wider take-up 
of  e-Procurement  and  cross-border  participation  in  on-line  procurement.  Looking  to  the 
future,  the  Commission  must  continue  to  act  to  minimise  the  risks  of  a  decentralised, 
fragmented  approach  at  EU  level.  The  following  issues  (presented  in  no  particular  order) 
appear important. 

•  Provision of a supportive legal environment. As systems develop it may be necessary to 
set  clearer  conditions  for  their  use  and  to  define  the  obligations  relating  to  the  provision 
and  operation  of  such  platforms.  In  the  wider  legislative  context,  changes  might  be 
required  in  related  legislation  e.g.  the  e-Signatures  Directive  (under  consideration),  e-
Invoicing and VAT. 

•  More pragmatic approach,  where appropriate, to technical issues: Some  of the more 
sophisticated  approaches  to  e-Procurement  may  be  preventing  wider  access  and 
interoperability.  There  is  currently  no  way  to  facilitate  mutual  recognition  of  national 
digital solutions to critical e-Procurement elements such as authentication and evidentiary 
documents.  Solutions  need  to  be  found  which  are  proportionate  to  the  risks  within  the 
procurement process and which reduce the burden on contracting authorities and suppliers 
wishing to operate in a wider European market. 

•  Greater  support  for  administrative  simplification  and  organisational  change.  Many 
countries have reported inertia and a lack of interest on the part of economic operators and 
contracting  authorities.  More  needs  to  be  done  to  identify  and  promote  ways  to  simplify 
the  procurement  process  and  facilitate  organisational  change.  Within  this  policy,  steps 
should be taken to introduce better monitoring systems at both EU and national level.  

•  Lack of standards in e-Procurement processes. For the foreseeable future, suppliers will 
be  confronted  with  an  e-Procurement  landscape  consisting  of  different  e-Procurement 
platforms  and  arrangements.  Each  system  may  contain  different  technical  features  and 
functions, complicating the task of suppliers who seek to participate in multiple systems. 
Whilst  convergence  on  one  monolithic  system  is  neither  desirable  nor  intended,  it  will 
facilitate participation if there is some common core functionality across systems. Many of 
the  most  challenging  issues  manifest  themselves  in  the  submission  and  processing  of 
tenders phases. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

•  Improved  access  and  wider  inclusion.  Action  may  be  necessary  to  ensure  that  e-
Procurement is available to all interested parties including SMEs and that the benefits can 
be shared by all.  

Next Steps 

Faced with this situation, the Commission believes that there is a need for sustained attention 
at EU level to accompany the wider take-up of e-Procurement. Rather than proposing detailed 
recommendations here, the Services of the Commission would like to first propose a period of 
wider consultation, to build consensus on the most important issues to be addressed and the 
approach  to  be  adopted.  This  consultation  phase  will  be  triggered  by  the  publication  of  a 
Green  Paper,  building  on  the  results  of  this  evaluation,  intended  for  publication  in  October 
2010.  

Future monitoring and evaluation 

Monitoring is an important part of any policy intervention which allows users and managers 
to check that an activity is “on track” and identify timely “corrective” actions if necessary. In 
conducting  this  evaluation  it  has  become  clear  that  although  progress  has  been  made  since 
2004, with much research undertaken and publication of case studies and findings, there is a 
marked  lack  of  commonly  defined  and  collected  statistics  and  indicators  at  an  EU  level. 
Whilst  it  is  neither  possible  nor  appropriate  at  this  point  to  actually  define  the  indicators 
required,  there  are  three  obvious  areas  where  effort  must  be  targeted:  the  development  of 
indicators  for  the  availability  and  use  of  e-Procurement  and  also  to  measure  progress  in 
eliminating the main barriers identified. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

2. 

INTRODUCTION 

EU  procurement  legislation  has  helped  to  embed  a  culture  of  professional  and  value-driven 
procurement  across  Europe.  It  has  brought  transparency  to  markets  for  public  contracts.  In 
2009,  over  150,000  contracts  were  advertised  EU-wide,  for  an  amount  estimated  at  around 
3.11%  of  EU  GDP.  Given  the  amount  of  public  money  at  stake  and  the  number  of  public 
purchasers  and  suppliers  involved,  the  way  in  which  public  procurement  is  regulated  and 
administered has an immediate and significant influence on the business environment.  

E-Procurement refers to the use of electronic communications and transaction processing by 
government  institutions  and  other  public  sector  organisations  when  buying  supplies  and 
services  or  tendering  public  works.  However,  there  is  much  more  at  stake  than  the  mere 
changeover  from  paper-based  systems  to  ones  using  electronic  communications  for  public 
procurement procedures. E-Procurement has the potential to yield important improvements in 
the efficiency of individual purchases, the overall administration of public procurement, and 
the  functioning  of  the  markets  for  government  contracts.  The  phasing-in  of  e-procurement 
forms  part  of  the  ambitious  e-government  agenda  which  can  fundamentally  transform  the 
delivery  and  performance  of  public  administration.  The  Commission's  European  Digital 
Agenda  foresees  the  adoption  of  a  Commission  White  Paper  outlining  steps  that  the 
Commission will take to establish an inter-connected e-procurement infrastructure6. 

This evaluation assesses the advances made in the adoption of e-Procurement since 2004 and 
the contribution of the Commission's 2004 "Action Plan for the implementation of the legal 
framework for electronic public procurement"7 to that progress. The objectives of the Action 
Plan were further underlined by the Manchester ministerial declaration which called for: 

"By  2010  all  public  administrations  across  Europe  will  have  the  capability  of  carrying  out 
100%  of  their  procurement  electronically,  where  legally  permissible,  thus  creating  a  fairer 
and more transparent market for all companies independent of a company’s size or location 
within the single market 

By 2010 at least 50% of public procurement above the EU public procurement threshold will 
be carried out electronically." 

If the benefits attributed to the introduction and use of e-Procurement can be achieved fully, 
or even only in part, the potential for savings, both in time taken to procure and financially, is 
enormous.  The  Extended  Impact  Assessment  (EIA)8  which  was  published  alongside  the 
Action Plan estimated that: 

"If online procurement is generalised, it can save governments up to 5% on expenditure and 
up to 50-80% on transaction costs for both buyers and suppliers." 

This evaluation presents the EU and Member States with a timely opportunity to review the 
progress  which  has  been  made  in  moving  from  a  purely  paper  based  environment  to  one 
where e-Procurement is legally permitted, available and used. It will also identify any barriers 

6 
7 

8 

A Digital Agenda for Europe COM(2010) 245 (page 32) 
Impact  Assessment,  COM  2004(841) 
Extended 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement 
Page 1 of the EIA COM 2004(841) 

available  on  DG  MARKT  website 

EN 

15 

   EN 

                                                 
to cross-border participation and issues which still need to be resolved. This review is well-
timed  -  there  is  still  a  window  of  opportunity  to  influence  the  development,  shape  and 
integration within this market, which has not yet reached a critical mass. However, the market 
is evolving at an ever faster pace, a range of different national solutions are being developed 
and the window will not remain open for long.  

2.1. 

Purpose of this report 

In  2004  when  the  Action  Plan  was  drawn  up,  certain  objectives  were  set,  resulting  in 
expectations of how and what would be achieved and where e-Procurement would be today. 
This  evaluation  will  provide  an  overview  of  the  current  state  of  play,  identifying  and 
analysing the structures and arrangements that have been put in place to support and promote 
e-Procurement.  It  will  also  identify  the  assumptions  made  in  2004  and  assess  whether 
expectations  have  been  met.  Ultimately  the  report  will  present  a  judgement  on  how  much 
progress has been made and whether the objectives have been achieved, in particular that  

"Use of electronic means should guarantee in practice that any business in Europe with a PC 
and an internet connection can participate in a public purchase conducted electronically"9.  

Once  this  stock-take  is  complete  and  the  actual  situation  has  been  compared  with  what  had 
been  expected,  the  focus  will  turn  towards  the  future.  This  evaluation  will  be  key  in 
identifying any issues or areas for further action and hence developing future EU policy. 

The remainder of this chapter presents a short explanation of the basis upon which a system 
can be defined as providing e-Procurement or not and discusses some of the main reasons for 
using electronic procurement systems. Chapter 3 provides a brief background summary of the 
situation  in  2004,  public  procurement  legislation,  and  the  aims  and  approach  of  the  Action 
Plan  whilst  the  approach  to  this  evaluation  and  the  methodology  adopted  is  outlined  in 
Chapter  4.  Chapter  5  presents  an  overview  of  the  current  state  of  play  of  e-Procurement 
within the EU, highlighting the changes over this period. The impacts and role of the Action 
Plan  in  contributing  to  this  situation  are  then  analysed  in  Chapter  6,  which  concludes  by 
assessing  the  progress  made  against  the  three  objectives  of  the  Action  Plan.  Chapter  7 
assesses the overall change and replies to the evaluation questions, identifying the remaining 
issues to be addressed and drawing conclusions on how successful the Action Plan has been. 
Recommendations  for  further  policy  development  are  also  presented  in  Chapter  7  together 
with the proposed future approach to monitoring and evaluation.  

2.2.  What is "e-Procurement"?  

Whereas there is a certain consensus around what it means to conduct "public procurement"10 
it has become apparent over the course of this evaluation that the same can not be said for "e-
Procurement". The 2004 Public Procurement Directives refer to the 'use of electronic means'. 
At  its  simplest,  e-procurement  is  a  catch  all  term  for  the  replacement  of  paper  based 
procedures  with  ICT  based  communications  and  processing  throughout  the  procurement 

9 
10 

Page 10 of the EIA COM 2004(841)  
Public  procurement  is  the  process  whereby  the  public  sector,  i.e.  national,  regional  and  local 
government  and  certain  utilities,  awards  contracts  to  companies  for  the  supply  of  goods  or  services, 
including building and construction works. The procurement procedure for contracts with an expected 
value  above  certain  thresholds  is  regulated  by  EU  legislation,  intended  to  promote  transparency  and 
competition,  thereby  avoiding  discriminatory  or  preferential  purchasing  and  encouraging  purchasing 
bodies to make the best use of public resources. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

                                                 
chain.  In  addition,  the  use  of  electronic  means  allows  for  new  purchasing  techniques,  e.g. 
innovative repetitive purchasing methods based on the re-use of data. 

E-Procurement  involves  the  introduction  of  electronic  processes  to  support  the  different 
phases  of  a  procurement  process  –  publication  of  tender  notices,  provision  of  tender 
documents,  submission  of  tenders,  evaluation,  award,  ordering,  invoicing  and  payment.  The 
process  is  illustrated  graphically  below,  and  a  more  detailed  description  can  be  found  in 
Annex  III.  Although  each  of  these  phases/tools  has  a  certain  role  to  play  in  the  full  e-
Procurement process, it is not always necessary or even appropriate for all these elements to 
be provided electronically. Not all of the currently available solutions are suited to all types of 
procurement and different approaches may be needed to integrate certain post-award phases 
with  other  back-office  practices.  Indeed  it  is  quite  possible  that  some  solutions  e.g.  for  e-
Evaluation  may  never  be  developed  to  deal  with  all  procurements  e.g.  procurements  which 
require predominantly qualitative assessments.  

Figure 1 - Overview of possible phases and tools in an e-Procurement process 

Source: Siemens-time.lex report. 

This  evaluation  has  worked  on  the  assumption  that  it  is  not  necessary  for  all  of  these 
phases/tools to be carried out for a procurement to qualify as "e-Procurement". For the 
purposes  of  this  evaluation  the  minimum  requirement  for  a  system  to  be  defined  as 
providing e-Procurement is the electronic provision of the phases covering publication of 
tender notices, access to tender documents and submission of tenders. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
2.3.  Why do e-Procurement?  

The Commission supports the transition from paper-based to on-line procurement because it 
sees the following advantages: 

–  Benefits  for  individual  procedures:  Compared  to  paper  based  systems,  e-Procurement 
can help contracting authorities and economic operators to reduce administrative costs and 
speed  up  individual  procurement  procedures.  In  the  current  financial  climate,  such 
efficiencies could be very welcome, maximising the potential which can be obtained from 
limited resources.  

–  Benefits  in  terms  of  more  efficient  procurement  administration:  the  development  of 
Central  Purchasing  Bodies  (CPBs),  often  making  extensive  use  of  electronic  procedures, 
can help to centralise costly procurement back-office functions and reap scale economies 
in procurement administration. 

–  Greater  transparency  and  better  monitoring  of  procurement:  By  automating  and 
centralising the flow  of  information about individual tender  opportunities, e-Procurement 
can  also  enhance  the  transparency  and  overall efficiency  of  public  procurement,  opening 
up markets to more competition and deepening the pool of competing suppliers, whilst at 
the same time improving spend management and overall planning.  

–  Potential for integration of EU procurement markets: E-Procurement reduces distance 
barriers  and  information  gaps  which  could  have  reduced  or  discouraged  cross-border 
participation in paper-based procedures. It should be underlined that, while e-Procurement 
can overcome distance-related costs to participation in the procurement procedure itself, it 
will not change the relevance of distance or physical proximity in the actual performance 
of  the  underlying  business  transaction.  An  increasing  number  of  procurements,  for 
example the provision of services such as software, design competitions and helpdesks, can 
be  provided  from  another  country  and  e-Procurement  should  be  well  suited  to  publicise, 
exploit and ultimately realise such opportunities.  

–  Administrative modernisation and simplification, encouraging the integration of various 

administrative processes as well as diffusion of ICT in government and society. 

However,  realisation  of  these  benefits  depends  on  significant  investment  throughout  the 
procurement  eco-system  to  build  the  necessary  capacity  and  manage  the  change-over  and 
these constraints should not be underestimated. 

3. 

LEGAL AND POLICY BACKGROUND 

3.1. 

E-Procurement: The situation in 2004 

In 2004 e-Procurement was more of an aspiration than a reality. Some countries had already 
started to establish a legal environment for e-Procurement, with 17 out of 25 Member States 
already  having  some  provisions  permitting  the  use  of  e-Procurement.  However,  these 
provisions  were  not  necessarily  aligned  with  the  2004  Directives.  The  available  tools  and 
websites were still embryonic - the Extended Impact Assessment (EIA) mentioned that most 
of  the  experience  in  2004  was  limited  to  pilot  schemes,  often  designed  for  below  threshold 

EN 

18 

   EN 

contracts and/or central governments. The 36 portals and platforms found in 200411 covered 
16  Member  States  (21  at  national  level,  nine  at  regional  level  and  six  sector  specific),  but 
were mostly limited to publishing information about opportunities; only five Member States 
had made available systems covering both the notification and tendering phases. In general, it 
was noted that the availability of solutions decreased as one went through the phases from e-
Notification  to  e-Payment  and  particularly  once  the  phases  required  a  two-way  flow  of 
information. Public and private sectors were not very involved in the process.  

At  this  time,  Member  State  systems  were  often  limited  by  the  existing  software  and  legal 
considerations  were  not  necessarily  taken  into  account.  Although  advanced  electronic 
signatures  were  permitted  in  15  of  the  25  Member  States,  actual  use  was  low  and  not 
necessarily related to e-Procurement.  

In  terms  of  the  national  strategies  available  at  that  time,  two  opposite  approaches  were 
apparent  –  detailed  strategies  with  concrete  measures  or  loosely  defined,  more  general, 
strategic statements.  

In 2004, a lot of attention was being focussed on the challenges and difficulties of moving to 
e-Procurement.  This  reflected  the  lack  of  operational  experience  across  Europe  in  using 
electronic  procedures  within  a  public  procurement  context.  Both  the  Ramboll  study  and  the 
EIA  highlighted  such  concerns,  particularly  in  relation  to  problems  of  financing  and  the 
organisational changes which would be required to switch from paper based procurement to e-
Procurement. These included: 

•  The affordability of the creation and use of new technologies, particularly with regard to 
the  possibly  limited  financing  capacities  or  will  of  economic  operators  and  small  and 
medium  sized  enterprises  (SMEs).  Particular  emphasis  was  given  to  the  resultant 
potentially negative impact on SMEs. 

•  The possibility that procurement actors (both contracting authorities/entities and economic 
operators)  who  did  not  want  to  pay  for  the  change  would  exclude  themselves  from  the 
procurement market. 

•  The challenging scale of changes in management and/or human resources within the public 

procurement sector.  

•  The risk of a major negative impact in terms of access costs for businesses due to the un-
coordinated development of too many different initiatives and a lack of overall governance. 

3.2. 

The role of the EU in promoting e-Procurement 

The Commission's 2004 Action Plan provided a roadmap, establishing a strategy designed to 
accelerate  the  adoption  of  e-Procurement  whilst  safe-guarding  the  core  principles  and 
provisions  of  existing  EU  procurement  legislation  and  wider  Treaty  principles.  It  was 
intended  to  encourage  the  development  and  use  of  convergent,  accessible,  secure  but 
commercially  viable  solutions  and  disseminate  examples  of  best-practice.  Action  was  also 
required to stimulate and orientate the work of the first movers in the field, who had already 

11 

EN 

Impact  Assessment:  Action  Plan  on  electronic  Public  Procurement,  study  produced  by  Rambøll 
Management 
on  DG  MARKT  website 
the  European  Commission, 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement 

available 

for 

19 

   EN 

                                                 
introduced e-Procurement elements in their legislation or practices,  or set up  e-Procurement 
systems.  The  policy  vision  underpinning  the  Action  Plan  was  very  ambitious  -  to  create  a 
situation  where  "…  any  business  in  Europe  with  a  PC  and  an  internet  connection  can 
participate in a public purchase conducted electronically."12 

The Action Plan was organised around three main objectives: 

(1) 

(2) 

Ensure a well functioning Internal Market in electronic public procurement;  

Achieve  greater 
competitiveness;  

efficiency 

in  procurement, 

improve  governance 

and 

(3) 

Work towards an international framework for electronic public procurement. 

EU  policy  was  designed  to  play  a  complementary  role  in  support  of  national  or  regional 
efforts to put procurement on an electronic footing. It recognised the need to take into account 
an  EU  level  dimension,  without  which  the  switch-over  could  be  hampered  and  resources 
could  be  wasted  as  the  wheel  was  constantly  re-invented.  A  total  of  31  measures  were 
identified, directed at the Commission, Member States, standardisation bodies and the Public 
Procurement Network. 

3.3. 

The Public Procurement Directives 

The  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU),  drawing  on  earlier  treaties, 
lays  down  fundamental  and  general  principles  applicable  to  contracting  authorities  in  the 
context  of  public  procurement13.  However  it  was  decided,  that  on  their  own,  these 
prohibitions were not sufficient to establish a single market in this area. Differences between 
national rules and the absence of requirements to open up contracts to EU-wide competition 
often resulted in national markets being closed to foreign competitors. Secondary legislation 
was therefore needed to ensure this openness, as well as to make procedures more transparent.  

Since 1971, several Directives have been adopted to supplement the general provisions of the 
Treaty, based on three main principles: 

•  Community-wide advertising to foster cross-border competition;  

•  The prohibition of technical  specifications liable to discriminate  against potential  foreign 

bidders; and 

•  Application of objective criteria for evaluation and award of public contracts.  

Over the years new Directives14 were adopted both to expand the coverage of the Directives 
(eventually  to  works,  supplies  and  services)  and  to  exclude  certain  sectors  (e.g.  transport, 
energy,  water  and  telecommunications).  Other  changes  were  necessary  to  integrate 
requirements  related  to  GATT/WTO  agreements  and  to  address  deficiencies  of  earlier 

12 
13 

14 

Page 10 of the EIA COM 2004(841) 
The provisions of the economic freedoms ban discriminatory measures and unfair treatment on grounds 
of  nationality,  in  order  to  promote  the  internal  market  objective  of  removing  barriers  to  trade  and 
economic flows within the EU. The general ban on discrimination allows some flexibility in relation to 
security, health, environmental and consumer protection justifications, under certain conditions. 
Annex based on Claudio table showing evolution of Directives 

EN 

20 

   EN 

                                                 
legislation, such as national markets which were still not sufficiently open. The first Utilities 
Directive (90/531/EEC), in 1990 was based on the same principles as the previous Directives, 
and introduced a higher degree of flexibility for contracting entities.  

In April 2004 the Council adopted Directives 2004/18/EC and 2004/17/EC which replaced the 
previous  Directives.  They  were  intended  to  modernise  and  simplify  public  procurement 
procedures, and recognised for the first time in EU procurement law, the possibility of using 
electronic procedures. The introduction of provisions on e-Procurement was expected to bring 
benefits to the Single Market, with greater flexibility, transparency and competition, deemed 
to  be  key  ingredients  for  moving  towards  the  possibility  of  cross-border  participation.  The 
introduction  of  provisions  on  electronic  communications  was  also  part  of  the  on-going 
transition to e-Government in general, wanted by Member States. The provisions permitting 
e-Procurement are contained in article 42 of Directive 2004/18/EC and article 48 of Directive 
2004/17/EC, which place the use of electronic means in procurement procedure on a par with 
paper-based  approaches.  Several  more  detailed  articles  provide  further  details  relating  to 
electronic communication, e-Notices and electronic access to contract documents, electronic 
reception  devices  for  tenders,  and  for  supporting  tools  such  as  electronic  auctions  and 
dynamic purchasing systems. 

The  Directives'  provisions  on  e-Procurement  were  intended  to  address  the  on-going 
introduction of e-Procurement in some Member States and co-ordinate (to a certain extent) the 
approaches taken by Member States, so as to avoid the creation of any new barriers to access. 
The  2004  Directives  were  intentionally  not  prescriptive  and  allow  some  flexibility  with 
respect to the possible methods used to organise e-Procurement, as long as "such use complies 
with  the  rules  drawn  up  under  this  Directive  and  the  principles  of  equal  treatment,  non-
discrimination and transparency"15. As a result, the new Directives introduced the possibility 
for e-Procurement, but refrained from imposing any obligation on contracting authorities and 
system users. 

3.4. 

The 2004 Action Plan 

The  general  basis  for  e-Procurement  policy  was  sketched  out  during  the  preparation  of  the 
2004  public  procurement  Directives.  At  that  time,  some  Member  States  had  already  started 
thinking about modernising their procurement practices, but the new Directives together with 
the  e-Procurement  Action  Plan  were  the  first  EU  level  policy  actions  to  that  effect.  The 
general intention was to bring the practices of the public sector closer to those of the private 
sector.  In  this  context,  the  Action  Plan  provided  a  roadmap,  establishing  a  strategy  for 
transition and grouping actions under three policy goals at EU level, designed to:  

•  Address  general  internal  market  policy  concerns,  both  within  the  EU  and  internationally 

(Objectives 1 and 3); 

•  "Deepen" EU public procurement policy (Objective 2); and 

•  Introduce e-Procurement specific measures in areas under direct EU competence (mainly 

within Objective 1). 

The Action Plan also recognised that certain intermediary measures were required to provide 
elements  for  the  other  actions  to  build  on  (namely,  the  development  of  some  common 

15 

Recital 12, Directive 2004/18/EC, Recital 20, Directive 2004/17/EC 

EN 

21 

   EN 

                                                 
necessary basic tools and building blocks / templates to make electronic procurement systems 
function).  The  full  set  of  measures  proposed  by  the  Action  Plan,  together  with  further 
information relating to the barriers intended to be addressed and the scope of the action can be 
found in annex IV. 

3.4.1.  Content of the Action Plan  

Being a key EU internal market policy, public procurement, and e-Procurement in particular, 
needs to be conducted in a way that encourages, or at least permits cross-border exchanges. A 
major risk when introducing e-Procurement would be to recreate national borders on the basis 
of national technical and policy choices. The first set of measures in the Action Plan, under 
Objective  1,  focuses  on  the  transposition  of  the  legal  framework  -  the  key  element  for 
developing  coherent  initiatives  at  various  levels  based  on  common  grounds.  The  use  of 
electronic  means  provides  several  possibilities  to  improve  the  internal  market  for  public 
procurement.  E-Procurement  has  the  potential  to  reduce  distance  barriers  and  information 
gaps  which  could  have  reduced  or  discouraged  cross-border  participation  in  paper-based 
procedures. It may also increase efficiency through use of electronic means for managing and 
processing data.  

Interoperability  of  systems  and  the  related  openness  of  e-Procurement  markets  were  also 
important  and  are  addressed  by  elements  of  the  Action  Plan.  The  Commission  was  tasked 
with the responsibility to define and explain the EU technical, legal and policy framework and 
ensure  coherence  in  the  internal  market.  Within  this  framework,  Member  States  should  be 
able  to  advance  at  their  own  pace  and  move  more  flexibly,  encouraging  solutions  and 
allowing a single market to develop.  

In terms of deepening the role of the public procurement policy, e-Procurement was seen as a 
modern  way  to  achieve  greater  transparency  and  efficiency.  For  example,  automation  and 
control mechanisms in electronic proceedings were viewed as ways to limit the human factor 
for a certain number of phases, reducing the time required, increasing consistency and where 
appropriate, making the process more objective. Complementary to this, the clear definition of 
roles  and  tasks  in  electronic  systems  could  improve  governance.  Online  publication  (e-
Notification)  and  availability  of  tender  documents  (e-Access)  were  both  seen  as  ways  to 
dramatically  increase  the  potential  publicity  given  to  business  opportunities.  This  was 
expected  to  increase  access/inclusion  in  public  procurement  markets  for  every  interested 
company (including SMEs), which as a consequence should encourage competition. Increased 
competition in public procurement should, in theory at least, lead to a better choice amongst 
tenders, resulting in better value for money (via reduced prices, increased quality or both). It 
should also play an important role in the elimination of unfair behaviours. 

E-Procurement specific measures were also set in the Action Plan. The goal was the reduction 
of administrative costs in the preparation and transmission of offers, as well as simplifying the 
preparation  of  tenders.  Both  due  to  the  provisions  of  the  Directives  on  the  reduction  of 
publication  delays  and  on  easier  and  faster  accomplishment  of  the  different  phases  pre-  (e-
Access, e-Submission) and post-award (like e-Ordering and e-Invoicing), e-Procurement was 
seen as a promising way to streamline and accelerate e-Procurement procedures. 

In  addition,  the  Action  Plan  foresaw  intermediary  measures  to  develop  the  basic  building 
blocks for other initiatives. These actions were mostly directed at the European Commission 
and encompassed basic standardisation decisions such as the adoption of new standard forms 
for  the  publication  of  procurement  notices  adapted  to  take  into  account  the  new  procedures 

EN 

22 

   EN 

and  the  use  of  electronic  applications,  or  the  revision  of  the  Common  Procurement 
Vocabulary (CPV) to adjust it to an electronic environment.  

Finally, on the basis of the last objective of the Action Plan, the European Commission was to 
undertake  some  fairly  flexible  actions  at  international  level  chiefly  intended  to  share  good 
practices  and  promote  the  development  of  e-Procurement  techniques  and  systems  which 
would be interoperable with the European ones through international standards. 

3.4.2. 

Strategic approach of the Action Plan 

The  EIA  which  led  to  the  development  of  the  Action  Plan  identified  a  range  of  possible 
strategies.  From  these,  the  two  more  moderate (soft  law)  suggestions  were  retained  as  most 
viable and form the basis of the roadmap which was drafted at EU level. 

The EU Action Plan adopted a deliberately flexible and non-prescriptive approach intended to 
foster  creativity  and  encourage  the  development  of  new  solutions,  whilst  coordinating 
transposition  and  implementation  by  the  Member  States.  This  approach  seemed  most 
appropriate  given  the  coordinating  character  of  the  basic  public  procurement  Directives, 
which  limits  action  at  EU  level,  and  the  very  decentralised  and  multi-faceted  structure  of 
public procurement market in the Member States. In particular it was considered too early to 
impose  certain  standards  and  behaviours  in  policy  area  which  was  still  new  and  largely 
unexplored in 2004 when the Action Plan was drafted. 

In essence, the chosen approach for the Action Plan reflects the challenge of regulating ICT-
related  policy  generally,  and  particularly  in  a  complex,  rules-driven  field  such  as  public 
procurement  

The downsides of this approach were clear at the outset – the possible development of many 
different  solutions  could  cause  problems  with  interoperability  and  lead  to  the  emergence  of 
new barriers. This was due to the fact that, in many areas, the Directives implicitly placed the 
adjustment  costs  for  ensuring  interoperability  upon  the  Member  States,  if  not  with  the 
individual contracting authorities. The risk was that those adjustment costs, e.g. the costs of 
using a compatible application or signature, would be further shifted to businesses wanting to 
bid in public procurement, especially across borders, thus reducing participation.  

In order to counter this risk of fragmentation, the Action Plan carved out a specific role for the 
Commission.  Together  with  the  Member  States,  it  was  intended  to  identify  the  main 
interoperability  challenges  and  how  to  address  them,  including  appropriate  and  effective 
means for compliance verification of national developments. However, the Action Plan itself 
was based on soft-law, meaning that none of the measures identified were legally enforceable. 
As such, the ability of the Action Plan to achieve its set objectives was clearly dependent on 
the  co-operation  and  participation  of  the  various  parties.  Although  the  Commission  had 
proposed  certain  actions,  it  had  limited  scope  to  ensure  compliance  with  specific 
recommendations, beyond what was foreseen in the Directives. Despite these limitations, the 
Action Plan set itself three very ambitious objectives, intended to accelerate and promote EU-
wide adoption of e-Procurement and hence realise the benefits predicted in as short a time as 
possible.  It  was  expected  that  developments  in  the  technology  would  occur  in  the  same 
timeframe,  allowing  the  maximum  synergy  to  be  achieved.  E-Procurement  developments 
were  also  expected  to  act  as  a  catalyst  for  the  wider  e-Government  environment,  triggering 
improvements and adoption across a range of services. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

4. 

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 

4.1. 

Scope and limitations of the evaluation 

The 2004 Action Plan calls on the Commission, by the end of 2007, to start to "review and 
report on the results achieved and to propose, if need be, […] corrective action or additional 
measures".  

This evaluation has therefore two objectives: 

(1) 

(2) 

To report on the current state of play for e-Procurement and identify the progress made 
since 2004; and 

To  review  and  evaluate  the  contribution  of  the  Action  Plan  to  that  progress  and 
identify issues requiring attention. 

Given  the  fairly  short  reference  period  and  certain  known  limitations  on  the  available 
quantitative  data  sets,  it  was  clear  from  the  outset  that  it  would  be  difficult  to  attempt  a 
definitive evaluation. The absence of detailed, consistent  EU-wide  data  makes  it  difficult  to 
assess objectively the cause and effect relationships which would usually be the focus of any 
evaluation of the role played by the Action Plan. As a result of these data limitations, it has 
not been possible to define or use consistent indicators of progress made. This report therefore 
presents  a  stock-take  of  developments  and  tries  to  identify/indicate  why  these  results  are 
observed. Often these judgements are not based on specific pieces of evidence, but draw more 
on  the  overall  trends  observed.  The  report  highlights  areas  where  further  review  and 
adjustment of policy may be required, before new e-Procurement systems and tools become 
too entrenched.  

4.2. 

Our approach 

The evaluation concentrates on assessing the extent to which public procurement procedures 
in  the  EU  have  been  digitised,  and  how  the  progress  observed  is  related  to  the  measures 
included in the Action Plan. As such, the focus is not on providing a full economic evaluation 
of  the  impacts  of  the  Action  Plan,  but  rather,  on  pulling  together  a  picture  of  what  has 
changed  and  trying  to  identify  where  it  is  reasonable  to  imply  that  the  Action  Plan  has 
influenced any change and to assess how far it has progressed towards achieving its specified 
objectives (see below).  

The  state  of  play  (see  Chapter  5)  presents  the  progress  made  in  moving  from  paper  based 
systems to e-Procurement during the period 2004-early 2010 and covers the 27 EU Member 
States, three EEA and two Accession countries (Croatia and Turkey). As part of this process, 
the transposition of the 2004 Directives has been reviewed and all phases and tools of the e-
Procurement process have been assessed, with particular attention to the tools introduced by 
the 2004 Directives. The value of contracts dealt with by some e-Procurement systems is not 
always  clear.  Where  known,  the  evaluation  report  states  whether  the  information  relates 
specifically to contracts above or below the thresholds set by the EU procurement Directives.  

In  considering  the  contribution  of  the  Action  Plan,  three  main  evaluation  criteria  are 
considered: 

•  Effectiveness  –  to  what  extent  the  Action  Plan  measures  have  achieved  or  contributed 

towards meeting the objectives of the Action Plan; 

EN 

24 

   EN 

•  Efficiency  –  whether  in  carrying  out  these  measures,  good  use  has  been  made  of  the 

resources available given the results identified; and  

•  Relevance  –  to  what  extent  the  Action  Plan  measures  still  match  the  current  needs  of  e-

Procurement. 

Some  distributional  effects  are  also  considered,  albeit  to  a  limited  extent  –  how  different 
parties  have  been  affected,  including  Economic  Operators  and  more  particularly  SMEs, 
Member States and Contracting Authorities. Other factors of interest which are also assessed 
include trends towards centralisation and aggregation effects. 

Rather than placing too much emphasis on the individual success of each of the 31 measures 
which  make  up  the  Action  Plan,  conclusions  are  more  generally  drawn  with  respect  to  the 
three  main  objectives  and  the  groupings  of  measures  which  were  presented  under  each  of 
them. These break down as:  

(1) 

Ensure  a  well  functioning  Internal  Market in  electronic  public  procurement  (total  16 
measures);  

•  Implement the legal framework correctly and on time (3 measures) 

•  Complete the legal framework by the appropriate basic tools (4 measures) 

•  Remove 

/  prevent  barriers 

in  carrying  public  procurement  procedures 

electronically (6 measures) 

•  Detect and address interoperability problems over time (3 measures) 

(2) 

Achieve  greater  efficiency  in  procurement,  improve  governance  and  competitiveness 
(total 10 measures);  

•  Increase efficiency of public procurement and improve governance (4 measures) 

•  Increase  competitiveness  of  public  procurement  markets  across  the  EU  (6 

measures) 

(3)  Work  towards  an  international  framework  for  electronic  public  procurement  (total  5 

measures) 

The intervention logic, evaluation questions and their related success criteria presented below 
(see  section  4.4)  have  been  drawn  up  on  this  basis.  Chapter  6  presents  the  results  of  this 
evaluation, first by using the state of play to assess how much the expectations of the Action 
Plan (identified in the intervention logic) have been achieved and secondly, by assessing how 
far  the  objectives  of  the  Action  Plan  have  been  realised.  The  evaluation  questions  are  then 
answered in section 7, by reference to the success criteria. 

The  final  assessment  of  how  much  progress  has  been  made  and  how  successful  the  Action 
Plan  has  been  will  be  to  judge  the  current  situation  against  the  "ideal"  vision,  i.e.  to  ensure 
that it is now possible in Europe that, through the use of electronic means: "… any business in 
Europe with a PC and an internet connection can participate in a public purchase conducted 
electronically."16  

16 

Page 10 of EIA COM 2004(841)  

EN 

25 

   EN 

                                                 
Whilst  this  vision  was  always  very  challenging  (and  perhaps  unrealistic  in  the  short 
timeframe)  it  nonetheless  provides  a  clear  benchmark  against  which  actual  progress  can 
ultimately be measured. 

4.3. 

Data sources 

A great deal of work has been undertaken in the field of e-Procurement in the last years, and 
practitioners have often been open to sharing their experiences – so this evaluation has been 
able  to  draw  on  a  range  of  case  studies,  published  individually  or  in  particular  on  the  e-
Practice website17. There are also several large studies on specific aspects – particularly tools 
and phases, some of which have been produced as a result of various measures in the Action 
Plan18. Much of this information is qualitative and although very valuable in explaining what 
has  happened  in  an  individual  instance,  it  is  not  always  possible  to  compare  or  aggregate 
cases, due to different understandings or objectives for e-Procurement. The main information 
relating to the situation in 2004 is taken from the EIA and the supporting external study19. 

As has already been mentioned, quantitative data is more difficult to come by – virtually no 
information is available which has been calculated on a consistent basis across the whole EU. 
Where  appropriate,  data  has  been  extracted  from  the  Tenders  Electronic  Daily  (TED) 
database,  which  contains  the  information,  provided  by  Contracting  Authorities  when  they 
complete the standard forms. In general this information relates only to procurements above 
the thresholds set in the EU Directives and there are only a limited number of entries relating 
to e-Procurement tools.  

In order to prepare this evaluation two new pieces of work were commissioned – the first by 
Ernst  and  Young  Italy  provided  background  information  and  attempted  to  collect  data  via 
detailed questionnaires from all relevant stakeholder groups20. Whilst every effort was made 
to ensure a good response rate to these questionnaires and the efforts of those who responded 
are  much  appreciated,  the  number  of  replies  was  not  sufficient  to  allow  representative 
statistics  to  be  calculated.  As  a  result,  no  report  was  produced  analysing  the  results;  where 
appropriate and useful, the responses to certain questions have been used in this report (and in 
the Siemens-time.lex study mentioned below) to shed some light on developments. However, 
due to the small data set, these findings should be treated with caution and are generally only 
presented in tandem with information from other sources.  

Secondly, a study by Siemens-time.lex built on findings from the earlier work and resulted in 
the  report  "Study  on  the  evaluation  of  the  Action  Plan  for  the  implementation  of  the  legal 
framework for electronic procurement" published at the same time as this evaluation report. 
This  study  provides  an  assessment  of  the  approach  and  strategy  of  the  Action  Plan  and  a 
detailed state of play of e-Procurement in the countries reviewed (both as an overview and in 
terms of the different phases and tools). It also contains a first analysis of the role the Action 
Plan  has  played  in  moving  e-Procurement  forward  and  presents  some  recommendations  for 
future strategic action. As part of this work, fiches have been drawn up identifying the legal, 
political  and  technical  infrastructure  in  each  of  the  32  countries.  These  fiches  were  then 

17 
18 
19 
20 

www.ePractice.eu 
See Annex II for list of reports and studies 
Available at http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/e-procurement_en.htm 
2008 Commission e-Procurement survey announced in press release IP/08/1577 

EN 

26 

   EN 

                                                 
validated by members of the e-Procurement Working Group21 and form the basis for much of 
the analysis presented. Unless stated otherwise, this study is the main source of the evidence 
quoted in this evaluation and will be referred to as the "Siemens-time.lex study". 

A  great  deal  of  information  has  also  been  gathered  from  practical  experience  and 
developments, including visiting and reviewing many of the websites and portals which have 
been developed. Other useful sources of information include the meetings and discussions of 
the e-Procurement Working Group and the many conferences and seminars which have been 
organised by various practitioners and associations.  

Further details on this reference material are presented in Annex II. 

Taken  together  this  information  provides  a  broad  base  to  describe  the  current  state  of  play 
with respect to e-Procurement. Often however it is not sufficient to prove, particularly on an 
EU level, that certain results are due to certain actions. This has had a limiting effect on the 
evaluation. 

4.4. 

Intervention logic and evaluation questions 

The intervention logic is a visual representation of the originally expected "cause and effect" 
consequences of the Action Plan at its adoption. It has been constructed after considering the 
main objectives of the Action Plan and identifying what it hoped to achieve and how. Figure 2 
below  represents  these  expectations  at  the  level  of  the  three  main  objectives  (grouped 
measures) discussed above. As such, it is the summary of separate intervention logics which 
were created for each objective (see Annex VI).  

In broad terms the intervention logic shows that in the first instance, the Action Plan measures 
were  supposed  to  result  in  a  clearer  legal  environment,  where  there  were  no  legislative 
barriers to the use of certain tools. This was to be achieved through joint efforts by both the 
Commission  and  the  Member  States  that  would  build  on  the  skeleton  provided  by  the 
Directives. Technical barriers were also expected to be overcome or at least minimised and it 
was  expected  that  the  basic  infrastructure  for  providing  e-Procurement  would  be  made 
available/improve in all Member States. Transparency should increase, particularly due to the 
measures  relating  to  the  Common  Procurement  Vocabulary  (CPV),  standard  forms  and  the 
creation and use of a fully electronic system for the collection and publication of procurement 
notices on TED (Tenders Electronic Daily).  

The  Action  Plan  contained  measures  addressed  to  both  buyers  and  suppliers.  The  rationale 
was that some measures should make it easier for Economic Operators (EOs) to participate in 
electronic  procurements,  particularly  across  borders  and  there  was  also  a  specific  action 
targeted at improving access to these markets by SMEs. However, this action could only be a 
soft  approach,  as  contracting  authorities  and  bidders  must  act  within  the  confines  of  their 
national procurement regime and hence could only be targeted in an indirect way. Contracting 
authorities  should  be  inspired  to  adopt  business  friendly  approaches,  avoiding  squarely 
shifting  transaction  costs  to  the  economic  operators  whilst  preserving  different  business 
models 

21 

The  e-Procurement  working  group  is  a  committee  comprised  of  experts  from  European  national 
administrations. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

                                                 
Over  time,  it  was  expected  that  it  would  be  possible  to  build  on  these  initial  results,  and  e-
Procurement would be more frequently used; users would be more confident and all parties 
would experience greater security and reliability in the procurement process. After an initial 
period of setting up and transferring to electronic systems, the effort and costs associated with 
conducting e-Procurement were also expected to reduce as parties became more familiar with 
the  process  and  it  became  more  mainstream.  At  the  same  time,  this  process  of  change  was 
expected  to  foster  and  introduce  administrative  simplification  –  resulting  both  from 
technological  advances  and  reviews  of  previous  systems.  Indirectly  this  might  also  cause 
some  increase  in  unemployment,  possibly  offset  by  new  jobs  in  innovative  sectors  which 
could  provide  the  new  technologies  required.  There  was  also  some  expectation  that  this 
increased use would ripple out, improving the interoperability and sophistication of the wider 
e-Government environment and leading to greater investment. 

In  addition  it  was  expected  that  the  parties  who  (first)  moved  towards  using  these  systems 
would  already  have  a  higher  than  average  level  of  technical  ability,  perhaps  having  already 
some  knowledge  or  experience  of  e-Procurement.  Given  that  these  systems  could  also  be 
quite  costly  to  introduce,  it  was  also  thought  possible  that  more  affluent  parties  (e.g. 
contracting authorities with access to larger budgets, certain economic operators) would take 
the  first  steps  into  this  area.  Implicitly,  this  accepted  that  some  parties  might  use  cost  as  a 
justification for not adopting e-Procurement. 

Ultimately it was hoped that the convergence of all these effects would lead to increased use 
of  e-Procurement,  particularly  across  borders  thus  ensuring  an  open  and  efficient  internal 
market  for  public  procurement.  Competition  benefits  were  also  expected  –  both  in  terms  of 
greater competition for bids with a resultant reduction in the price paid by the public sector 
and  also  in  relation  to  improving  European  competitiveness  through  the  use  of  new, 
innovative e-Business tools.  

Drawing on this intervention logic, three key evaluation questions were identified: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

To  what  extent  have  public  procurement  procedures  in  the  EU  and  EEA  Member 
States  been  'computerised',  i.e.  migrated  from  paper  to  the  use  of  electronic  means 
(including legal/policy/economic/technical aspects)?  

To  what  extent  has  the  EU  e-Procurement  Action  Plan  identified  the  right  priorities 
and strategy to progressing towards the use of electronic means in public procurement, 
and to what extent has it been implemented?  

How relevant, efficient and effective has the Action Plan been in achieving or at least 
nearing  the  stated  objectives  of  efficient  and  unhindered  cross-border  e-Procurement 
in the EU?  

EN 

28 

   EN 

Aim(s) of the Action Plan for this 
objective 
(proposed measure) 

Expected results linked to this 
objective 
(expected reaction to the action) 

Impacts 

Overall impacts 
(overall objective of the AP) 

Direct 
(desired effect) 

Indirect 
(possible other effects) 

Implement the legal framework correctly and on time 

Commission must issue explanatory document on the new rules 
on electronic public procurement 

Commission must issue online training demonstrators to 
familiarize MS with the new e-proc provisions and tools 

Commission must provide assistance to MS in transposing the 
new legal provisions 

Complete legal framework by appropriate basic tools 

Commission adopts new Standard Forms for procurement 
notices  

Commission coordinates the revision of the CPV 

Commission provides a blueprint for a fully electronic system for 
the collection and publication of procurement notices on TED 

Implementation by MS of electronic systems at national level 
incl. tools for automated collection + publishing in TED 

Implementation  is facilitated and speeded  up 
(deadline: 31/1/2006) 
Error free implementation; no 
misunderstandings about scope of new 
provisions 

Consistent and transparent public procurement 

Single, common EU infrastructure for eNotices 
National infrastructure for eNotices compatible 
with EU system 

Greater legal certainty 
Administrative simplification  
Effort/cost of participation 
drops for tenderers 

No legal barriers for 
eProcurement 
Common EU understanding 
of eProc 
Greater PP participation  

Accelerated uptake of eProc 
& of new tools 
Accelerated uptake of 
electronic notices 

Improve eGov 
interoperability and 
sophistication in general 
Reduced risk of market 
fragmentation 
Private and public proc. 
can share best practices 

Technical know-how may 
favour participants with 
more sophisticated 
technical infrastructures 
Automation may eliminate 
now unnecessary jobs; this 
may be offset by new jobs 
in innovative services  
Increased eProc/eGov 
investment (incl. private 
sector) 

Context: 
• General goal: public proc must be non-discriminatory, generally available 

and interoperable and by no means restrict economic operators’ 
access to the tendering procedure  

• Linked legislation includes specifically the eSignatures Directive (provides 
a basic working tool) and VAT Directive 2006/112/EC (including 
eInvoicing as described in articles 232 and following) 

• Overall policy context: i2010 objectives 

Member State Action: 

• They must implement the legal framework, including notably the new 

forms and the CPV 

External factors: 
•The Services Directive could have a strong impact, especially through the 

eSignatures work (CROBIES), and due to eDocuments concerns (IMI 
system)  

• eProcurement uptake is encouraged and expected but not mandated by 

•Large scale pilots provide key building blocks; notably PEPPOL, but also 

the Directives (or the Action Plan) 

STORK and SPOCS 

•Greater call for simplification, also from a political perspective, see e.g. 

Stoiber Group and ongoing review of eInvoicing rules 

Improve cross border 
access to public 
procurement markets, thus 
supporting the Internal 
Market 

Reduce costs for the public 
sector by improving 
efficiency and stimulating 
competition in the Internal 
Market 

Figure 2 Intervention Logic 

Source Siemens-time.lex report  

EN 

29 

EN

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Taken together, these questions cover the three evaluation criteria mentioned in section 4.2 - 
effectiveness,  efficiency  and  relevance.  In  answering  these  questions,  this  evaluation  will 
assess the extent to which the assumptions and  expectations summarised  in the intervention 
logic  have  become  reality.  To  help  identify  and  measure  the  progress  made,  the  following 
success  criteria  were  selected.  Given  the  limitations  in  the  quantitative  data  available,  no 
numeric indicators have been selected; the success criteria will be used to provide a mainly 
qualitative  assessment  of  what  has  actually  been  achieved,  supplemented  by  numeric  data 
where possible. There is some overlap between the application of these success criteria to a 
particular question – for simplicity, in the table below they have been "assigned" to the most 
relevant question. 

Table 1- Evaluation questions and success criteria 

Evaluation Question 

Success Criteria 

To what extent public procurement 
procedures in the EU and EEA Member 
States have been 'computerised', i.e. migrated 
from paper to the use of electronic means 
(including legal / policy / economic / 
technical aspects)  

To what extent the EU e-Procurement Action 
Plan has identified the right priorities and 
strategy to progressing towards the use of 
electronic means in public procurement, and 
to what extent it has been implemented  

•  Increased  availability  of  different  e-
Procurement phases and tools in countries 
in comparison to 2004 

•  Increased  use  of  different  e-Procurement 
phases and tools in countries as compared 
to 2004 

•  Degree  of 

technological  sophistication 

evident in systems developed 

Priorities 

•  No legal barriers to use of e-Procurement 

•  No 

technical  barriers 

to  use  of  e-
Procurement  (particularly  in  relation  to 
agreed standards and e-Signatures) 

•  Interoperable 

e-Procurement 

systems 

within and across countries 

•  Increased  use  of  electronic  signatures 
since 2004, especially qualified signatures 

•  Existence  and  use  of  common  standards 

for documents, phases and tools 

•  Improved 

governance 

public 
procurement  (including  collection  and 
publication of related statistics) 

of 

•  Progress 

towards 

creation 

international 
Procurement 

framework 

of 
for 

an 
e-

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation Question 

Success Criteria 

To what extent the EU e-Procurement Action 
Plan has identified the right priorities and 
strategy to progressing towards the use of 
electronic means in public procurement, and 
to what extent it has been implemented  

•  Equal and fair access to all markets for all 
Economic Operators, particularly SMEs 

•  Dissemination and sharing of experiences 

Strategy 

•  Use  of  guidance  material,  demonstrators 

etc 

•  Application  of  recommendations  from 

various studies provided 

•  Completion  and  compliance  of  various 

actors with the measures 

How relevant, efficient and effective has the 
Action Plan been in achieving or at least 
nearing the stated objectives of efficient and 
unhindered cross-border e-Procurement in the 
EU?  

•  Clear links between progress achieved and 

measures in Action Plan 

•  Ability  of  e-Procurement  systems 

to 

permit cross border procurement 

•  Reduced  cost  of  procurement  resulting 

from use of electronic systems 

•  Reduced  time  to  procure  resulting  from 

use of electronic systems 

•  Systems  introduced  are  less  complicated 
and bureaucratic than systems they replace

5. 

STATE OF PLAY 

5.1. 

Introduction 

The current state of play across the EU, EEA and Accession countries is the result of a wide 
variety of approaches and concrete actions, many of which were included in the Action Plan. 
This  section  tries  to  give  an  overview  of  the  situation  by  2010  in  terms  of  availability, 
technical  choices,  policy  and  organisational  approaches  and  distributive  effects.  Overall,  it 
can be seen that clear progress has been made in the migration of the procurement phases and 
the development of tools for e-Procurement is promising. 

5.2. 

How  have  countries  implemented  the  possibilities  offered  by  the  2004 
Directives? 

While  the  Action  Plan  did  not  specify  a  particular  approach  to  transposition,  it  aimed  to 
facilitate the understanding of the legal framework and to encourage an appropriate exchange 
with the Member States when their transposition provisions were at drafting stage. The issues 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
 
that  could  have  arisen  during  the  transposition  process  include:  ensuring  consistency  within 
the  overall  national  legal  framework;  possible  uncertainty  or  inconsistency  resulting  from 
national  actions  and/or  different  transposition  timing.  The  following  summarises  the  more 
detailed information on transposition contained in the Siemens-time.lex study.  

The 2004 EU Public Procurement Directives defined a new set of procedures e.g. e-Auctions, 
Framework Agreements, Buyer Profiles and Dynamic Purchasing Systems (DPS) designed to 
give  procurement  authorities  a  range  of  possibilities  to  carry  out  effective  and  efficient 
procurement. Some such procedures (e-auctions, DPS) were explicitly designed for the use of 
electronic  means,  to  improve  procurement  outcomes  by  taking  maximum  advantage  of  the 
possibilities offered by technology.  

Member States were given the choice of implementing provisions concerning the use of such 
tools.  It  is  therefore  important  to  examine  the  main  approaches  adopted  and  understand  the 
current e-Procurement context in different countries.  

5.2.1.  E-Auctions 

e-Auctions are defined in the Public Procurement Directives as ‘a repetitive process involving 
an electronic device for the presentation of new prices, revised downwards, and/or new values 
concerning  certain  elements  of  tenders,  which  occurs  after  an  initial  full  evaluation  of  the 
tenders, enabling them to be ranked using automatic evaluation methods’22. Thus, through an 
electronic  auction,  economic  operators  are  invited  to  update  their  offers  one  or  more  times 
after  the  initial  submission  with  respect  to  the  price  or  to  other  criteria  that  can  be 
automatically  evaluated,  in  order  to  ensure  that  their  offer  is  optimally  placed  to  win  the 
procurement  contract.  The  Directives  exclude  from  the  scope  of  electronic  auctions  certain 
service contracts and works contracts having as their subject matter intellectual performances, 
as such performances cannot reasonably be evaluated automatically.  

In  2004,  seven  countries  reported  some  experience  with  e-Auctions,  while  23  countries 
expressed the intention to introduce e-Auctions. In 2010, 26 countries support its use. Among 
the six countries that have not transposed the e-Auctions provisions, only two countries do not 
intend to do so (DE and LI). The majority of countries opted for a direct transposition of the 
provisions of the Directives. Where gold-plating23 has occurred, countries have added further 
provisions intended to delineate the scope of e-Auctions and to clarify communication flows 
during e-Auctions. 

Table 2 - Transposition choice: e-Auctions 

e-Auctions transposition 
choice 

Legally supported 

Not legally supported 

26 

6 

Direct transposition 

Gold plating 

Simplified transposition 

Unknown 

15 countries (including 12 Member 
States) 

6 countries (including 5 Member 
States) 

1 country (including 1 Member 
State) 

4 countries (including 4 Member 
States) 

Source: DG MARKT based on Siemens-time.lex report 

22 
23 

Article 1.7 of Directive 2004/18/EC 
Gold-plating  refers  to  the  practice  where  national  bodies  exceed  the  terms  of  European  Community 
directives  when  implementing  them  into  national  law  (see  Commission  Communication  on 
simplification; see http://ec.europa.eu/governance/better_regulation/glossary_en.htm#top) 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5.2.2.  Framework agreements 

Framework agreements are defined in the Directives as “an agreement between one or more 
contracting  authorities  and  one  or  more  economic  operators,  the  purpose  of  which  is  to 
establish the terms governing contracts to be awarded during a given period, in particular with 
regard  to  price  and,  where  appropriate,  the  quantity  envisaged”.  Through  framework 
agreements,  a  temporary  ad  hoc  environment  is  thus  created  within  which  contracting 
authorities  can  launch  specific  procurements,  for  which  offers  can  only  be  submitted  by 
economic  operators  who  are  a  part  of  this  environment,  and  in  which  these  offers  must 
comply with the specific requirements of the environment. Electronically managed framework 
agreements  have  the  potential  to  include  more  economic  operators  and  to  serve  more 
contracting authorities, leading to more efficient purchases.  

In  2004,  there  was  experience  with  framework  agreements  in  15  Member  States.  Relevant 
provisions  were  transposed  in  all  the  Member  States  except  Belgium  where  framework 
contracts are recognised. Some Member States adopted provisions so as to adapt the content 
of the Directives with specific features e.g. Austria has made the use of electronic framework 
agreements mandatory for federal authorities for specific goods and services. (Please note, the 
standard  forms  received  from  Belgian  authorities  indicating  framework  agreement  were 
actually framework contracts, concluded between a single contracting authority and a single 
economic operator for a limited duration of time.) 

5.2.3.  Buyer profiles 

Buyer  profiles  are  an  optional  feature  introduced  in  the  2004  Directives24,  intended  as  an 
additional information element to advertise planned purchases in a given year. This should be 
published  on  the  websites  of  contracting  authorities,  providing  certain  basic  information  as 
requested by the Directives. The information published on buyer profiles is non-binding and 
should be regarded as an "early warning" system, which has to be complemented by a very 
short notice in the OJ. 

The current transposition status of buyer profiles is the following: 

Table 3 - Transposition choice: buyer profiles 

Buyer profiles are supported/defined in the 
legislation 

Buyer profiles are not supported/defined in 
the legislation 

20 countries (including 18 Member States 

12 countries (including 9 Member States) 

Source: Siemens-time.lex country fiches 

However,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  transposition  of  the  buyer  profile  might  be  somewhat 
unclear  -  among  the  very  small  number  of  "notices  on  a  buyer  profile"  published  on  TED 
between  2006  and  2008,  73.9%  did  not  mention  the  URL  where  the  buyer  profile  could  be 
found, which is a major requirement for the proper use of buyer profiles. 

24 

Point 2(b) of Annex VIII of Directive 2004/18/EC 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5.2.4.  DPS 

A DPS is defined in the Directives as “a completely electronic process for common purchases, 
the  characteristics  of  which,  as  generally  available  on  the  market,  meet  the  requirements  of 
the contracting authority, which is limited in duration and open throughout its validity to any 
economic operator which satisfies the selection criteria and has submitted an indicative tender 
that complies with the specification.”25 

In  essence,  a  DPS  can  be  thought  of  as  an  electronic  open  framework  agreement  i.e.  a 
procurement system in which economic operators that have joined the DPS via an indicative 
tender can choose to announce the availability of standardised goods, services or works which 
meet the requirements defined by the contracting authority that set up the DPS, and which can 
thereafter  be  used  by  that  contracting  authority  to  easily  and  electronically  acquire  such 
goods,  services  or  works  from  the  most  favourable  economic  operator.  Contrary  to  a 
framework  agreement,  new  economic  operators  can  join  a  DPS  after  its  establishment  by 
submitting  an  indicative  tender  which  meets  the  requirement  of  the  DPS.  As  with  a 
framework  agreement,  accession  to  a  DPS  does  not  necessarily  lead  to  a  concrete 
procurement as such; an economic operator could join a DPS and offer its goods or services to 
contracting authorities without ever successfully concluding a procurement contract for these 
products or services with an economic operator. This could be because there is no demand for 
the  goods  or  services  being  offered  or  because  another  economic  operator  offers  more 
favourable terms.  

In 2004, when there was virtually no experience with DPS, 18 Member States expressed their 
intention to implement it. In 2010, 27 countries legally support it. Among the five countries 
that have not transposed the DPS provisions, only two countries do not intend to do so (DE 
and SE).  

Within  their  national  legislation,  10  Member  States  have  added  further  provisions  on  DPS, 
relating to: clarification of the conceptual framework and the different stages; delineating the 
scope of DPS as well as procedural and/or administrative requirements. This may show that 
some  Member  States  felt  it  was  necessary  to  address  a  lack  of  clarity  in  the  Directive 
provisions on DPS. 13 adopted a direct transposition and only one country chose a simplified 
transposition (Estonia). 

Table 4 - Transposition choice: dynamic purchasing systems 

DPS transposition 
choice 

Legally supported 

Not legally supported 

27 

5 

Direct transposition  

Gold plating 

Simplified transposition 

Unknown 

13 countries (including 9 Member 
States) 

10 countries (including 9 
Member States)) 

1 country (including 1 Member 
States)) 

3 countries (including 3 
Member States)) 

Source: DG MARKT based on Siemens-time.lex report 

25 

Article 1.6 of Directive 2004/18/EC 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5.2.5.  E-Signatures 

In  2004,  15  out  of  25  Member  States  reported  the  introduction  of  electronic  advanced 
signatures  and  seven  expressed  their  intention  to  introduce  such  signature.  In  2010,  18 
countries  expressly  require  the  use  of  electronic  signatures  in  e-Procurement  procedures, 
while 13 countries do not explicitly require them. In terms of the type of signature required, 
13  out  of  the  27  Member  States  have  introduced  a  legal  requirement  specifying  the  use  of 
advanced  e-Signatures.  The  regulatory  choices  of  Member  States  in  regard  to  e-Signatures 
may indicate their preferences in relation to security and trust but also need to be considered 
from a cross-border and interoperability perspective.  

Table 5 – Transposition choice: e-Signature 

e-Signature is always required 

Contracting authority may require the use of an e-Signature 

e-Signature  

4 countries 
(including 3 
Member 
States) 

Advanced e-
Signature 

4 countries 
(including 3 
Member 
States) 

Advanced 
based on 
qualified 
certificate 

Qualified 
signature 

4 countries 
(including 4 
Member 
States) 

6 countries 
(including 6 
Member 
States) 

e-Signature  

4 countries 
(including 4 
Member 
States) 

Advanced e-
Signature 

6 countries 
(including 4 
Member 
States) 

Source: DG MARKT based on Siemens-time.lex report 

5.2.6.  Transposition: time taken and approaches adopted 

No signature 
requirement 

Advanced 
based on 
qualified 
certificate 

Qualified 
signature 

0 countries 
(including 0 
Member 
State) 

1 country 
(including 1 
Member 
State) 

2 country 
(including 2 
Member 
States) 

In the 2004 EIA Member States indicated their intended transposition timetable and approach, 
against  which  the  actual  transposition  process  can  be  compared.  The  deadline  for 
transposition  was  31st  January  2006.  At  that  time,  one  country  anticipated  transposition  in 
2004  (DK),  while  14  Member  States  expected  the  Directive  to  be  transposed  in  2005  and 
eight  in  2006.  Two  Member  States  did  not,  at  that  point,  have  a  set  timetable  for 
implementing the Directives. In fact 11 Member States implemented the Directive within the 
applicable deadline and 21 countries transposed with some delay (among them the five non - 
EU  countries).  On  average,  the  delay  compared  to  Member  States'  expectations  was  around 
14 months. 

With respect to the different transposition approaches, Member States either opted to update 
existing Public Procurement Acts or to create entirely new ones: 22 countries chose to adopt 
new  acts,  whereas  10  decided  to  update  existing  acts.  Several  strategies  were  adopted  by 
Member States: some opted for a transposition telle quelle; others chose to add further details 
to the Directive provisions in the national legislations (so-called "gold-plating"). 

5.3.  What e-Procurement strategies have been adopted? 

The differences in the existing administrative context and culture, available IT infrastructures 
and the state of art of early e-Procurement operations, have all contributed to Member States 
choosing different strategies to implement e-Procurement. 

5.3.1.  National level approaches 

The  Action  Plan  recommended  that  Member  States  adopt  national  plans  to  channel  and 
coordinate the efforts of the national procurement authorities towards the defined goals. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
From  the  policy  point  of  view,  only  18  out  of  the  32  examined  countries  adopted  national 
action plans containing “measurable performance targets” as required by the Action Plan. 14 
countries  have  either  no  action  plan  at  all  or  only  loosely  defined  high  level  policy 
declarations.  

The level of policy detail for national action plans is summarised in the following table: 

Table 6 - National action plans 

No action plan / high level only 

Action plan with phases of 
implementation 

Action plan with uptake goals 

Action plan with cost savings 
goals 

Bulgaria Denmark Estonia 
Finland Greece Hungary 
Luxembourg Malta Poland 
Slovakia Slovenia UK 

Belgium Cyprus France 
Germany Latvia Lithuania 
 The Netherlands Portugal Spain 
Sweden 

Iceland Liechtenstein 

Croatia Turkey 

Austria Cyprus France Germany 
Ireland Italy Latvia Romania 

Czech Republic Ireland Italy 
Latvia Portugal  

Turkey 

Norway Turkey 

14 countries (including 12 
Member States) 

12 countries (including 10 
Member States) 

9 countries (including 8 
Member States) 

7 countries (including 5 
Member States) 

Source: Siemens-time.lex report 

In terms of the development of an e-Procurement policy, the Ernst & Young survey gives an 
insight  to  the  various  approaches.  Most  countries  adopted  a  "step  by  step"  implementation 
approach (14 replies put of 22); two went "big bang", introducing a full and comprehensive 
policy;  one  developed  the  policy  as  it  went  along;  two  answered  that  they  have  no  current 
implementation of e-Procurement. As regards the timing of policy developments, 12 out of 22 
respondents answered that their e-Procurement strategy was still being implemented in 2010 
while six out of 22 have completed it (others have not answered or did not know). 

The Action Plan also highlighted two other types of specific plan: i) to be targeted at SMEs 
and ii) individual national buyers. Only four instances of clear SME related plans were found 
by  Siemens-time.lex  in  Ireland,  France,  Scotland  and  Italy.  All  four  countries  have 
experienced  some  success  in  encouraging  SMEs  to  move  from  paper  based  to  electronic 
procurement. Some concerns are also being voiced in other countries where there is a feeling 
that  SMEs  are  being  excluded  from  procurement  opportunities,  often  due  to  trends  towards 
aggregation and centralisation. 

Although Siemens-time.lex did not identify any Action Plans which were adopted by national 
buyers,  replies  to  the  Ernst  and  Young  Member  State  questionnaire  did  imply  that  nine 
countries (from 22 replying to the questionnaire) had found it useful to address the issue of 
most powerful buyers for procurement at a non-central level; six countries had found it useful 
to have elements relating to regional buyers; similarly seven countries had found it useful to 
have elements relating to local buyers.  

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
Public Contracts Scotland portal26- SMEs participation 

The  Public  Contracts  Scotland  (PCS  portal  -  www.publiccontractsscotland.gov.uk/  )  was 
created to act as a single public sector “electronic portal” to support this process. 

The system is intended to allow all public sector contracting authorities in Scotland to manage 
the  procurement  process  from  end-to-end  in  an  electronic  environment,  from  preparing 
standard documentation to advertising a notice, from receiving electronic tenders to awarding 
a  contract.  It  is  currently  used  by  over  1100  public  sector  users  across  central  government 
(including agencies and non-departmental public bodies) and local government; the National 
Health  Service;  higher  and  further  education  organisations;  police,  fire  and  rescue  services; 
voluntary  sector  organisations;  registered  social  landlords  and  all  other  public  sector 
contracting authorities operating in Scotland.  

Uptake  has  been  successful,  with  28.000  economic  operators  registered,  82%  of  which  are 
SMEs.  In  the  first  eight  months  of  operation,  over  780.000  e-mail  alerts  were  sent  to 
economic  operators,  alerting  them  to  over  3.700  potential  business  opportunities.  This  has 
resulted in over 16.000 notes of interest on contracts, of which 81% are from SMEs. 

As  for  investments  associated  with  this  portal,  implementation  costs  were  reported  to  be 
between €500,000 and €999,000, with yearly costs between €49,000 and €299,000. Economic 
effects are estimated in the range of €1,000,000 and €5,000,000. 

Source: DG MARKT, based on Siemens-time.lex report 

5.3.2.  Centralisation 

A major policy concern, linked to Objective 2 of the Action Plan, relates to the question of the 
centralisation  of  purchases.  The  2004  Directives  introduce  the  notion  of  central  purchasing 
bodies  (CPBs)  as  entities  that  procure  on  behalf  of  other  public  bodies,  meaning  that  the 
actual beneficiary of such procurement is not its contracting authority27. This has two possible 
consequences: 

–  CPBs  may  reach  greater  efficiency  in  procurement,  as  they  buy  on  a  larger  scale,  which 
can  create  savings.  They  may  frequently  use  framework  agreements  (and  DPS),  thus 
conducting lighter procedures and/or saving time; 

–  CPBs  could  reduce  competition,  particularly  if  they  use  framework  agreements  with 
identified suppliers and which may exclude SMEs (which are assumed to be less capable 
of providing the resources required by large framework agreements.) 

The study conducted by Ernst & Young provides interesting data on centralisation and CPBs. 
It  implies  that  many  countries  have  encouraged  centralisation;  12  respondents  have 
encouraged centralisation at central/national level and seven of these twelve have also done so 
at regional or local level. Of these seven, five countries also promote centralisation at sectoral 
level. Thus centralisation at all levels (i.e. national, regional, local and vertical) is occurring in 
a fairly small number of countries.  

26 
27 

Source: http://www.epractice.eu/en/cases/pcscotland  
Article 11 of Directive 2004/18/EC 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Almost  all  countries  encouraging  centralisation  at  national  level  also  reported  an  effective 
increase in the aggregation of purchases. At regional/local level, 5/7 countries reported such 
an increase and 3/5  at  sectoral  level.  Only two  countries  did  not  experience  any  increase  in 
centralisation, despite having encouraged it at central/national and regional level. Conversely, 
some countries experienced an increase in centralisation while not explicitly encouraging it. 

Considering the different ways to centralise purchases, the survey seems to imply that most 
purchasing bodies are found at national level, 16 Member States declared at least one national 
purchasing body and only three stated that they have none at that level. Interestingly, very few 
countries  seem  to  have  purchasing  bodies  acting  on  regional  or  local  levels.  One  country, 
Norway, has a large number (40) of local purchasing bodies.  

The following table gives an overview of the number of CPBs by country. 

Figure 3 - Central Purchasing Bodies at national level 

Purchasing bodies per country

s
e
i
d
o
b
g
n
i
s
a
h
c
r
u
p
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Vertical 

Local

Regional

National level

AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IR IT LI LT LU MT NO PT RO SE SI SK UK

Countries

Source: DG MARKT based on Ernst & Young stakeholders survey 

5.3.3. 

Simplification 

Simplification was one of the key policy targets of the Action Plan. This simplification could 
be compared against two situations, i) to paper procurement, or ii) to the situation in 2004. In 
both cases, the current state of play seems to be more efficient for the phases of e-Notification 
and e-Access. As per the provisions of the Directives, use of the two electronic phases allows 
a subsequent reduction of the procedural times. As those phases are both available in 29 of the 
32 countries, there is a strong potential for simplification, but no figures relating to the length 
of  procedures  are  currently  available  which  might  help  to  confirm  this  (the  underlying 
assumption  being  that  simpler  procedures  take  less  time).  It  should  be  underlined  also  that 
economic operators, particularly SMEs, raised some concern about the reduction in timescales 
and the subsequent time available to prepare their bids.  

From  looking  at  the  portals  and  platforms,  it  would  seem  that  those  which  require  simpler 
authentication are likely to be less subject to cross-border difficulties. One example is the use 
of username/password systems, for instance in Ireland or the UK, which is simpler to manage 
for  both  buyers  and  suppliers  and  theoretically  permits  easier  cross-border  access  if  the 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
requirements  to  obtain  identifiers  are  kept  accessible  to  foreign  users.  Tools  or  procedures 
more complex to set up such as DPS seem to have been neglected.  

Public  Procurement  in  general  has  been  targeted  as  being  a  priority  area  by  the  "Better 
regulation" agenda of the European Commission and is one of the policy areas considered by 
the  High  Level  Group  of  Independent  Stakeholders  on  Administrative  Burdens  ('Stoiber 
group').  In  this  forum,  e-Procurement  has  been  promoted  as  a  means  to  simplify  public 
procurement. 

5.3.4.  Mandatory requirements 

On  the  question  of  whether  the  use  of  e-Procurement  should  or  should  not  be  made 
mandatory,  there  are  interesting  differences  in  approach.  According  to  the  Ernst  &  Young 
survey, eight Member States have already made e-Notification mandatory and a further four 
are thinking of doing the same. At present, two countries have made e-Access mandatory. In 
other  cases,  some  Member  States  have  made  or  plan  to  make  post-award  phases  such  as 
invoicing and payment mandatory (SE & DK). Other Member States do not plan to adopt a 
mandatory approach. 

It is interesting to see that many countries have preferred to introduce a more restrictive policy 
than the EU legislation, including mandatory elements in parts of their e-Procurement systems 
and procedures. The most frequent element is e-Signatures, made mandatory in 19 of the 32 
countries.  Some  Member  States  have  made  the  use  of  specific  phases  mandatory  for 
purchases above certain threshold values or for defined types of purchases (e.g. AT and FR 
for  e-Submission).  Portugal  has  taken  the  strongest  approach,  in  this  regard,  making  e-
Procurement  mandatory  for  the  whole  pre-award  process.  The  table  provided  in  annex  IX 
gives an overview of the situation for the 32 countries.  

5.4.  What infrastructure has been put in place? 

5.4.1.  Different types of infrastructure identified 

Existing types of e-Procurement infrastructures can be summarised as follow: 

a) e-Procurement platform: A solution designed specifically for an individual organisation 
to  support  its  procurement  processes.  Due  to  the  high  development  costs,  such  a  system  is 
commonly used by large organisations with a high number of procurement processes. 

b)  Multi-organisation  platform:  A  solution  that  a  service  provider  develops  and  runs  for 
subscribing procurement organisations. Individual buyers "rent"  from  a third party a private 
space  on  the  procurement  application  where  they  can  define  their  own  users,  processes  and 
deliverables. This model is widely implemented across Europe with many variants. The third-
party service is offered in certain countries by a public body and in other countries by private 
organisations  on  a  competitive  basis.  Subscription  by  procurement  authorities  and  charges 
vary accordingly. In some countries (e.g. Portugal), this model has been made mandatory to 
achieve economies of scale for the whole public sector e.g. Vortal (PT). 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
The new Portuguese legal framework 

Under  the  new  Portuguese  legal  framework  (Decree  18/2008),  from  1  November  2009  any 
public  procurement  procedure  (open,  restricted  or  negotiated)  has  to  be  conducted 
electronically  (from  e-Notification  to  e-Award).  In  concrete  terms,  contracting  authorities 
have to use one of the seven currently certified platforms to run their procedures.  

It is interesting to see that each and every step of an e-Procurement procedure can be managed 
on  line  in  Portugal  in  systems  which  are  not  intended  to  create  any  extra  costs  for  the 
economic operators. The costs related to the use of the platform are borne by the contacting 
authorities through service contracts with the platform. In terms of e-Signatures, Portuguese 
citizens  and  companies  may  use  their  e-ID  card  to  sign  throughout  the  procedure.  In  the 
future,  this  option  will  probably  also  be  opened  up  to  citizens  and  companies  from  EU 
Member States using similar e-ID cards. In the meantime, foreigners may request to have the 
signature  they  use  recognised  as  valid  by  the  Portuguese  system,  after  it  has  undergone 
validation by recognised e-Signatures verification authorities.  

The measured impacts of e-Tendering in Portugal are: 

–  Open procedures reduced from 88 to 49 days 

–  Estimated annual administrative costs savings (time, overheads, paper etc.) of €28 million 

per year. 

Source: DG MARKT, based on 2008, Deloitte "Impacts of the Introduction of the Public Contract 
Law" quoted in L. Valadares Tavares (eVA), "Public e-Tendering in the European Union" 

c) CPBs' framework platform: A system supporting the provision of goods and services to 
public offices under framework  agreements signed  by  a  CPB.  CPBs,  at  national  or  regional 
level,  establish  framework  contracts  setting  conditions  and  terms  for  the  supply  of  certain 
(common)  products  and/or  the  provision  of  (common)  services  to  the  benefit  of  the  public 
buyers  in  their  jurisdiction.  Products  and  services  covered  by  each  framework  contract  are 
usually  then  placed  in  a  catalogue.  By  navigating  such  a  database,  individual  public  offices 
issue  specific  orders  (by  basically  selecting  how  much  they  want  to  buy  in  the  case  of 
products  and  what  type  of  tasks  they  want  to  be  performed  in  the  case  of  services).  One 
example is the Austrian Federal Procurement Agency (FPA). 

d) Marketplace: A general catalogue of (common) products and services offered by a CPB to 
public buyers in a country or region. Interested suppliers subscribing to these services publish 
their  products  in  the  catalogue  offered  by  the  CPB  specifying  price,  delivery  time,  areas 
served, guarantee period, etc. Procurers can navigate the catalogue, identifying for each item 
the  suppliers  offering  that  item  and  the  related  conditions  and  terms.  They  then  choose  the 
product by placing it into a "shopping cart". This type of service can only be used for below 
threshold procurement, complying in legal terms to placing a direct order within an informal 
list of accredited economic operators. The Italian marketplace MEPA provides such services 
(see box below). 

e)  Procurement  portal:  A  web  based  solution  offering  a  single  entry  point  to  a  number  of 
procurement  platforms  such  as  those  indicated  above.  The  portal  may  provide  some 
information  on  top  of  the  services  that  it  gives  access  to.  Again,  the  portal  may  be  run  by 
national authorities or by businesses on a competitive basis. 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
The Italian Electronic Public Administration's Marketplace (MEPA)28 

“The  Italian  Public  Administration  e-Marketplace  is  a  virtual  market  in  which  any  Public 
Administration  can  buy  goods  and  services,  below  the  European  threshold,  offered  by 
suppliers qualified according to non restrictive selection criteria. The entire process is digital, 
using  digital  signature  to  ensure  transparency  of  the  process.  It  is  a  dynamic  tool  in  which 
products  and  services  are  presented  in  e-Catalogues  according  to  standard  formats.  […]  It 
allows  the  public  administration  to  negotiate  the  price  and  service  conditions  by  inviting  a 
pool  of  qualified  suppliers  to  make  a  customized  quotation,  providing  both  price  and 
technical/quality  details."  This  dynamic  procedure  stimulates  strong  competition,  gathering 
offers from various suppliers. In 2007, the volume of all purchases completed through MEPA 
since its launch in 2003 reached €160 million. Recent regulations have made the use of the 
Marketplace compulsory for central public bodies. Implementation costs were reported to be 
between  €5,000,000  and  €10,000,000.  General  economic  effects  were  estimated  to  be  over 
€10,000,000. 

One  of  the  main  goals  of  MEPA  was  to  improve  SME  participation  in  public  procurement 
procedures, through openness, transparency and process simplification related to the adoption 
of electronic tools. This policy appears to have been successful: 

–  97% of registered suppliers (more than 5.000) are SMEs, and 64% are “micro” (less than 

10 employees). 

–  SMEs receive more than 90% of MEPA total spending (€170 million in 2008) - “micro” 

enterprises get 45%. This represents a substantial increase against 2005 figures.29  

Source: DG MARKT based on ePractice 

5.4.2.  Overview of existing infrastructure 

Overall,  the  availability  of  portals  and  platforms  for  e-Procurement  in  the  countries  studied 
has  increased  dramatically  since  2004.  The  degree  of  sophistication  and  coverage  of  the  e-
Procurement  phases  varies,  but  the  progress  from  2004  is  encouraging.  The  number  of 
available systems and websites has also significantly increased. The Siemens-time.lex report 
draws  on  the  study  of  129  main  sites  (22  CPBs,  81  portal  sites  and  26  platforms),  which 
compared  to  the  36  systems  identified  in  2004,  clearly  shows  the  growth  in  the  number  of 
sites.  Both  the  lists  for  2004  and  2010  were  not  necessarily  comprehensive  -  they  gathered 
what was known at the time and where duplicates exist, certain solutions were counted as one 
-  for  example  the  German  private  sector  owned  Administration  Intelligence  AG  platform, 
which  is  available  in  a  number  of  contracting  authorities  (e.g.  the  cities  of  Frankfurt  and 
Bremen  and  Hessen  (Land)).  Furthermore,  the  Siemens-time.lex  study  shows  that  "at  least 
rudimentary  systems  are  now  known  to  exist  in  all  but  two  countries:  Greece  and 
Liechtenstein30".  

28
29 

30 

EN 

See http://www.epractice.eu/en/cases/mepa1  
For  more  information  see:  « The  determinants  of  suppliers’  performance  in  e-Procurement:  evidence 
from  the  electronic  public  administration’s  marketplace  (MEPA),  Gian  Luigi  Albano,  Federico  Dini, 
Fana; 
Roberto 
http://www.consip.it/on-
line/Home/Ricercaesviluppo/UfficioStudi/Ricercheincorso/documento4679.html 
Siemens-time.lex report, section 5.3.2.2 

Zampino 

Marta 

and 

see 

41 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
It is important to note that availability in this context means that there is a national capacity 
for  running  a  specific  phase  or  tool.  It  does  not  mean  that  these  elements  are  necessarily 
available on the same platform, or that they are interoperable at national level when operated 
on  different  platforms.  On  the  same  basis,  the  availability  of  phases,  tools  or  parts  of  a 
procedure does not mean that national solutions are opened to foreign bidders.  

Cross border accessibility can be marred in practice through language barriers. Based on an 
examination of 129 key sites, 39 provided at least some information in languages other than 
the national language(s). In each of these 39 cases, English is among the supported languages. 
However,  only  13  of  these  39  sites  were  ranked  as  comprehensive,  i.e.  providing  enough 
information in the translated language to permit full usage of the website. Language coverage 
thus remains a key challenge.  

E-Bourgogne platform/e-Ten procure pilot project 

Launched  in  2005,  the  e-Procurement  platform  e-Bourgogne  serves  over  950  public  bodies 
from  the  Burgundy  region  of  France.  The  platform  has  been  used  by  more  than  17,000 
economic  operators  (mostly  local  SMEs,  but  also  many  companies  from  across  Europe), 
generating  a  total  of  nearly  315  000  downloads  and  more  than  8000  electronic  tenders 
between 2005 and 2009. A reduction of 15-20% in the value of regular small tenders has been 
reported. Contracting authorities have also experienced an increase in the number of tenders 
received, from one or two to 10 to 2031. The mutualisation of development and exploitation of 
the platform allowed savings of €3 to 4 million.  

The  technology  used  in  e-Bourgogne  has  been  made  available  to  other  regions  of  the  EU 
thanks  to  the  EU-funded  PROCURE  project;  The  platform  was  built  with  an  open-source 
licence, which enabled any other organisation to take it, adapt it and deploy it for their own e-
tendering protocols. PROCURE has benefited from the expertise of the e-Bourgogne team to 
roll  out  an  e-tendering  platform  in  several  other  EU  regions:  Brittany,  Central  Bohemia, 
Guadeloupe,  Piedmont,  and  Uddevalla.  But  PROCURE  goes  a  step  further  than  simply 
deploying isolated systems. The project links them together and creates the first interregional 
network of shared e-Procurement platforms, providing cross-border e-Procurement solutions. 
Economic operators would benefit from greater business opportunity in a one-stop shop, with 
single registration; while contracting authorities enjoy the results of increased competition. 

Source: DG MARKT based on ePractice and eTen Procure websites 

With regards to available phases and tools, the Siemens-time.lex report included the following 
summary chart, drawing on data relating to the known portals and platforms: 

31

EN 

http://cordis.europa.eu/ictresults/index.cfm?section=news&tpl=article&BrowsingType=Featur

es&ID=90524 

42 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
Figure 4 – Availability of phases and tools 2004 vs. 2010 

Theoretically available phases and tools: 

2004 (red) and  2010 (blue) availability of phases and  tools in key eProcurement  systems among the
Member States: 

Evolution between 2004 and 2010:  

Source: Siemens-time.lex report 

It is interesting to see that the most widespread phases in 2004 and 2010 are the same, namely 
e-Notification and e-Auction. Efforts seem to be more focused on the pre-award phases than 
on  the  post-award.  The  availability  of  e-Payment  and  DPS  has  not  changed  much  between 
2004 and 2010. It is important to stress, this chart shows the theoretical availability and not 
the  usage,  and  does  not  make  visible  inconsistencies  or  gaps  in  the  "straight  through  e-
Procurement" process across Member States. It is also interesting to note that the availability 
of e-Evaluation and e-Award is much lower compared to the other pre-award phases; a similar 
tail-off is observed over the post-award phases from e-Ordering to e-Payment.  

Another element to take into consideration within the current state of play is that just because 
a  specific  tool  or  phase  is  legally  possible  does  not  mean  it  is  available,  let  alone  used,  in 
practice. The most striking example of this is the DPS, which is legally supported in 22 EU 
Member States, but supported on a know e-Procurement website in  only one Member State 
(France)32. 

5.4.3. 

Straight through e-Procurement: pre-award and post-award 

The table of availability provided in the Siemens-time.lex report33 gives a good overview of 
the situations of tools and phases across the countries. From an operational point of view, it 
can be summarised as shown in Table 7.  

Only  two  EU  and  one  EEA  countries  are  able  (or  will  be  soon)  to  run  a  fully  fledged  e-
Procurement  procedure,  from  e-Notification  to  e-Payment:  the  United  Kingdom,  Finland 
(which  stated  in  their  country  fiche  that  e-Evaluation  and  e-Awarding  was  in  a  pilot  phase) 
and Norway.  

This table indicates that the focus seems to have been more on the pre-award phases than on 
the post-award. Interestingly, the final phases of both the pre- and post-award phases of the 
procurement procedure are missing in a number of countries: 

–  E-Evaluation and e-Award for the pre-award, which can be more difficult to automate or 

which may require a human intervention in a large number of cases; 

32 
33 

Siemens-time.lex, section 3.2.2, page 79 
Siemens-time.lex, section 5.3.2.1, page 128 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
–  E-Payment  for  the  post-award,  which  might  be  more  related  to  accounting  and  banking 

than to procurement strictly speaking. 

On the pre-award part, two Member States and the two candidate countries are still limited to 
the  one-way  flow  of  information  phases:  e-Notification  and  e-Access.  Three  countries  are 
considered in this table as having no or very limited pre-award experience:  

–  Iceland has an e-Notification system available without any known e-Access;  

–  Greece has no known platform or portal offering e-Notification, but is sending notices to 

TED in a structured format, which means that there is some e-Notification capacity; 

–  No information has been found for Liechtenstein.  

For e-Notification and e-Access, apart from the language barrier, the introduction of a cross 
border  dimension  does  not  make  the  technical  management  and  availability  of  this  phase 
significantly more complex, as there are no major access/usage difficulties. 

For  the  post-award  phases,  there  is  no  known  e-Invoicing  practice  in  countries  that  do  not 
have known e-Ordering practices.  

Table 7 – Availability of phases  

Part of the 
procurement 
procedure 

Availability of phases 

Countries 

Pre-award phases 

Full pre-award 

Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, 
Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Lithuania, 
Hungary, Malta, Austria, Portugal, 
Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Sweden, 
United Kingdom, Norway 

Post-award 
phases 

Full pre-award except e-
Evaluation and e-Award 

Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, 
Netherlands, Poland, Finland 

Only e-Notification and e-
Access 

Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Croatia, Turkey 

No pre-award or very limited  Greece, Liechtenstein, Iceland 

Full post-award 

Finland, United Kingdom, Norway 

Full post-award except e-
Payment 

No post-award or very 
limited 

Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, Sweden 

Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, 
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, 
Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, Iceland, 
Liechtenstein, Croatia, Turkey 

Source: DG MARKT based on Siemens-time.lex report 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
5.5. 

Resultant use of e-Procurement 

In  order  to  complement  the  availability  assessment  provided  above,  it  would  have  been 
interesting to have consistent figures corresponding to the usage (in terms of contract value) 
of  these  websites  (platforms  or  portals).  This  would  have  given  a  clearer  indication  of  the 
actual take-up of e-Procurement across the EU. Unfortunately, this is not possible at present. 
Whilst some websites appear to have impressive use data, it is difficult to place a figure on the 
exact volume of procurement being conducted through these sites. Some sites are used more 
for  below  EU  threshold  value  contracts,  others  for  above;  some  provide  data  on  all  the 
contracts they have helped to conduct since the creation of the website. It is also unclear how 
many  phases  need  to  be  completed  electronically  for  a  procurement  to  count  as  electronic. 
Whilst little can thus be said about the total value of contracts being procured electronically, 
some information is available about the use of the various phases and tools. 

Two  EU  Member  States  which  have  been  at  the  forefront  of  developing  e-Procurement, 
France and Italy, estimate that electronic procurement accounts now for approximately 4% (in 
France) and 2.5% (in Italy) of the total volume of procurement. In Austria, using just the data 
relating to the mandatory use of electronic frameworks by federal agencies, the figure would 
seem to be around 2%. Portugal, where e-Procurement has been mandatory since 1 Nov 2009, 
is the exception as it should now be nearing 100%. In the absence of comparable figures for 
2004, it is difficult to evaluate the progresses made either in those Member States or in the EU 
as a whole. However, based on the limited data available, there is no reason to believe overall 
EU use is currently greater than 5% of the total procurement value. 

As a summary, the following chart gives information on the number of e-Procurement phases 
and tools used in 2004 and 2010. 

Figure 5- Comparison of phases and tools used (2004 and 2010) 

 Use of phases and tools: 2004 vs. 2010

s
l
o
o
t
/
s
e
s
a
h
p
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

s
u
r
p
y
C

2004

2010

i

n
a
p
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

d
n
a
n
F

i

l

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

e
c
e
e
r
G

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

l

y
a
t
I

i

a
v
t
a
L

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

a
t
l
a
M

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

d
n
a
o
P

l

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

Countries

i

a
k
a
v
o
S

l

i

a
n
e
v
o
S

l

c

i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

Source: DG MARKT based on Siemens-time.lex 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The  phase  which  is  most  used  across  the  EU  is  certainly  e-Notification.  This  is 
understandable, as e-Notification is the entry point for any e-Procurement solution, be that via 
a  single  platform  or  an  e-Notification  website  linked  to  an  e-Tendering  platform  providing 
further functionality. 

The  following  chart  is  based  on  data  from  the  EU  Publications  Office  and  presents  the 
evolution in the transmission media for notices between 2001 and 2009. 

Figure 6 - Transmission media for notices 

Media 2001-2009

180.000

160.000

140.000

120.000

100.000

80.000

60.000

40.000

20.000

0

email
fax
paper
eNotices
eSenders

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Source: OP  

The  chart  shows  that  there  has  been  an  almost  constant  decrease  in  the  number  of  notices 
transmitted  by  fax  and  on  paper  (non-structured  data).  At  the  same  time  there  has  been  an 
almost constant increase in the number of notices sent by e-Senders (structured data) and e-
Notices (structured data) to the TED website, from their creation in 2005 following the release 
of the new standard forms requested by the Action Plan. Between 2001 and 2004 there seems 
to  have  been  a  move  to  using  e-mail  as  a  new  transmission  media  (non-structured  data, 
electronically  sent),  but  from  2005,  e-mails  follow  the  same  decreasing  trend  as  other  non-
structured media. 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
 
5.6. 

Assessment of the availability and use of specific e-Procurement tools  

The  following  table34  gives  a  picture  of  the  availability  of  electronic  tools.  It  should 
nevertheless  be  underlined  that  the  availability  of  tools  on  a  known  e-Procurement  website 
does not necessarily mean use in practice. 

Table 8 – Available tools: e-Catalogues, DPS and e-Auctions  

Tool 

Member States where it is available on known sites 

Total 

e-
Catalogues 
for e-
Ordering 

Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, 
Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Hungary, Austria, Poland, 
Portugal, Romania, Finland, Sweden, United Kingdom, 
Norway 

DPS 

France 

E-
Auctions 

Denmark, Ireland, France, Italy, Cyprus, Hungary, Poland, 
United Kingdom, Norway 

18 countries 
(including 17 
Member States) 

1 country (1 
Member State) 

9 countries 
(including 8 
Member States) 

Source: DG MARKT based on Siemens-time.lex report 

This section presents a more in-depth analysis of the situation with respect to electronic tools 
for e-Procurement in the Member States 

5.6.1.  E-Catalogues 

E-Catalogues  are  electronic  documents  established  by  suppliers,  according  to  the  guidelines 
or  layout  prescribed  by  the  contracting  authority  in  a  specific  procedure,  which  describe 
products and prices in a structured manner. E-Catalogues may constitute an offer in the pre-
award phase of a procedure or may be used for e-Ordering in the post-award phase. As they 
consist of two major elements – structure and contents – which should be standardised, but for 
which  there  are  currently  no  widely  used  standards  in  the  EU  market,  the  exchange  of  e-
Catalogues and their understanding by both parties may be complex. 

E-Catalogues are being used and developed but on an ad-hoc basis, rather than in a structured 
and  re-useable  format.  The  use  of  e-Catalogues  for  e-Submission  is  still  limited  (although 
some interesting use cases exist in Denmark and Cyprus). Currently, e-Catalogues appear to 
be  used  mostly  by  CPBs  for  ordering  under  framework  agreements,  using  ad-hoc  e-
Catalogues. There is, at the moment, no clearly defined experimentation on the re-use of e-
Catalogues in the e-Submission and e-Ordering phases of the same procedure. The re-use of 
an  e-Catalogue  is  possible  only  when  both  structure  and  contents  are  built  on  common 
standards.  

Whilst  attempts  to  improve  the  definition  of  standardised  elements  for  the  structure  is  well 
under  way,  with  studies  and  pilots  in  PEPPOL  and  e-Prior,  attempts  to  standardise  the 
contents  are  still  limited.  Contents  need  to  be  described  using  product  classifications  or 

34 

Data from Siemens-time.lex report, section 5.3.2.1, page 128 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
                                                 
dictionaries  which  are  sufficiently  detailed  to  clearly  identify  a  product  for  ordering  in  the 
post-award  phase,  or  describe  a  product  when  tendering  in  the  pre-award  phase.  CEN  is 
currently working, in its CC3P workshop, on proposals to take advantage of the strengths of 
several commonly used classifications. 

5.6.2.  Certificates and attestations 

E-Certificates  and  e-Attestations  are  the  electronic  equivalent  of  the  certificates  and 
attestations  used  in  traditional  paper  procurement.  They  refer  to  documentary  evidence 
provided  in  an  electronic  form  by  economic  operators,  together  with  their  bid,  in  order  to 
demonstrate compliance with particular requirements. 

Electronic certificates and attestations have been the subject of various implementations and 
attempts  to  balance  efficiency  and  security  according  to  countries'  priorities.  The  following 
table summarises the four types of measures which have been observed. 

Table 9 – e-Attestations and Certificates 

Economic operators 
provide a declaration 
of compliance 

- to postpone the 
submission of 
attestations 

- or to replace it 

- in some cases, 
submission of offers 
constitute an implicit 
declaration of 
compliance  

Economic operators 
register with a 
limited trusted third 
party (TTP) or 
prequalification 
system 

- single confirmation 
of compliance issued 
by the TTP 

- contracting 
authorities may be 
authorised to obtain 
information from the 
TTP 

Contracting 
authorities obtain the 
information from 
another public sector 
controlled entity 

Administrations issue 
electronic certificates 
or attestations signed 
with a PKI signature 

- still largely in a 
pilot stage 

- direct and protected 
transfer of 
information from an 
administration to 
another 

10 out of 32 
countries; 31% 

8 out of 32 countries; 
25% 

5 out of 32 countries; 
16% 

4 out of 32 countries; 
12,5% 

Source: DG MARKT based on Siemens-time.lex report 

The main approach adopted for certificates and attestations seen at present is to reduce as far 
as possible the need  to submit documents  (in  electronic or paper format) before signing the 
contract, thus relying on self-declarations from the economic operators. The existence of four 
separate  solutions,  relying  on  different  degrees  of  external  intervention,  may  increase  the 
problem of cross-border participation in public procurement between countries using different 
systems.  Moreover,  a  national  system  is  not  necessarily  interoperable  with  the  same  system 
ran in another country. 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
5.6.3.  E-Signatures 

Within  the  e-Procurement  context,  the  need  to  ensure  a  suitable  level  of  authentication  has 
been  a  key  concern.  E-Signatures  are  one  possible  solution  to  this  issue,  providing  the 
additional  benefit  of  establishing  data  integrity.  E-Signatures  are  electronic  information 
attached  to  documents  to  ensure  their  authenticity  and  integrity.  They  are  the  technological 
approach recommended (but not mandated) by the 2004 Directives35. When electronic means 
are used for public procurement, secure communication channels (such as those provided by 
TLS/SSL)  and/or  advanced  electronic  signatures  may  be  used  by  the  parties  involved,  to 
address authentication issues. 

As  a  result,  in  principle  contracting  authorities  are  free  (subject  to  national  regulations)  to 
choose  the  appropriate  means  of  communication  and  authentication,  including  electronic 
signatures.  

National  legislation  may  establish  mandatory  requirements  for  the  use  of  e-Signatures  (see 
section  5.2.5),  by  all  contracting  authorities,  or  may  allow  each  contracting  authority  to 
independently choose the level of signature required for a given procurement. The approach 
followed by the Member States in this area is very important, because the use of different e-
Signatures can lead to interoperability problems between countries. In particular, it may not 
be possible for one country to verify a document that is signed in another country, even in the 
case  that  a  tenderer  fully  adheres  to  the  specifications  and  applies  exactly  the  type  of 
electronic signature demanded by the contracting authority. 

This makes cross-border submission, in the case where an electronic signature is demanded, 
quite  complicated  at  present.  Procurements  requiring  simpler  but  less  secure  authentication 
methods  (e.g.  username  /  password)  are,  in  theory  at  least,  subject  to  fewer  cross-border 
difficulties. 

5.6.4.  Framework agreements 

As mentioned earlier, the situation in relation to framework agreements is different from the 
other e-Procurement elements as it is more a modality for public procurement than a real e-
Procurement  issue.  Legally  supported  across  all  the  countries,  apart  from  Belgium  which 
recognises framework contracts, its usage varies greatly depending on the countries. 

Table 10 - Use in practice: framework agreements 

Practice 

Low usage (less than 
1% of notices) 

Medium usage (1 to 10% 
of notices) 

High usage (more than 
10% of notices) 

Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, 
Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Malta 
and Poland  

Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, 
Germany, Estonia, Spain, Finland, Ireland, 
Luxembourg, Latvia, Portugal, Romania, 
Sweden, Slovenia and Slovakia 

Denmark, France, Netherlands and 
United Kingdom 

8 Member States 

15 Member States 

4 Member States 

Source: Siemens-time.lex report 

35 

The 2004 Directives establish that awarding entities may decide that communication and exchange of 
information  with  economic  operators  can  be  performed  exclusively  by  electronic  means  or  by  a 
combination of electronic means and paper.  

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In  general,  the  framework  model  has  proved  very  useful  and  successful.  In  some  countries 
Member  States  have  also  used  CPBs  or  central  agencies  to  provide  electronic  framework 
agreements  maximising  the  potential  of  e-Procurement  to  aggregate  contracts,  reduce  back 
office costs and reap efficiencies of scale. In an electronic format they should be able to serve 
a larger number of CAs and manage a larger number of participating EOs efficiently. Austria 
has made their use mandatory for electronic purchases by federal agencies (Sweden has also 
made their use mandatory by Government Agencies unless the agency finds a more beneficial 
solution but does not specify the use of electronic means).  

However,  there  may  still  be  some  issues  to  be  addressed  –  there  are  still  worries  about  the 
closed  nature  of  framework  agreements  reducing  competition  and  also  how  they  may  be 
restricting the access of SMEs to the procurement market 

5.6.5.  DPS 

Although  the  related  provisions  have  been  transposed  by  a  large  number  of  countries  (27 
countries),  the  analysis  of  TED  data  for  the  periods  2006-2009  shows  that  DPS  seem  to  be 
technically implemented only in France. In the other countries, the "simplified contract notice 
on a dynamic purchasing system" (standard form n°9) has been used only rarely. However, as 
none of these forms indicate references to a previous publication (the original contract notice 
establishing  a  DPS  must  be  referenced),  it  is  difficult  to  judge  if  these  publications  really 
indicates  that  DPS  are  available  in  the  country  publishing  the  form  n°9,  or  if  it  is  an 
inappropriate use of the form. Adding to this confusion, there are instances where form n°9 
has been used in Member States where DPS are not, or not yet, legally supported. 

5.6.6.  Buyer profiles 

The  availability  of  buyer  profiles  on  platforms  is  interesting  to  analyse.  Buyer  profiles  are 
legally  defined  in  20  countries  and  are  available  on  known  platforms  in  12  countries. 
However, buyer profiles are both legally defined and available in only 7 countries, meaning 
that technically they are available in 5 countries despite not being defined in the legislation.  

The  appropriate  standard  form36  to  advertise  the  use  or  update  of  a  buyer  profile  has  been 
used  in  14  Member  States,  including  one  Member  State  where  buyer  profiles  are  neither 
legally defined, nor available in any known platform. The actual usage of buyer profiles, as 
notified to TED, is very low (344 notices on a buyer profiles published on TED from 2006 to 
2009).  It  is  therefore  difficult  to  analyse  them  any  further.  The  tool  seems  either  to  be  too 
loosely defined to be interesting for contracting authorities, or too unclear to be properly used 
across the countries. A quick review of various websites implies a wider use, but the elements 
labelled as buyer profiles are often limited, acting more as an electronic business card. 

5.7. 

Technical approaches present in e-Procurement systems 

The choice of a particular technical approach has huge consequences both in terms of cross-
border  exchanges  and  interoperability  (because  of  conflicting  standards,  or  because  of  the 
non-recognition  of  certain  solutions  across  borders).  It  also  affects  the  sophistication  of  a 
solution and thus in different degrees, the overall automation of the processes. Authentication 
is also an important factor – many of the fears and concerns in moving towards e-Procurement 
relate to issues of trust; both EOs and CAs need to have faith that the systems put in place, the 

36 

Standard Form n°8 "Notice on a buyer profile" 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
                                                 
tools they are using are providing them with real, reliable information that can be handled and 
stored safely without risk of being altered or fraud being committed. There are also various 
ways  to  improve  efficiency  –  particularly  through  avoiding  practices  which  "re-invent  the 
wheel"  –  practitioners  want  to  obtain  the  maximum  re-usability  from  their  efforts,  avoid 
duplication and wherever possible, simplify the processes. 

5.7.1.  Authentication 

The  elimination  of  barriers  to  cross-border  procurement  was  one  of  the  main  goals  of  the 
Action Plan. The issue of authentication, particularly the use of e-Signatures, was considered 
at  that  time  as  being  a  key  factor  influencing  cross  border  exchanges.  As  shown  earlier 
(5.6.3), four different variants of e-Signatures are used in all but one Member State (Finland), 
either  compulsorily  or  not.  Authentication  systems  for  critical  phases  such  as  e-Submission 
can follow different techniques ranging from the fairly simple (but possibly less secure) to the 
very technical (but more secure): 

–  Using  a  username/password  authentication  following  prior  registration.  This  poses  few 
cross-border  problems  once  the  registration  is  completed,  if  no  country-specific 
information is required for the registration; and 

–  Using  PKI  based  authentication  systems  (supported  by  cryptography  using  encryption 

certificates). Currently these are, to large extent, unable to accept foreign solutions. 

5.7.2. 

Standardisation 

Technical  cross-border  difficulties  have  been  spotted  in  the  e-Ordering  and  e-Invoicing 
phases.  While  XML  based  standardisation  work  (notably  UBL  2.0)  is  becoming  more  and 
more  popular,  use  is  still  based  on  national  variations,  making  any  cross-border  application 
difficult or impossible in practice. 

Standardisation issues are also crucial for e-Catalogues, where there is no widespread use yet 
of  standards  like  UBL  or  UN/CEFACT  XML  schemes.  In  addition  to  this,  there  is  no 
widespread  unique  classification  system  to  describe  products  in  an  e-Catalogue  prospectus. 
Moreover, as e-Catalogues are currently often set up for ordering under a specific framework 
contract, ad-hoc solutions relying on the contracting authorities' own classification of products 
and preventing reuse are still common practices. 

5.8. 

Savings 

In terms of benefits delivered by operations ran across the EU, there were great expectations 
relating  to  the  savings  which  could  be  realised  as  a  result  of  the  introduction  of  e-
Procurement. The potential to reduce costs was promoted as a key incentive to encourage the 
switch  to  electronic  procedures.  Certain  Member  States  have  turned  it  into  an  objective  of 
their national strategy, such as Ireland where five of the quantitative targets of their national 
action plan were focused on costs.  

Due to the lack of appropriate data, it is not possible at this stage to evaluate the reduction of 
costs of single procedures in the Member States. E-Procurement is expected to have initially 
increased the costs due to the necessary spending for the creation of platforms, but a dramatic 
decrease of costs was expected, once the structural costs had been absorbed.  

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
There is however a small but growing body of proof that savings are being realised as a result 
of  e-Procurement  use  (see  box  below).  Wider  anecdotal  evidence  suggests  that  many 
contracting authorities and economic operators have made the switch-over to e-Procurement 
and would not contemplate a return to paper based procedures.  

The  ePractice37  website  gathers  case  studies  showing  examples  of  Member  States  (such  as 
Austria,  Spain,  France  or  Romania)  where  the  savings  made  through  e-Procurement  exceed 
the  investment  and  running  costs.  The  table  in  Annex  VIII  gives  a  broad  overview  of  the 
situation by Member State in terms of savings. 

Examples of savings and improvements 

•  Italian Emilia Romagna's agency Intercent ER offers e-Procurement services including e-
Marketplace,  e-Catalogues  and  e-Auctions  and  is  now  the  reference  point  for  539 
administrations  (90%  of  local  agencies).  In  2008  it  processed  transactions  amounting  to 
some € 419 million, delivering efficiency benefits of € 67.5 million and time savings of 45 
man-years.  

•  The  Austrian  Federal  Procurement  Agency  centralises  purchases  for  federal  authorities 
through e-Procurement functionalities. In 2008 it reported savings of €178 million against 
a procurement volume of €830 million. Benefits seem to significantly outweigh the annual 
maintenance costs of €5 million, which are less than 3% of the savings.  

•  As of 1 February 2005, all contracting authorities in Denmark may only accept electronic 
invoices. This reform affects approximately 15 million invoices a year, and applies to the 
entire public sector, from ministries to nursery schools. The use of e-Invoicing is expected 
to  save  the  public  €100  million  every  year,  on  top  of  savings  in  internal  administrative 
processes. 

•  In Norway, the Ehandel platform is helping authorities to achieve 20-40% reductions in the 
time taken to handle orders, receipt of goods and invoicing and delivering price savings in 
the region of 2-10%. 

•  In the UK, the Buying Solutions website reported in its 2008/09 annual report that it had 
facilitated  sales  of  over  £5  billion,  delivering  £732  million  in  savings.  The  UK  also 
reported  savings  frequently  exceeding  10%  (and  even  up  to  45%)  through  the  use  of  e-
Auctions and recently announced plans to use e-Auctions to save the taxpayer up to £270 
million by the end of 2011.  

•  A Portuguese study compared the best bids for public works contracted by 50 Portuguese 
public  hospitals  in  2009  (using  paper  based  systems)  and  2010  (using  e-Procurement).  It 
concluded that a cost reduction of 18% had been achieved in 2010, due to the increase in 
competition generated by e-Procurement.  

Source:  DG  MARKT,  based  on  ePractice,  national  e-Procurement  sites  and  Member  State 
presentations 

37 

http://www.epractice.eu/ 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Most of the required investment in e-Procurement must be undertaken at national or regional 
level, as this is where the needs and resources for system-building lie. Therefore, any efforts 
that  are  undertaken  at  EU  level  must  recognise  that  the  primary  impetus  for  e-Procurement 
comes from the national or regional level, or that of relevant contracting authorities. 

5.9. 

Comparison with the experiences of international partners 

It is interesting to see that the same trends visible in the EU and EEA in terms of the various 
developments in the e-Procurement arena can also be observed at international level. A set of 
reference  points  or  demonstrations  emerge  from  analysing  various  case  studies,  showing 
possible  areas  of  interest  in  relation  to  the  problems  being  encountered  in  the  EU  and  EEA 
countries.  On  a  general  note,  it  would  appear  that  at  an  international  level  also,  the  initial 
enthusiasm and high expectations for e-Procurement have not (yet) materialised and usage is 
still low. It is often observed that the lack of consistent e-Procurement indicators hampers the 
development  of  a  clear  picture  of  how  electronic  purchasing  techniques  are  evolving. 
However, many third countries have taken a more prescriptive and centralised approach than 
the  EU,  trying  to  address  specific  policy  targets  such  as:  inclusion  of  SMEs  (e.g.  by 
introducing  preferential  treatment  by  law);  definition  of  the  role  of  central  purchasing 
agencies;  preference  for  integrated  e-Procurement  systems  with  prior  supplier  registration 
("closed circuit" systems); use of e-Auctions and framework agreements. The intention is also 
often to switch the focus more on efficiency than only on compliance. 

The major success story at international level is the South Korean platform KONEPS38. From 
its origins in 1997, its efficiency has been recognised at international level and it has received 
several  international  awards  over  the  last  years  (including  from  the  UN  and  OECD).  This 
system  addresses  each  and  every  phase  of  a  procurement  procedure  from  notification  to 
payment,  with  one  single  registration  to  use  the  platform.  The  transaction  cost  savings  are 
estimated  at  4.5  billion  US$  per  year.  It  is  highly  centralised  and  fully  interconnected  with 
other  e-Government  elements  and  databases  in  Korea,  for  instance  the  acquisition  of 
certificates  through  queries  directly  from  KONEPS  to  the  relevant  administration.  It  is  also 
interconnected  with  banks  for  the  e-Payment  phase,  allowing  fast  payments.  The  system 
provides  high  degrees  of  security,  with  encryption  of  data  and  advanced  signature 
requirements,  for  example  through  the  biometric  identification  of  signatories.  Full 
transparency  is  ensured  through  real-time  process  tracking.  KONEPS  is  a  comprehensive 
communication system enabling the use of e-Catalogues, electronic marketplaces, features for 
CPBs,  and  also  feeds  from  other  e-Government  databases  such  as  the  one  for  taxation. 
KONEPS as communication interface could, to some extent, be compared to the infrastructure 
being developed by PEPPOL, but goes much further in terms of data acquisition and tools.  

The central government platform of Chile, ChileCompra39, is another example of a successful 
platform.  It  manages  transaction  volumes  of  60  billion  US$  per  year,  which  corresponds  to 
3.5% of GDP. The system manages around 500,000 public tenders per year, federating 85,000 
active  suppliers.  The  current  priority  of  ChileCompra  is  to  dramatically  increase  the  use  of 
electronic  catalogues.  The  main  asset  of  the  system is that it allows a comprehensive spend 
analysis, which allows procurers to better plan their purchasing process, to provide suppliers 
with better market information and to focus control agencies on high risk processes. Savings 

38 
39 

http://koneps.go.kr/ 
http://www.chilecompra.cl/ 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
                                                 
calculations are based on a comparison of internal and external marketplace prices. To date, 
they amount to more than 140 billion US$, half on prices paid and half on transaction costs. 

The  Canadian  Merx40  platform  is  a  good  example  of  the  diffusion  of  cross-border 
opportunities  and  of  the  interrelations  between  public  and  private  procurements.  The  first 
element  to  note  is  that  due  to  the  bilingual  nature  of  Canada,  the  Merx  platform  is  fully 
available  both  in  French  and  English,  and  public  contracts  notices  are  available  in  both 
languages.  It  is  open  both  to  public  and  private  procurement.  Nine  governments  of  Canada 
(out  of  13  provinces  and  territories)  and  the  federal  government  participate  in  Merx.  Under 
the tab "U.S. tenders", the platform makes available thousands of public procurement notices 
from U.S. government agencies, at federal, state and local levels. The "U.S. tenders" section 
of the platform links back to Canadian  public tenders, so that the platform is fully operable 
across  the  border  and  can  be  used  equally  by US  and  Canadian  operators.  The  existence  of 
such  a  cross-border  platform  can  partially  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  Mediagrif41,  the 
company  running  the  Merx  platform,  also  runs  the  Government  contracts  USA  portal42  and 
the  four  platforms  under  this  portal.  This  example  may  show  that  the  private  sector  has  a 
particular card to play in term of cross border interoperability when they operate services in 
the public interest. 

Much work has been done by the Multi-lateral Development Banks (MDBs) who promote the 
use  of  e-Procurement,  particularly  in  relation  to  requirements  for  anti-fraud  and  corruption 
measures.  Often  their  funding  is  tied  to  the  introduction  of  such  systems.  The  MDBs  are 
active in South America, but 10 EU countries are also eligible for their assistance. 

5.10. 

Summary – where are we today? 

The 2004 Action Plan permitted national, regional and other authorities to develop solutions 
and introduce e-Procurement, in the way best suited to them, subject to compliance with the 
legal  framework  and  the  guidance  provided.  Some  Member  States  have  taken  steps  to 
normalise  the  use  of  e-Procurement  within  their  borders,  setting  out  clear  rules  which  state 
exactly when, or when not, e-Procurement must be used. 

Other than TED (Tenders Electronic Daily – the electronic notification database put in place 
to allow contracting authorities to publicise their above threshold tenders at EU level), no EU 
level, centralised infrastructure was provided. Many of the measures in the Action Plan were 
"soft  law"  -  designed  to  promote  discussion  and  debate;  to  share  studies  or  experience  in 
developing such systems and disseminate best practise. 

This  policy  of  "letting  1000  flowers  bloom"  was  designed  to  encourage  creativity  and 
innovation in an emerging market, where no mature standards or technological solutions had 
yet  emerged.  Both  the  benefits  and  the  risks  of  this  strategy  have  now  crystallised.  This 
evaluation has shown that much progress has been made since 2004. Significant efforts and 
progress  have  been  made  by  some  contracting  authorities,  economic  operators,  Central 
Purchasing  Bodies  and  Member  States.  Great  progress  has  been  made  in  developing 
electronic  applications  capable  of  supporting  most/all  phases  of  procurement  procedures. 
Some Member States or regions have put in place e-Procurement systems which can support 
'straight  through  electronic  procurement'  processes  –  at  least  for  purchases  of  standard 

40 
41 
42 

http://www.merx.com/ 
http://www.mediagrif.com/government-opportunities-en.jsp 
http://www.governmentcontractsusa.com/index-en.jsp 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
                                                 
supplies  and  services.  These  efforts  notwithstanding,  overall  take-up  both  within  most 
countries and across the EU as a whole, remains low.  

Technology  has  not  provided  the  expected  (high  tech)  solutions  to  all  procedural  steps.  In 
some cases, progress has resulted from a more pragmatic approach – in the form of practical 
'workarounds'  involving  less  technically  demanding  solutions  or  combining  on/off-line 
communication. Nonetheless, these solutions are valid – they simply provide alternative ways 
to  reach  the  end  result.  Certain  limits  to  "straight  through  e-Procurement"  have  also  been 
identified  e.g.  difficulties  in  using  automated  evaluation  approaches  to  complex  purchases; 
absence of a time-stamping system which is accepted EU wide. 

Our assessment (based on examination of design and requirements for access to systems, and 
PEPPOL  preparatory  work)  is  that  in  today's  market,  economic  operators  wishing  to 
participate  in  on-line  procurement  procedures  in  other  Member  States  will  be  faced  with 
practical, technical and administrative obstacles. National/regional e-Procurement procedures 
are  designed  by  reference  to  local  administrative  or  technical  practices  which  may  differ 
significantly. As a result, despite the great progress at national level, little concrete progress 
has been made towards unhindered, cross-border electronic procurement.  

6. 

HOW HAS THE ACTION PLAN CONTRIBUTED TO THIS PROGRESS? 

The 31 measures of the Action Plan covered a wide range of actions designed to accelerate 
adoption  and  ensure  access  (partly  through  the  provision  of  common  building  blocks)  to  e-
Procurement.  They  were  also  intended  to  address  the  high  risks  of  market  fragmentation 
which could occur if the transfer to electronic systems was carried out in an inappropriate / 
uncoordinated  manner.  There  was  widespread  awareness  that  the  introduction  of  e-
Procurement  could  lead  to  the  creation  and  maintenance  of  a  range  of  legal,  policy  and 
technological  barriers.  Member  States,  candidate  countries  and  businesses  were  prepared  to 
act accordingly, to ensure that such a situation was avoided.  

By  mid  2010,  13  of  the  31  measures  had  been  completed  (including  those  where  no  final 
outcome has been achieved, but all the actions expected in the given period were completed), 
three  were  partially  completed  (i.e.  some  action  has  been  undertaken  but  at  present  little 
advance  is  being  made),  13  were  on-going  and  three  had  been  delayed.  The  sections  below 
present  the  developments  that  have  occurred  and  compare  to  the  expectations  of  2004  (by 
reference  to  the  Intervention  Logics  drawn  up  for  each  objective).  They  also  assess,  in  as 
objective a manner as possible, how the Action Plan has contributed to the progress that has 
been made. It is however difficult to judge in absolute terms how far today’s e-Procurement 
market  has  been  influenced  by  the  measures  undertaken  via  the  Action  Plan,  particularly 
given the data constraints, and some degree of subjectivity is inevitable. Many of the actions 
related to the provision of studies, or contributing to the development of solutions – measures 
which it is difficult to prove or associate directly with the results visible in the current market. 
The more detailed background and evidence for some of these assessments is provided in the 
Siemens-time.lex report. 

Whilst  each  action  was  intended  to  assist  a  particular  objective,  it  is  clear  that  there  is  a 
certain  amount  of  synergy  and  interaction  between  the  measures  and  the  results/impacts 
obtained. In the following sections, for each objective, the initial results and achievements due 
to  the  (grouped)  actions  are  presented  first  and  then  the  combined  effects  and  longer  term 
impacts are discussed in a concluding section. Each section begins with a table summarising 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
the various measures, the issues they were expected to address and the current state of play in 
relation to the measure.  

6.1. 

Ensure a well functioning Internal Market in electronic public procurement 

The actions carried out under this first objective were split under four headings, each of which 
is  considered  in  more  detail  below.  The  Intervention  Logic  for  this  objective  is  provided  in 
Annex VI. The actions address a range of areas, including legal, technical and infrastructure. 

6.1.1. 

Implementing the legal framework correctly and on time – measures and results 

Table 11 - Measures relating to the implementation of the legal framework 

Action Plan measure 

Issues to be addressed 

State of Play 

to 

Commission 
issue 
interpretative  document  on  the 
new  rules  on  electronic  public 
procurement 

to  make  online 
Commission 
training 
demonstrators 
available,  allowing  CAs  and 
EOs  to  familiarise  with  new  e-
proc provisions and tools 

to 

provide 
Commission 
appropriate 
to 
Member  States  in  transposing 
the new legal provisions 

assistance 

Legal 

Completed 

-  Commission  Staff  Working 
Document  (SEC  959  of  8.7.2005; 
EN only) 

Completed 

-  2005:  Applications  available  on 
IDABC43 website44 

- helpdesk services (2005-2009) 

Technical 

Trust 

Resistance to change 

Lack  of  understanding  of 
benefits  

Doubts on feasibility 

Accessibility 

Set up a reference model 

Legal 

Completed  

-  e-Procurement  Working  Group 
Advisory 
(ePWG) 
Committee  for  Public  Contracts, 
meetings (from 2003) 

the 

of 

- DG MARKT website 

Source: DG MARKT 

To avoid barriers to competition and distortion of markets the Action Plan considered it was 
very  important  that  the  2004  Directives  were  adopted  in  a  timely  and  correct  manner.  This 
was  also  expected  to  encourage  and  assist  the  early  adoption  and  effective  use  of  e-
Procurement by Economic Operators.  

43 

44 

Interoperable  Delivery  of  European  eGovernment  Services  to  public  Administrations,  Businesses  and 
Citizens.  A  Commission  programme  that  ran  between  2005  and  2009,  developing  recommendations 
and, solutions and providing services helping European public services to communicate electronically 
http://ec.europa.eu/idabc  

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
                                                 
While  the  Action  Plan  did  not  specify  a  particular  approach  to  transposition,  it  aimed  to 
facilitate the understanding of  the  legal framework and to encourage the appropriate related 
exchange  of  views  with  the  Member  States  when  their  transposition  provisions  were  at 
drafting stage. Although delayed in some countries, in general the transposition of the 2004 
Directives has been done within a reasonable timescale - 11 Member States transposed by the 
deadline and for those which were late, the average transposition delay compared to what was 
expected  in  2004  was  around  14  months.  To-date  no  evidence  has  been  found  of  serious 
errors in transposition.  

The  assistance  and  guidance  provided  by  the  Commission  has  played  a  positive  part  in 
achieving this outcome. It would appear that Member States have made extensive use of the 
information provided and have sought further clarification and assistance from the Services of 
the Commission as necessary. Of the 22 Member States who replied to the Ernst and Young 
questionnaire  addressed  to  policy  making  bodies,  17  said  that  EU  rules  and  functional 
requirements  had  influenced  their  choices  when  defining  policy  for  the  adoption  of  e-
Procurement systems and tools in their country.  

Whilst  assistance  is  generally  provided  to  support  the  adoption  of  new  legislation,  by 
formalising  and  publicising  these  measures  and  emphasising  the  importance  of  achieving  a 
correct and timely transposition the Action Plan probably managed to obtain greater effort and 
compliance.  Certainly,  transposition  of  the  2004 Directives occurred more speedily than for 
the previous set of Directives, where there was no Action Plan. 

However, this does not mean that all legal issues have been resolved. As we saw in section 
5.2.6, Member States have introduced gold-plating for several tools e.g. DPS and e-Auctions 
because they felt the Directives plus existing guidance did not provide sufficient detail. This 
gold-plating could lead to some confusion, creating as it  does different conditions for using 
such  tools  e.g.  specifying  the  type  of  purchase  permitted  and  could  ultimately  lead  to  some 
incompatibility  between  systems.  For  example,  the  Siemens-time.lex  study  showed  that  in 
France e-Auctions can only be used for purchases of goods (i.e. not permitted for services and 
works) over €133,000 for state procurements and over €206,000 for defence; in Poland they 
are permitted for all types of purchase but the value must be below €60,000.  

As  well  as  these  specific  issues,  there  are  more  general  discrepancies  appearing  between 
Member States relating to the use of e-Procurement. In some Member States e-Procurement is 
optional,  in  others  the  use  of  certain  tools  or  phases  is  obligatory,  either  for  all  CAs  (e.g. 
Portugal) or in particular circumstances. For example in France the use of e-Procurement for 
ICT contracts over €90,000 has been mandatory since the start of 2010; Austria has made it 
mandatory for federal agencies to use central framework contracts offered via the portal of the 
Federal Procurement Company. Another possibly important difference relates to the fact that 
a growing number of platforms and functionalities are provided by third parties, who have not 
traditionally  been  a  key  actor  in  procurement.  Hence  there  may  be  some  future  need  to 
consider whether it might be necessary to set clearer conditions for the use of e-Procurement 
and  to  define  some  of  the  obligations  relating  to  the  provision  and  operation  of  such 
platforms.  

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
Some concerns have also been raised in relation to complementary legislation – particularly in 
relation to the different approaches to using and accepting e-Signatures45 but also relating to 
issues affecting e-Invoicing (where different national rules make it impossible to seamlessly 
exchange electronic documents across the EU) and VAT. 

Hence although today we have a common legal framework, differences exist in relation 
to the application and scope of certain e-Procurement functionalities and there may be 
some  emerging  issues  relating  to  the  way  in  which  e-Procurement  infrastructure  is 
provided. This means that there are still some legal issues which need to be addressed.  

The provision of on-line demonstrators appears to have been helpful – based on an analysis of 
hits  to  the  DG  MARKT  website,  the  on-line  reports  have  been  widely  accessed  and  a 
helpdesk  service  was  provided  from  2005-2009.  Many  of  the  sites  that  have  been  reviewed 
appear to have developed broadly in line with the recommendations presented. This is not to 
say  that  these  demonstrators  have  been  the  only  influence  and  much  of  the  information 
provided  may  have  seemed  "common  sense"  to  developers.  However  this  study46  together 
with  other  relevant  documents,  seems  to  have  provided  a  useful  reference  point  and  should 
have helped to address initial worries, such as a lack of technical knowledge; doubts on the 
feasibility  of  e-Procurement  and  perhaps  also  some  of  the  initial  resistance  to  change.  The 
increase  in  the  number  of  platforms  between  2004  and  2010  and  the  degree  of 
functionality  now  possible  in  some  of  these  systems  shows  that  e-Procurement  systems 
are feasible, at least within the national context and many of the technical issues can now 
be  addressed.  However,  this  does  not  mean  that  common,  widely  accessible, 
interoperable solutions have been adopted in all countries and issues relating to access 
and trust still remain. 

In terms of the early adoption and effective use by EOs, it is difficult to draw any concrete 
conclusions,  as  little  hard  evidence  is  available  at  present  (see  section  6.2.2  for  further 
discussion  on  increased  competition).  There  are  some  indications  that  participation  has 
increased  –  several  countries  have  indicated  that  there  are  now  more  bidders  per  electronic 
tender  and  many  of  the  portals  listed  in  Annex  VII  show  that  large  numbers  of  EOs  are 
registered  with  them.  There  is  also  some  anecdotal  evidence  from  discussions  with 
practitioners  that  e-Notification  and  the  increased  ability  to  find  opportunities  on-line  is 
making at least these early phases attractive. However as discussed in chapter 5 many of the 
expected  efficiencies  relating  to  re-usable  formats  and  standardisation  have  not  yet  been 
achieved.  Without  doubt,  the  differences  which  exist  between  the  various  systems  can 
generate efficiency problems and costs to EOs wishing to submit bids to different CAs 
using different e-Procurement systems.  

There  is  also  some  feedback  from  Member  States  through  the  various  EU  level  committees 
about  continued  inertia/  resistance  to  change  on  the  part  of  both  EOs  and  CAs.  When 
considering the success of the two one-way phases of e-Procurement – e-Notification and e-
Access  -  it  is  interesting  to  consider  that  these  are  also  the  only  phases  where  the  2004 
Directives introduce clear incentives for their use, at least by the CA. e-Notification is legally 
permitted  to  speed  up  the  process  of  publication  benefiting  both  CAs  and  EOs;  e-Access, 
where  it  is  available  24/7,  legally  permits  the  CA  to  shorten  the  deadline  for  submission 

45 

46 

Study on mutual recognition of e-Signatures: update of country profiles, IDABC, produced by Siemens-
time.lex, available at http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/servlets/Doc?id=32436 
Functional  requirements  for  conducting  e-Procurement  under  the  EU  framework,  available  at 
http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/servlets/Doc?id=22191 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(although this could be considered a negative by an EO who would have preferred more time 
to prepare a bid). In considering how best to overcome this inertia, it may well be worth 
reflecting on other incentives which can be put in place, legally or otherwise, which may 
present clear benefits to CAs and/or EOs. 

6.1.2.  Completing  the  legal  framework  by  the  appropriate  basic  tools  –  measures  and 

results 

Table 12 - Measures for completing the legal framework by the appropriate basic tools 

Action Plan measure 

Issues to be addressed 

State of Play 

to  adopt  new 
Commission 
for 
Forms 
Standard 
procurement  notices 
taking 
account  of  new  procedures  + 
the  use  of  electronic  means  of 
communication 

to 

Commission 
present 
proposals  for  revision  of  the 
Common 
Procurement 
Vocabulary (CPV)  

Standardisation 

Completed 

-  Regulation  N°1564/2005  of  7 
September  2005  on  Standard 
Forms47 

Transparency 

Publicity/dissemination  

Cross-border 

Common understanding 

Standardisation 

Completed 

Cross-border 

Interoperability 

Common understanding 

-  Regulation  N°213/2008  of  28 
November 2007 amending CPV48 

to 

Commission 
present 
Blueprint  for  a  fully  electronic 
system  for  the  collection  and 
publication  of  procurement 
notices on TED 

Transparency 

Completed  

Accessibility 

Automation (Simplification) 

Cross-border 

-  Feasibility  study  completed 
July  2007  ('Mandatory  electronic 
procurement 
of 
transmission 
notices for publication')49 

Member  States  to  implement 
fully  electronic  systems  at 
national 
including 
level 
appropriate tools for automated 
collection + publishing in TED 

Source: DG MARKT 

Transparency 

On-going  

Accessibility 

Automation (Simplification) 

The  overall  title  for  this  section  is  perhaps  misleading  as  three  of  the  actions  focus  on  the 
basic tools required for the first phase of e-Procurement – e-Notification – at European level. 
In  2004,  90%  of  the  notices  sent to  TED  were  received  on  paper  and,  as  stated  in  the  third 
measure under this heading, it was felt that decisive action should be taken to develop a “fully 

47 
48 
49 

The standard forms are available online at SIMAP website (http://simap.europa.eu) 
The old and new CPV versions are available online at SIMAP website (http://simap.europa.eu) 
Available 
procurement_en.htm#feasability 

at  DG  MARKT  website  http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/e-

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
electronic  system  for  the  collection  and  publication  of  procurement  notices  on  TED”  (to  be 
precise, the measure calls for the development of a "blueprint", so by actually providing the 
system,  the  Commission  has  gone  further  than  originally  requested).  The  actions  relating to 
the creation and use of a common infrastructure for e-Notification have been very successful. 
There is now a single, accepted and well used system for the publication of above threshold 
notices across the EU, supported by compatible infrastructure at national level. In 2009 just 
over 90% of forms sent to TED were received electronically and in a structured format. Over 
the period there has been an increase in the absolute number of contract notices published on 
TED and also in the use of e-Senders and e-Notices. As can be seen from the graph below, 
figures vary by country, but in general use is high and those countries with lower publication 
figures in 2009 have made significant improvements d. This does not mean however that all 
the  procurement  opportunities  available  at  any  one  time  can  seamlessly  be  accessed  from  a 
single  entry  point.  In  fact,  publication  of  notices  for  below  threshold  procurement  is  not 
regulated and there is not systematic centralisation or interconnection of information sources. 

Figure 7 - e-Notification growth over time 

Structured data submitted electronically to TED

e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
P

100

80

60

40

20

0

-20

I

S

T
L

O
R

T
M

Z
C

I

R F
F

G
B

K
D

L
P

T
A

K
S

U
L

K
U

E

I

Y
C

E
S

T

I

L
N

T
P

S
E

E
B

E
D

U
H

R
G

E
E

V
L

Country

Growth 2009-2006

2009 % of total notices

Source: DG MARKT based on data provided by DG OP 

Data is now provided in a more consistent manner due to the use of the standard forms and 
EOs can also search for opportunities by using CPV codes, which are widely used within the 
EU. The CPV has also enjoyed some international success – it has been translated into several 
languages, including Russian and Arabic and is voluntarily used by a range of third parties. 
Whilst  this  has  lead  to  a  marked  increase  in  transparency,  including  across  borders,  caution 
needs to be taken in claiming “absolute” or “complete” transparency.  

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
 
Firstly,  not  all  EOs  know  about  or  choose  to  use  TED;  some  prefer  to  look  for  national 
opportunities  (frequently  below  threshold)  by  accessing  individual  CA  websites  and  portals 
for  information.  The  availability  indicator,  created  as  part  of  DG  INFSO’s  2009 
benchmarking  exercise50,  produced  results  which  were  strongly  contested  by  some  Member 
States  who  felt  that  their  scores  were  too  low  as  their  individual  national  set-up  had  not 
properly been taken into consideration, but which could also be interpreted as showing that at 
a  national  level  transparency  and  information  about  the  existing  structures  may  not  be  so 
good.  Some  countries  have  a  centralised  system  (which  may  be  public  or  private)  which 
publishes  all  the  calls  for  tender;  others  operate  on  a  more  decentralised  basis,  with  one  or 
more notification hubs, or with notices published on individual CA sites. The basic structure 
of  publication  services  is  not  always  signposted  which  can  lead  to  confusion  and  missed 
opportunities. Depending on the model used and whether there is the habit of publicising and 
providing  links  to  these  various  centralised  notification  sites  on  national/regional/local 
portals, this may adversely affect not just businesses coming from a different country, but also 
national operators. In practice, EOs can  end up  going through many sites searching for 
relevant tenders, which is not very efficient.  

The fourth action was much wider and complex in scope than many others, relating as it did 
to the introduction of full e-Procurement systems. However it has been completed to a certain 
extent  and  not  just  in  terms  of  e-Notification,  where  TED  perhaps  stands  out  as  the  only 
common, centralised infrastructure currently provided at EU level. As seen in sections 0 and 
5.4.3  almost  all  countries  now  have  some  infrastructure  providing  e-Procurement 
systems – but these systems are very varied in terms of: the phases and tools on offer; 
the  entities  that  can  use  them;  how  they  are  used;  and  in  the  degree  of  technological 
sophistication involved.  

On  first  glance,  there  is  reason  to  celebrate  –  24  out  of  27  Member  States  now  support  the 
phases  up  to  e-Submission,  with  17  also  providing  systems  capable  of  conduction  e-
Evaluation  and  e-Award.  But  these  figures  obscure  a  larger  failure  –  although  there  are 
systems  available  which  provide  the  potential  for  conducting  procurements  electronically, 
they are not necessarily open to all businesses or even Contracting Authorities and the overall 
use  (in  terms  of  number  and  value  of  contracts  concluded)  is  low.  Apart  from  in  Portugal, 
where  e-Procurement  is  mandatory  in  the  pre-award  phases  for  all  CAs  and  hence  usage  is 
nearly  100%,  rates  in  other  countries  are  low.  As  has  been  repeated  several  times,  e-
Procurement  use  figures  are  not  easily  available  for  many  countries  (see  section  6.2  for 
discussion  of  actions  relating  to  statistical  data  collection  and  monitoring)  but  where  they 
have been estimated they are generally below 5% of the national total.  

Some  of  these  difficulties  should  perhaps  have  been  anticipated  or  better  acknowledged. 
There  are  well  known  differences  between  the  countries  involved  which  may  affect  their 
approach to e-Procurement and sometimes make it more difficult to adopt. For example, large 
countries with many contracting entities face different problems to smaller ones with fewer, 
not  least  in  terms  of  providing  and  affording  training.  Some  countries  already  have  fairly 
centralised procurement and hence may find it easy to introduce one or a small number of e-
Procurement portals; in countries with a more decentralised approach, many portals are likely 
to  spring  up  bringing  with  them  further  issues  relating  to  access,  standardisation  and 
interoperability. 

50 

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/benchmarking/index_en.htm#e-
Government_Benchmarking_Reports  

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Whilst  the  work  undertaken  relating  to  the  development  of  TED  and  e-Notification  can  be 
attributed to the measures of the Action Plan, it is less clear what influence the Action Plan 
has  had  on  the  development  of  national  e-Procurement  systems.  Some  development  would 
have  occurred  anyhow  –  17  countries  were  already  developing  systems  prior  to  2004. 
However,  others  were  not,  and  by  encouraging  discussion,  promoting  best  practice/ 
providing reference studies, it is fair to assume that the Action Plan has contributed to 
some degree, by at least encouraging this wider development. However there are many 
issues  still  to  be  addressed  –  they  include:  problems  relating  to  improving  access 
lack  of  common  standards  and 
the  continuing 
particularly  across  borders; 
understanding; and also the need for increased simplification and interoperability.  

6.1.3.  Removing  /  preventing  barriers  in  carrying  public  procurement  procedures 

electronically – measures and results 

Table 13 - Measures intended to remove/prevent barriers to carrying out e-Procurement 

Action Plan measure 

Issues to be addressed 

State of Play 

States 

Member 
and 
Commission  test,  refine  and 
validate results of IDA common 
functional  requirements  for  e-
Procurement systems 

Legal 

Accessibility 

Cross-border 

Technical 

Completed  

Report 

Preliminary 
on 
- 
Functional  Requirements  for  e-
Procurement (03/2005) 

Report 

- 
Preliminary 
on 
Functional  Requirements  for  e-
Catalogues (12/2007)51 

to 

Member  States 
review 
whether  all  operational  e-
Procurement  schemes  have 
the 
been 
requirements of the Directives 

adjusted 

to 

Dissemination of best practices 

Common understanding 

Legal 

Accessibility 

Cross-border 

Technical 

Common understanding 

Member 
introduce 
States 
national  accreditation  schemes 
to  verify  compliance  of  e-
tendering  systems  with  legal 
framework 

Legal 

Trust 

Accessibility 

Policy 

Cross-border 

On-going 

On-going 

51 

EN 

Available 
procurement_en.htm#feasability 

at  DG  MARKT  website  http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/e-

62 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Action Plan measure 

Issues to be addressed 

State of Play 

States 

Member 
and 
Commission  consider  through 
a  feasibility  study  whether  to 
European 
a 
introduce 
compliance verification scheme 

Legal 

Trust 

Policy 

Cross-border 

Authentication 

Interoperability 

Cross-border 

proposes 

an 
Commission 
action 
IDABC 
under 
programme  to  help  Member 
co-ordinate 
States 
implementing 
of 
advanced qualified signature to 
resolve 
interoperability 
problems  

use 

the 

Completed 

-  Feasibility  study  on  Common 
Verification 
Compliance 
mechanisms, completed 07/200751 

Completed 52 

Member States apply, if required 
by  national  law,  interoperable 
qualified e-Signatures 

Source: DG MARKT 

Authentication 

On-going 

Cross-border 

Interoperability 

There was considerable concern in 2004, particularly amongst businesses, that systems would 
be  developed  based  on  inappropriate  designs  or  to  incompatible  IT  standards,  making  it 
increasingly difficult for suppliers to access the different systems and/or increasing the costs 
of participation. The first four measures in this group were expected to address these concerns 
by testing and validating a set of common functional requirements complemented by review 
and compliance mechanisms. It is hard to judge the impact of these actions, as much of 
the work undertaken to review and "accredit" systems has been done at national level 
and little is available to assess how consistently and thoroughly this has been done across 
the EU. 

According to the information collected by Siemens-time.lex it is difficult to know how well 
Member States have assessed the compliance of operational systems. At the time of the 2007 
study into compliance verification, 48% of Member States had an official verification strategy 
employing  either  an  independent  3rd  party  or  a  nationally  recognised  central  agency  to 
produce the assessment. A small number of countries (11%) had no such strategy. The study 
presented  a  range  of  recommendations  on  how  to  approach  the  idea  of  a  European 
Compliance  Verification  scheme  –  with  reference  scenarios  covering  a  “lite”  approach 
(voluntary, resulting in a quality label); a system based on national bodies; and, the possibility 
to  create  a  European  Agency  with  European  Standards.  No  decision  has  yet  been  taken  on 
how to proceed. 

Again, it is likely that the functional requirements have been used – they have been widely 
accessed (over 2000 hits on the DG MARKT pages in the period April 2008 to April 2010) 
and  should  have  saved  their  readers'  time  in  assessing  and  analysing  various  elements.  It  is 

52 

EU Action Plan for interoperable e-Signatures and e-Authentication has been adopted (2008), EC inter-
service group has been set up 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
probably  not  a  coincidence  that  most  of  the  sites  reviewed  for  this  evaluation  appear  to 
follow,  at  least  in  general  terms,  these  requirements.  The  information  provided  was  very 
detailed  and  developers  repeating  the  exercise  would  probably  come  up  with  very  similar 
results. However, differences in approach have been identified – particularly in relation 
to authentication and accessibility. 

Two  further  measures  addressed  issues  relating  to  the  use  of  interoperable  electronic 
signatures and particularly "qualified" signatures as the reference point for authentication and 
the integrity of business transactions. Authentication is a key element in several stages of the 
e-Procurement process. 

The  procurement  directives  give  CAs  the  freedom  to  chose  the  appropriate  method  of 
authentication  in  e-procurement  procedures  but  explicitly  encourage  use  of  electronic 
signatures,  in  particular  advanced  electronic  signatures.  This  approach  gave  rise  to  Member 
States setting different levels of requirements for authentication, ranging from a light user-ID 
and  password-based  model  up  to  qualified  electronic  signatures.  There  is  also  a  problem  of 
definition – whilst some Member States specify unambiguously the type of e-Signature (e.g. 
advanced based on a qualified certificate), others just ask for an e-Signature (which could be 
any of the four levels) or an advanced signature (which may or may not require a qualified 
certificate). So even if a country has made it mandatory to use an e-Signature (the situation in 
18 countries of which 16 are Member States), it is not always clear what is being requested or 
more importantly perhaps, what can be accepted. 11 other countries (including nine Member 
States)  permit  the  CA  to  decide  on  a  case  by  case  basis  whether  to  request  an  electronic 
signature whilst two Member States impose no e-Signature requirements. 

While  the  light  solution  does  not  pose  cross-border  interoperability  problems,  the  different 
national  schemes  enforced  by  electronic  signatures  create,  in  the  majority  of  cases,  the 
situation where a tender electronically signed by an economic operator in one country cannot 
be verified by a contracting authority in another country. 

Recognising  this  problem,  the  Action  Plan  emphasised  the  use  of  qualified  electronic 
signatures that, being in large part defined by the directive on electronic signatures53 offered a 
reasonable cross-border interoperability perspective. However, the vision of the Action Plan 
has  not  yet  materialised  due  to  the  different  approaches  taken  in  implementing  electronic 
signature standards in the various Member States. 

Over  this  period,  the  Commission  has  been  involved  in  a  range  of  studies  relating  to  this 
issue. DG MARKT's involvement includes contributing to the 2008 e-Signatures Action Plan 
and  work  carried  out  by  DGs  DIGIT  and  INFSO.  Another  promising  initiative  is  the  work 
being developed under the PEPPOL module addressing e-Signatures. In this area the PEPPOL 
project  is  trying  to  create  a  distributed  certificate-validation  service  that  is  capable  of 
validating  electronic  signatures,  particularly  advanced  signatures  based  on  qualified 
certificates. For further information, see the box describing PEPPOL below. Finally, greater 
degrees of interoperability and acceptance across borders should be obtained within the recent 
initiative,  under  the  aegis  of  the  Services  Directive,  to  introduce  a  central  "trust  list",  with 
links to national "trusted lists" of certification-service providers issuing qualified certificates. 

53 

EN 

E-Signatures 
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0093:en:HTML 

1999/93/EC 

Directive 

available 

, 

at 

http://eur-

64 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In  the  meantime,  the  issue  of  cross-border  authentication  is  still  unresolved.  In  terms  of 
authentication  it  is  perhaps  most  interesting  to  note  that  in  countries  which  have  adopted  a 
lighter  approach  to  the  technology  required,  posing  lesser  or  no  technical  barrier  to  cross-
border accessibility, no instances of security being breached have been reported so far. 

Therefore  it  is  fair  to  say  that,  although  progress  towards  greater  degrees  of 
interoperability  and  acceptance  across  borders  can  possibly  be  expected  in  the  near 
future, the goals of the Action Plan have not been achieved in this area. 

Hence  there  is  neither  greater  clarity  nor  much  increase  in  interoperability  and  with  the 
growth of use, the number of solutions requested by particular CAs/portals has multiplied. In 
this  instance  it  could  be  fair  to  say  that  the  interoperability  barriers  across  countries 
resulting from the use of e-Signatures have actually increased rather than decreased. At 
present, the lack of interoperable e-Signatures (of any type) is probably the greatest blocking 
factor to EU-wide e-Procurement and e-Government services in general.  

PEPPOL – Pan-European Public Procurement On-Line54 

PEPPOL  is  a  major  cross-border  e-procurement  project  run  by  public-sector  organisations 
from  various  EU  countries  and  co-funded  by  the  European  Commission.  PEPPOL  partners 
have joined forces to set up a large-scale, standards-based IT infrastructure and services to set 
up and run e-procurement operations across Europe. 

The  project  has  created  a  comprehensive,  coherent  set  of  technical  specifications  and  open 
software components which will then be integrated within the IT infrastructure of the partner 
organisations  to  support  the  exchange  of  e-procurement  business  transactions.  These 
specifications  cover  e-ordering  and  e-invoicing  in  the  post-awarding  phases  and  provide 
building  blocks  towards  the  creation  of  e-catalogues,  signature  validation  and  the  Virtual 
Company Dossier (VCD) which can be widely used by system planners and designers to set 
up pre-awarding operations. 

At  the  heart  of  the  PEPPOL  architecture  is  a  transport  network,  enabling  e-procurement 
business partners to connect their own IT resources to perform secure and reliable exchanges 
of business documents. It is expected that PEPPOL interconnection services will be taken up 
by market players and will be widely offered to the business community in all the countries 
on a commercial basis.  

Where  possible,  all  PEPPOL  specifications  are  defined  drawing  on  existing  standards.  In 
areas where standards do not yet exist, PEPPOL partners work in close collaboration with the 
standards bodies in order to make sure that all new specifications are taken up in the standard 
making process. 

Source: DG MARKT 

In terms of the results of these six actions, it is clear that there can be no assurance that the 
systems  which  have  been  introduced  in  the  various  countries  are  based  on  a  common 
understanding  of  the  European  framework.  Whilst  there  may  be  some  grounds  to  believe 
that  there  is  a  certain  degree  of  consistency  in  relation  to  legal  compliance, 
technologically  there  is  little  doubt  that  within  the  EU  different  systems  have  been 

54 

See www.peppol.eu for further information 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
                                                 
developed to different requirements and standards with the resultant negative impacts 
on  authentication  and  interoperability  between  systems.  Generally  within  a  country  it 
can be inferred that the available systems are based on similar principles and processes 
and can interact to some degree, or that the infrastructure has some commonality. On a 
cross-border basis the picture is bleaker – examples of functioning interoperability are 
limited and  mainly rely  on solutions  being  found to integrate support for  non-national 
solutions which meet the applicable national standards. For example, Austria can accept e-
Signatures  created  using  Belgian,  Italian  and  Slovenian  electronic  identification  cards;  in 
Norway the e-Tendering platform can also accept the e-Signatures used for the (private) BBS 
Validation Authority; in Denmark and Slovakia businesses are emailed a compliant advanced 
signature certificate after registration.  

6.1.4.  Detecting and addressing interoperability problems over time – measures and results 

Table 14 - Measures to detect and address interoperability issues 

Action Plan measure 

Issues to be addressed 

State of Play 

CEN  /  ISSS  completes  gap 
interoperability 
analysis  on 
e-
effective 
for 
needs 
Procurement 

Interoperability 

Completed  

Accessibility 

Cross-border 

-  CEN  Workshop  Agreement 
CWA 15236:200555  

activities 

proposes 

under 
programme 

to 
Commission 
on  
continue 
the 
e-Procurement 
IDABC 
for 
exchange  and  discussion  on 
and 
interoperability 
monitoring  of  Member  States' 
developments 

issues 

Interoperability 

Completed  

Accessibility 

Cross-border 

Policy 

Dissemination of best practices 

On-going56  

Commission 
and  Member 
States promote standardisation 
activities at European level and 
international 
with 
liaise 
standardisation bodies 

Standardisation 

Interoperability 

Cross-border 

Accessibility 

Policy 

Source: DG MARKT 

Dissemination of best practices 

55 

56 

Analysis  of  standardization  requirements  and  standardization  gaps  for  e-Procurement  in  Europe, 
available  at  CEN  website  ftp://ftp.cenorm.be/PUBLIC/CWAs/e-Europe/eProc/cwa15236-00-2005-
Feb.pdf  
COM has successfully promoted standardisation over the last years. Various standardisation activities 
have been completed by CEN and OASIS on XML automated messaging. Development of standards is 
still on-going. 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Standardisation 

E-procurement involves the exchange of business transactions over a network. This requires 
precisely  defined  interfaces  at  both  ends  of  the  exchange.  It  is  not  just  about  technical 
requirements: the semantics and all the elements of the transactions have to be agreed upon. 
For  each  transaction,  each  single  business  exchange  needs  to  be  defined.  For  each  business 
exchange an agreement is needed on the role of the parties involved, the business rules and 
the data to be exchanged. As a result three distinct interoperability levels can be defined:  

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

At the business level, interoperability requires an agreement on business processes and 
semantic document models;  

At  the  syntax  level,  it  involves  the  use  of  structured  documents  compliant  with 
schemas from standards such as UN/CEFACT  XML  and  OASIS  Universal  Business 
Language; and 

At the technical level, it implies common requirements such as the use of a document 
transport infrastructure.  

Standardisation  in  the  e-Procurement  domain  is  therefore  complex  in  its  own  right.  The 
scenario  is  further  complicated  because  at  present  a  large  number  of  competing  standards 
exist in some areas, whilst there is a substantial lack of agreed specifications in other areas.  

Three  main  lines  of  standardisation  are  currently  underway  addressing  the  various 
standardisation requirements. These are: 

•  The  Universal  Business  Language  (UBL)  is  an  XML  based  library  of  common  business 
documents defined and maintained by OASIS, a not-for-profit consortium that drives the 
development,  convergence  and  adoption  of  open  standards  for  the  global  information 
society.  

•  ebXML (an open, XML-based infrastructure designed for global use of electronic business 
information)  and  UN/EDIFACT  (covering  the  structured  transmission  of  data  between 
organisations  by  electronic  means)  are  international  standards  maintained  by  the  United 
Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business, (UN/CEFACT). 

•  Finally,  CEN  (one  of  the  European  standards-making  bodies)  is  committed  to  profiling 
existing  e-business  in  order  to  consistently  address  all  the  interoperability  levels  for 
business  transactions  discussed  above.  To  carry  out  such  work,  the  BII  (Business 
Interoperability Interfaces) workshop has been set up, focussing on post-award phases. It 
concentrates on the semantics of the public procurement business processes built by XML 
based vocabularies as specified by UBL 2.0 and UN/CEFACT core components, aiming at 
international convergence. The BII Workshop coordinates with other CEN developments, 
such  as  the  workshop  on  'Multilingual  e-Cataloguing  and  e-Classification  in  e-Business' 
(WS/eCAT).  This  work  aims  to  design  the  architecture  of  a  multi-user,  multilingual 
catalogue  platform  that  can  be  used  by  any  company  to  store  and  present  its  products. 
Currently,  discussion  is  under  way  to  map  the  four  major  existing  product  classification 
systems (UNSPSC, eCl@ss, GPC and CPV) for use within the catalogue. 

Source: DG MARKT based on Siemens-time.lex report 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
These three measures were expected to first identify and then address other issues relating to 
interoperability as the market developed. Again, many studies and research projects have been 
initiated  in  relation  to  standardisation,  either  commissioned  directly  by  the  Services  of  the 
Commission  or  to  which  the  Services  have  contributed57.  It  should  also  be  noted  that 
"interoperability"  covers  a  wide  range  of  issues  and  is  more  relevant  to  certain  tools  and 
phases.  

Whilst  it  is  fair  to  infer  that  these  actions  have  had  some  impact  on  improving  the 
understanding  of  interoperability  issues,  it  is  not  possible  to  say  how  much  these 
programmes  have  influenced  the  current  state  of  play.  Certainly  the  degree  of 
interoperability  between  Member  States'  e-Procurement  systems  remains 
low  and 
convergence  to  common  sets  of  standards  has  been  slow.  The  PEPPOL  Standard  Basic  e-
Ordering  report58  found  that  local  contexts  are  highly  influential  in  determining  the  format 
used  and  that  the  lack  of  common  standards  has  (negatively)  affected  cross-border 
interoperability. A certain trend towards UBL based standardisation is emerging in the post-
award phases of e-Ordering and e-Invoicing.  

This result should perhaps not be surprising – e-Procurement is a complex topic, covering a 
wide range of issues. However it would appear that the Action Plan underestimated the efforts 
required  and  perhaps  took  too  flexible  approach  to  how  such  standardisation  could  be 
achieved – expecting market developments to drive the move towards greater standardisation, 
without any stronger guidance or influence from other external sources. At present there are 
still too many standards and their content is too broad. On the other hand, the measures in 
the Action Plan were suitably widely drawn that they can claim some causality in relation to 
the limited success that has been achieved in certain areas. 

6.1.5.  Wider impacts of the measures under Objective 1 

Taken as a whole, the measures carried out under this objective have probably had some 
influence on the progress made towards several of the results expected – particularly in 
relation to the timely and accurate implementation of the 2004 Directives and the creation of a 
common  EU  infrastructure  for  e-Notices  supported  by  compatible  national  level  systems. 
Their  impact  is  less  obvious  in  relation  to  the  creation  of  national  e-Procurement  systems 
which are based on a common understanding; increased use of e-Procurement; increased use 
of qualified e-Signatures; increased understanding and greater interoperability; and increased 
standardisation. Whilst many legal barriers may have been avoided, there are still some 
legal issues which need to be addressed and hence the desired impact of no legal barriers 
has not been achieved. Additionally, it is not clear that all new tools are being used correctly 
–  some  further  legal  clarification  may  be  necessary  and  some  EU  wide  level  of  system 
validation may be desirable.  

In terms of technical barriers, it is likely that no barriers have actually been removed on 
an EU-wide level and it is possible the situation has actually got worse as a result of the 
development of more systems across the EU. Given the problems with interoperability and 
standardisation  identified  in  the  state  of  play,  it  cannot  be  claimed  that  the  desired 
impacts resulting from the introduction of systems which have few technical barriers to 

57 
58 

See bibliography 
http://www.peppol.eu/work_in_progress/wp4-eordering/results/d4.1-standard-basic-eordering-format-
and-data-structure/eordering-standard-basic-eordering-format-and-data-structure  

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
                                                 
cross-border  procurement  and  which  actually  permit 
increased  cross-border 
transactions  have  been  achieved.  There  may  also  be  legal  ramifications  to  these  technical 
developments which may require further considerations. 

In  the  longer  term,  some  of  these  actions  are  helping  to  improve  transparency.  The 
electronic publication of notices and standard information has helped increase the availability 
and  ease  of  access  to  procurement,  although  some  issues,  often  relating  to  whether 
information is provided in a centralised or de-centralised manner still exist. Although figures 
for  participation  are  not  widely  available  it  can  be  inferred  that  in  some  instances, 
participation  has  increased  and  thus  potentially  competition  also.  Certainly  several  e-
Procurement  portals  and  case  studies  advertise  the  significant  savings  which  they  are 
achieving (see section 5.8).  

Levels  of  confidence  and  security  vary,  depending  on  the  system  in  place  and  the 
experience  of  users.  Costs  related  to  security  may  have  increased,  particularly  in  those 
instances  where  the  solutions  adopted  require  quite  high  levels  of  IT  knowledge  and 
investment.  Given  the  limited  information  available  on  actual  use  of  e-Procurement  (see 
section 5.5) it can be inferred that many EOs and CAs have yet to use e-Procurement and may 
still  have  concerns  which  need  to  be  addressed.  Those  that  have  used  systems  have  mixed 
feelings – for some it is a good experience, saving time and effort, for others, particularly in 
countries where e-Procurement systems are still fairly basic, it is not sufficiently mainstream 
as  to  be  worth  the  effort.  From  the  picture  provided  above  (see  chapter  5),  a  certain 
momentum is building; use and experience with such systems, while currently modest, may 
yet reach critical mass. However it is not likely that e-Procurement in its current form has 
had much influence on wider e-Government practice and the application/development of 
standards in the private sector.  

6.2. 

Achieve  greater  efficiency 
competitiveness 

in  procurement, 

improve  governance  and 

The  Action  Plan  recognised  that  change  would  be  necessary  at  many  levels  –  legal,  policy, 
technical,  institutional  and  organisational  –  if  the  use  and  related  benefits  of  e-Procurement 
were  to  be  achieved.  Specific  actions  were  thus  targeted  at  improving  efficiency  and 
governance. It also recognised that by streamlining procedures, suppliers could save time and 
money thus making public procurement more attractive and ultimately more competitive. To 
reflect  these  priorities,  the  actions  under  this  objective  were  grouped  under  two  headings 
which will be discussed in the following sections. The Intervention Logic for this objective is 
provided in Annex VI.  

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
6.2.1. 

Increasing  the  efficiency  of  public  procurement  and  improving  governance  – 
measures and results 

Table 15 - Measures to increase efficiency and improve governance 

Action Plan measure 

Issues to be addressed 

State of Play 

Member  States 
to  prepare 
national plans for introducing e-
setting 
Procurement 
measurable 
performance 
targets, 
taking  account  of 
specific national needs 

Policy 

Security 

Trust 

Partially completed 

Inclusion 

Monitoring 

Dissemination of best practices 

Member  States  to  encourage 
preparation  of  similar  plans  by 
individual  national  buyers  and 
coordinate  +  monitor 
their 
implementation 

Policy 

Security 

Trust 

Partially completed 

Inclusion 

Dissemination of best practices 

Monitoring 

Standardisation 

On-going59 

Interoperability 

Cross-border 

Dissemination of best practices 

Partially completed 

Monitoring 

-  Study  on  the  automation  of 
statistical  data  collection  in  11 
Member States (April 2007) 

-  Appropriate  measures  taken  by 
some Member States 

to 

Commission 
continue 
monitoring  work  on  e-invoices 
by  CEN/ISSS  and  propose 
continuation  of  XML  activities 
undertaken in 2003-2004 on e-
invoices  and  e-Ordering  under 
IDABC 

to  set  up 
Member  States 
efficient  electronic  systems  for 
the collection and processing of 
statistical procurement data 

Source: DG MARKT 

Acknowledging  the  complexity  of  the  change  programme  required,  the  Action  Plan 
encouraged Member States to plan and monitor their move to e-Procurement, suggesting that 
a phased transition from paper-based to automated systems would probably be most efficient. 

59 

Activities  monitored  on  various  standardisation  activities  by  CEN  and  OASIS  on  XML  automated 
messaging for e-Ordering & e-Invoicing, and various operational initiatives by DIGIT, ENTR 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Such  systems  were  expected  to  provide  important  information  about  the  state  of  the  e-
Procurement markets and to identify at an early stage areas requiring further attention.  

According to the Siemens-time.lex review, 14 countries (12 Member States) did not produce a 
national  action  plan  for  e-Procurement,  or  these  documents  only  contained  quite  general 
statements. However it was recognised that this assessment did not take into account five or 
six  countries  where  a  clear  strategy  existed  but  which  was  not  formally  documented  in  an 
Action  Plan.  Furthermore,  some  countries  developed  policies  which  specified  particular 
elements e.g. infrastructure in Belgium, Netherlands and Spain and which may or may not be 
accurately classified as an Action Plan. Other countries set a specific period of  duration  for 
their plans and it is difficult to know what happened afterwards in relation to the creation of 
new plans, or the extension of deadlines.  

In the Ernst and Young survey of Member State bodies, three countries suggested reasons for 
not creating a national plan/strategy – these included: problems getting stakeholders to agree; 
lack  of  political  priority  at  that  time;  different  bodies  having  different  needs;  and  the  belief 
that  a  plan  was  not  necessary  to  develop  and  implement  e-Procurement  strategies  properly. 
After  some  consideration,  Siemens-time.lex  concluded  that  there  was  no  obvious 
relationship between the existence of national plans and the progress observed. The EIA, 
researching  before  the  publication  of  the  Action  Plan,  found  that  "the  majority  of  Member 
States  have  developed  a  strategy  for  the  introduction  of  electronic  public  procurement  (21 
countries)"60.  Nine  out  of  12  respondents  to  the  Ernst  and  Young  survey  of  Member  States 
said that the EU Action Plan had played a role in determining the national plan/strategy for e-
Procurement.  

Hence it is not clear how successful the Action Plan was in encouraging the development 
of  formal  national  plans  and  addressing  a  wide  range  of  concerns  (including  legal, 
technical,  policy  and  infrastructure).  However,  as  noted,  approaches  differed  between 
countries and the lack of a formal plan has not necessarily prevented a country making 
progress in adopting e-Procurement (24 Member States have systems capable of providing 
the phases to e-Submission to some extent). 

E-PRIOR  

E-PRIOR  has  been  developed  and  deployed  by  the  European  Commission  to  allow  the 
exchange  of  structured  e-Catalogue,  e-Ordering  and  e-Invoicing  documents  between  the 
Commission  and  its  suppliers.  It  is  being  developed  under  the  IDABC  programme  and  was 
initiated  by  Directorate-General  for  Internal Market  (DG-MARKT)  and  Directorate-General 
for Informatics (DIGIT) of the European Commission.  

Open  e-PRIOR  provides  an  opportunity  for  reusability  of  an  open-source  solution  that  has 
already  been  implemented  at  the  Commission  and  which  provides  a  secure  platform  for 
document exchange. Open e-PRIOR is the first e-Procurement implementation which enables 
the exchange of electronic business documents using the data models of CEN/ISSS WS/BII.  

Source: DG MARKT  

60 

See Siemens.time-lex report page 96 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Although Siemens-time.lex did not identify any Action Plans which were adopted by national 
buyers,  replies  to  the  Ernst  and  Young  Member  State  questionnaire  did  imply  that  some 
countries had found it useful to address the issue. Thus it can be inferred that Action Plan 
had  at  best  fairly  limited  success  in  encouraging  the  adoption  of  plans  by  individual 
national buyers. 

The  third  measure  in  this  group  related  to  monitoring  the  development  of  solutions  for  e-
Invoicing and e-Ordering – key post-award transactions, which could improve efficiency and 
have  particular  benefits  in  relation  to  interoperability.  The  Commission  has  continued  to 
monitor  progress  in  these  fields  and  has  contributed  to  various  activities  and  projects, 
particularly the development of e-Prior (see box below). As reported in Chapter 5, there has 
been  some  progress  relating  to  standardisation,  but  there  may  be  outstanding  legal 
issues  relating  to  the  European  framework  for  e-Invoices.  Availability/use  has  increased 
since  2004,  with  more  countries  now  possessing  systems  capable  of  operating  these  phases 
(17  countries  now  capable  of  conducting  some  e-Ordering/e-Catalogues  as  compared  to 
seven  in  2004;  five  countries  now  have  some  e-Invoicing  capacity  compared  to  one  in 
2004).  The  countries  which  operate  these  phases  report  very  high  potential  savings  – 
both  in  time  and  money.  The  Danish  estimate  a  saving  of  12  to  20  minutes  per  invoice, 
translating to yearly cost savings of approximately €500 million; significant savings are also 
reported in Finland. According to a recent Deutsche Bank study61 moving from paper based to 
digital means could save the party receiving the invoice around €11.6 per transaction and the 
invoice issuer around €6.9 per transaction. 

The  fourth  action  under  this  objective  targeted  the  creation  of  thorough  monitoring  systems 
via  the  collection  and  processing  of  relevant  statistical  data.  Although  the  Siemens-time.lex 
study identified seven countries which collect (or plan to collect) public procurement statistics 
on a fairly regular basis, few statistics are currently available relating to e-Procurement 
and  only  one  country  (France)  has  publicised  a  coherent  monitoring  strategy.  When 
validating their country fiches for the Siemens-time.lex study, very few countries were able or 
perhaps unwilling to provide statistical data. Provision and publication of such data may be 
sensitive - sometimes political reasons prevent figures from being disclosed. The lack of data 
may  also  be  related  to  the  fact  that  many  national  action  plans  did  not  contain  quantitative 
targets. This lack of available data has certainly affected the ability of this evaluation to assess 
progress and has made it more difficult to assess the efficiency of actions taken. It has also 
influenced the lack of progress towards the expected development of goal-oriented policy 
the 
making  with  quantifiable 
identification/evidence  base  of  both  emerging  problems  and  successes.  As  a  result,  e-
Procurement  policy  is  unlikely  to  have  been  as  efficient  and  effective  as  it  could  have 
been. 

therefore  have  hampered 

and  will 

targets 

61 

Deutsche Bank Research paper "e-Invoicing Final steps of an efficient invoicing process" May 2010 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
                                                 
6.2.2. 

Increasing  the  competitiveness  of  public  procurement  markets  across  the  EU  – 
measures and results 

Table 16 - Measures to increase competitiveness 

Action Plan measure 

Issues to be addressed 

State of Play 

to 

consider 
Commission 
proposing  services 
the 
for 
electronic  supply  of  business 
information  and  certificates  in 
for 
public 
implementation 
the 
IDABC programme 

procurement 
under 

States 
agree 

and 
Member 
on 
a 
Commission 
common  set  of 
frequently 
required  electronic  certificates 
for use in e-proc 

proposes 
Commission 
launching 
e-
on 
study 
catalogues (in DPS + electronic 
framework  agreements)  using 
work  by  CEN/ISSS  under  the 
IDABC programme 

Public Procurement Network to 
organise  benchmarking  on 
+ 
transparency, 
traceability of e-proc systems 

auditing 

Accessibility 

Completed 

Standardisation 

Cross-border 

Automation (Simplification) 

the 
-  Feasibility  study  on 
electronic 
of 
certificates  &  attestations  most 
frequently 
in  PP, 
required 
completed (12/2008).62 

provision 

Re-usability 

Accessibility 

Standardisation 

Cross-border 

Re-usability 

On-going 

-  e-CERTIS  Feasibility  study  ('e-
Certificates  II')  on  creation  of  an 
online  database  on  certificates  & 
attestations (funded by IDABC) 

Standardisation 

Completed  

Technical 

Inclusion 

-  Feasibility  study  on  e-Catalogues 
(November 2007)62 

Transparency 

Delayed 

Legal 

Trust 

Public Procurement Network to 
organise workshops to promote 
exchanges on tender document 
standardisation 

Common understanding 

Accessibility 

Delayed 

Standardisation 

Automation (Simplification) 

Member  States  to  launch  and 
support  specific  awareness 
campaigns  +training  for  SMEs 
at national + regional level 

Inclusion 

Policy 

Source: DG MARKT 

On-going 

62 

EN 

Available 
procurement_en.htm#feasability 

at  DG  MARKT  website  http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/e-

73 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
On-line  procurement  has  the  potential  to  be  more  transparent  than  paper-based  –  it  permits 
simple  and  quick  exchange  of  contract  related  information  and  can  reduce  opportunities  for 
fraud. In the same way, on-line procurement should be easier to conduct. In order to achieve 
this,  the  Action  Plan  made  it  clear  that  steps  should  be  taken  to  simplify  the  procurement 
process.  

In  2004,  practical  experience  relating  to  the  use  and  provision  of  electronic  documents  was 
virtually non-existent. The feasibility study completed in 2008 identified  potential scenarios 
to  overcome  the  existing  interoperability  problems  and  created  road-maps  to  realise  the 
selected scenarios. Subsequently, DG MARKT has commissioned the e-CERTIS tool, which 
lists  all  the  documents  commonly  required  in  a  country  and  contains  a  mapping  to 
equivalent/similar documents in other countries where possible. E-CERTIS will be launched 
in  the  autumn  of  2010  and  should  help  address  the  concerns  of  both  EOs  and  CAs 
relating  to  the  various  attestations  and  documents  requested/accepted  in  different 
countries, improving access and saving time.  

E-CERTIS 

E-CERTIS is a free, on-line source of information to help economic operators and contracting 
authorities to cope with the different forms of documentary evidence required for cross-border 
tenders for public contracts. 

e-CERTIS presents the different certificates frequently requested in procurement procedures 
across  the  27  EU  Member  States,  two  candidate  countries  (Turkey  and  Croatia)  and  three 
EEA countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway). Currently, the documents required differ 
from  one  country  to  another.  E-CERTIS  helps  tenderers  and  contracting  authorities  to  find 
their way through this maze.  

In particular, e-CERTIS helps: 

•  Economic  operators  to  find  out  which  certificates  issued  in  their  country  they  need  to 

include in tender files submitted to an authority in a partner country; 

•  Contracting  authorities  to  establish  which  documents  issued  by  a  partner  country  are 
equivalent to the certificates which they require to confirm the eligibility of the tender. 

•  E-CERTIS  matches  equivalent  documents  across  the  different  national  datasets.  The 
common,  consistent  structure  permits  fairly  in-depth  analysis  of  the  different  types  of 
document.  Keyword  searches,  logical  field  grouping  and  compare  functions  help  all 
involved  in  procurement  procedures  to  recognise  business  documents  and  assess  their 
content. 

Source: DG MARKT 

PEPPOL is also addressing the issue of business documents, with the goal of setting technical 
standards to enable EOs to set up a Virtual Company Dossier (VCD). A VCD is the collection 
of various types of evidence in electronic format. The Services of the Commission have also 
been  involved  in  work  in  several  other  areas  relating  to  this  issue,  which  has  wider  e-
Government  implications.  These  areas  include  the  Services  Directive,  exchange  of  judicial 
records,  developments  on  e-Customs  and  also  for  BRITE  –  an  on-line  business  standards 
register.  It  was  expected  that  these  measures  would  lead  to  the  development  of  more 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
standardised practises resulting in greater and easier use of common e-Documents. What 
has actually happened is that little if any progress has been made in terms of identifying a 
common  set  of  frequently  required  documents  -  rather  countries  have  adopted  more 
pragmatic approaches – the study on e-Certificates identified various workarounds designed 
to  eliminate  or  reduce  the  need  for  e-Attestations.  For  example,  some  CAs  accept  self-
declaration forms from EOs or declarations of compliance provided via a trusted third party. 
Whilst  it  is  debatable  whether  these  solutions  are  truly  "electronic  attestations",  the  study 
shows that they work in practice at a national level and reduce the administrative burden on 
the EO. However they do present some difficulties for EOs coming from other countries. 

The third measure under this objective related to the use of electronic catalogues in DPS and 
electronic framework agreements - the resultant study concluded inter alia:  

•  That common standards were required for e-Catalogues, not just for use in e-Procurement 

but in the wider e-Business environment;  

•  E-Catalogues should be used in both e-Tendering and e-Ordering; and  

•  That electronic catalogues should be reusable.  

Adopting  these  measures  would  realise  efficiency  gains  related  to  greater  automated 
processing  and  the  ability  to  re-use  catalogues  and  formats  when  moving  between  bids. 
Related initiatives include the PEPPOL work package on e-Catalogues and work undertaken 
by  CEN  and  DIGIT.  Availability/use  of  e-Catalogues  has  increased  since  2004  –  19 
countries (18 Member States) have been identified as operating some degree of e-Catalogues, 
although use varies by country and is generally found in the e-Ordering phase. The lack 
of  coherent  standards  remains  a  key  issue  –  there  are  many  standardisation  bodies 
operating  in  this  area  (OASIS,  UN/CEFACT,  CEN/ISSS  etc)  and  several  competing 
classification schemes (including the CPV). 

The two measures addressed to the Public Procurement network (PPN) have not been started 
and hence have not affected the situation in the way intended. Indeed, it could be argued that 
by  not  conducting  such  an  exercise,  valuable  information  which  could  have  effected  the 
efficient and effective development of e-Procurement systems has been lost.  

Finally,  under  this  objective,  Member  States  were  encouraged  to  launch  and  support 
awareness campaigns targeting SMEs. Not all Member States have adopted this measure – but 
those  that  have,  notably  Ireland,  France,  Scotland  and  Italy,  have  experienced  some 
success  in  encouraging  SMEs  to  move  from  paper  based  to  electronic  procurement. 
Although  not  tasked  explicitly  under  this  measure,  the  Commission  has  also  been  active  in 
this area – in 2008 it published the European Code  of  Best  Practises Facilitating  Access by 
SMEs  to  Public  Procurement  Contracts  and  the  2008  European  Small  Business  Act.  Some 
countries  report  that  SMEs  are  finding  it  harder  to  access  markets  –  for  example,  in  a 
recent  meeting  of  the  ACPC,  Austria  mentioned  concerns  that  trends  towards  aggregating 
contracts  offered  electronically  (for  example,  via  Central  Purchasing  Bodies  or  under 
Framework Agreements) were excluding SMEs. As further developments and refinements 
are  made,  it  may  be  necessary  to  ensure  that  all  e-Procurement  systems  are  SME 
friendly.  Given  the  lack  of  specific  policy  within  the  majority  of  Member  States,  at  an  EU 
level,  the  Action  Plan  has  not  contributed  significantly  to  delivering  the  expected  result  of 
increasing SME participation in e-Procurement. 

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
6.2.3.  Wider impacts of the measures under Objective 2 

through 

the  problems  discovered 

Taken together, it was expected that the results of these measures would lead over time to an 
increased  and  improved  national  co-ordination  of  public  procurement  and  e-Procurement 
strategies. Despite the absence of clear and open monitoring systems, it is strongly probable 
(human nature) that countries have adapted their strategies in the face of the results they have 
seen  and 
implementing  e-Procurement,.  The  e-
Procurement community has proved good at disseminating and sharing experiences via 
conferences,  EU  meetings  (most  notably  the  e-Procurement  working  group)  and  on  the 
Commission's  website  for  sharing  e-Government  related  experience  (www.epractice.eu). 
Again,  due  to  limited  improvements  in  interoperability  and  standardisation,  the  wider 
benefits  relating  to  increased  competition  and  greater  cross-border  use  are  unlikely  to 
have  been  achieved  to  any  great  degree  at  present.  Some  of  the  developments,  e.g.  with 
respect  to  e-Attestations  and  e-Invoicing  may  have  had  wider  effects  in  the  overall  e-
Government  theatre,  but  these  are  likely  to  be  limited.  Some  evidence  relating  to  possible 
efficiency gains has been provided (e.g. e-Invoicing) but has yet to be demonstrated at the 
wider EU level. 

6.3.  Work towards an international framework for electronic public procurement 

The  third  objective  of  the  Action  Plan  looked  to  the  wider  stage  and  considered  actions 
intended to ensure that third country markets which adopted e-Procurement remained open to 
EU  businesses  and  vice  versa.  It  is  not  clear  how  much  real  progress  was  expected  in  this 
area;  several  of  the  expectations  were  perhaps  more  aspirational  than  concrete  and  were 
conditioned  upon  wider  developments  occurring  at  EU  and  international  level.  The 
Intervention Logic for this objective is provided in Annex VI.  

Table 17 - Measures to work towards an international framework 

Action Plan measure 

Issues to be addressed 

State of Play 

to 

pursue 
Commission 
negotiations  on  the  review  of 
the  Government  Procurement 
Agreement (GPA) 

Commission  to  take  initiatives 
in the GPA to progress towards 
utilisation  of  a  single  common 
nomenclature 
the 
classification  of  procurement 
goods and services 

for 

International cross-border 

On-going63 

Policy 

Legal 

International cross-border 

On-going63 

Standardisation 

Policy 

International 
understanding 

common 

63 

COM has taken action according to the Action Plan's objectives, but the negotiation is still on-going. 

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Action Plan measure 

Issues to be addressed 

State of Play 

to  promote 

Commission 
activities  of  and 
international 
bodies  & 
emergence  of 
barriers at international level 

the 
liaise  with 
standardisation 
to  avoid 
interoperability 

fora 

Commission  to  cooperate  with 
Multilateral 
Development 
Banks  (MDBs)  network  in  view 
co-ordinating 
technical 
of 
3rd 
assist. 
countries, 
supporting  re-organising  and 
computerising their PP regimes 

to 

Commission  to  consider  any 
adjustments 
+ 
feasibility  of  e-Procurement  in 
context  of  EU  external  aid 
instruments 

necessary 

Source: DG MARKT 

International cross-border 

On-going 

Policy 

Standardisation 

Interoperability 

International cross-border 

On-going 

Policy 

Inclusion  

Policy 

Transparency 

On-going 

6.3.1.  Results of these measures 

The  Action  Plan  recognised  that  the  EU/  and  associated  countries  were  not  the  only  ones 
developing  e-Procurement  solutions.  Global  developments  in  e-Procurement  could  probably 
lead to a range of barriers being introduced, preventing European and 3rd country firms from 
accessing each other’s markets. The Action Plan identified measures designed to ensure that 
EU  rules  were  compliant  with  international  obligations  and  developments  and  that  good 
practices were widely disseminated. 

In  terms  of  the  GPA,  both  the  identified  measures  are  still  on-going  –  the  Commission  has 
made proposals within the current GPA review: 

•  To  include  provisions  relating  to  e-Procurement  which  should  ensure  alignment  between 

the EU and international approaches; and 

•  Within article 22 (the "rendez-vous" clause) it has been proposed that within a three year 
time frame, the GPA committee discusses the development of standardisation notices and 
the use of common nomenclatures.  

To date no common nomenclatures have been found for goods; the UN classification (CPC – 
in full) is used by most GPA countries for services. However, until the full negotiations are 
completed, these propositions are provisional. 

The third measure under this objective related to preventing the emergence of technological 
barriers at the international level through liaison with the appropriate standardisation bodies 
and fora. Although this action has been completed (in terms of the time period, in practice it 
has  no  set  end  point  and  is  permanently  on-going)  –  as  discussed  in  the  chapters  above  the 
Commission is active in discussions relating to these matters and liaises with bodies such as 
CEN,  and  UNCEFACT.  PEPPOL  also  recognises  the  importance  of  dissemination  and 

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
consensus  building  and  has  a  work  package  focussed  on  making  the  project  and  its  results 
well-known and accepted by all keys players in the EU, and (presumably) on the international 
stage. 

Multilateral  Development  Banks  also  play  an  important  role  in  the  development  of  EU  and 
international  e-Procurement.  As  recommended  in  the  Action  Plan,  the  Commission  has 
followed various activities to co-ordinate technical assistance to third countries that were also 
modernising  their  procurement  systems  and  moving  to  e-Procurement.  Again  this  is 
considered to be completed on an on-going basis as there is no set end point. There has also 
been co-operation and co-ordination with UNCITRAL which holds a twice annual meeting of 
a working group for Public Procurement.  

In relation to the final measure, discussions are on-going within the Commission to consider 
whether  a  simplified  set  of  standard  forms  can  be  created  which  are  more  appropriate  for 
procurements related to the provision of EU external aid.  

Despite these efforts, little concrete progress can be said to have been made in relation to 
eliminating  legal  and  technical  barriers  on  an  international  level  and  increasing 
international e-Procurement. Indeed this is not surprising given the limited progress at EU 
level  and  the  issues  relating  to  cross  border  procurement  within  the  EU;  greater  progress  at 
EU level would have perhaps made it easier to make the case for adopting European standards 
and  approaches.  Websites  such  as  e-Practice  do  disseminate  information  relating  to 
European Best Practice and there is an active e-Procurement community which presents 
and shares information via conferences around the world.  

6.3.2.  Wider impacts of the measures under Objective 3 

Overall,  progress  has  been  limited  and  overall  little  impact  has  been  made  in  relation  to 
facilitating e-Procurement at an international level. As mentioned above, it was probably not 
realistic  to  expect  clear  progress  under  this  objective,  which  is  partly  dependent  (e.g. 
GPA  negotiations)  on  the  priorities  and  interests  of  other  parties.  However  it  was,  and 
remains, an important area for EU involvement. 

6.4. 

Other issues raised in the Action Plan 

Although not addressed by specific measures the Action Plan (page 7) referred to the need to: 
"pay attention to potential excessive or abusive centralisation of purchases, inappropriate use 
of  electronic  auctions  and  preferences  for  closed  purchasing  systems  (e.g.  framework 
agreements) over open systems." 

As discussed in section 5.6.4, the use of framework agreements has grown since 2004; they 
are legally permitted in all Member States apart from Belgium (which recognises framework 
contracts) and frequently used, particularly in some countries (e.g. Sweden, Finland, Norway, 
Austria,  Denmark,  Italy  and  the  United  Kingdom).  As  far  as  can  be  assessed,  the  Siemens-
time.lex  study  concludes  that  where  used,  framework  agreements  appear  to  have  delivered 
cost savings and have led to improved efficiency but it is not clear how many framework 
agreements are being conducted electronically. Although the  data  from TED implies  that 
many  framework  agreements  are  signed  with  only  one  EO,  and  hence  subject  to  no 
competition  for  the  contracts  awarded  via  the  agreement,  no  indication  has  been  found  to 
support  the  concerns  of  the  Action  Plan.  In  some  countries  Member  States  have  also  used 
CPBs to provide framework agreements – again, it would seem that Member States view this 

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
as  an  efficient  approach,  implying  they  are  not  worried  by  any  possible  negative  effects  or 
assume that the positives outweigh the negatives.  

Centralisation effects in general are more difficult to judge – there are some indications that 
there is a tendency to greater centralisation (e.g. the number of CPBs, the range of services 
they  cover)  but  equally  moves  to  encourage  participation  by  SMEs  have  resulted  in  tenders 
being broken up into smaller lots.  

Whilst e-Auctions appear to be delivering large savings in some cases, this is unlikely to be a 
concern  to  many  CAs  in  the  current  financial  climate.  However  some  concerns  have  been 
voiced about the lack of benefits to EOs which could ultimately prevent some players from 
competing in e-Auctions and lead to restricted markets where prices are actually higher than 
in a more open system.  

6.5. 

Have the objectives of the Action Plan been achieved? 

In  broad  terms  it  is  clear  from  the  state  of  play  and  the  above  assessment  that  whilst 
progress  has  been  made  to  introduce  and  use  e-Procurement,  the  overall  objective  of 
unhindered cross-border electronic procurement has not yet been achieved. Realistically, 
given the complexity of the change required and the inherent challenges in moving towards 
electronic systems, these ambitious objectives were always unlikely to be achieved in such a 
short time-frame – it is perhaps fairer to ask if greater progress could have been expected. 

6.5.1.  Do we have a well functioning Internal Market in electronic public procurement? 

Progress  has  been  made,  particularly  at  the  national  level,  but  there  is  currently  no 
internal  market  in  e-Procurement  –  although  e-Procurement  is  beginning  to  make  its 
presence  felt,  use  at  the  moment  is  still  marginal  at  best  and  cross-border  e-Procurement 
virtually non-existant (perhaps reflecting some of the limitations which appear in the current, 
paper-based, market). However the success of a number of platforms indicates that a business 
case can be made.  

Whilst different "island" solutions exist, the bridges to connect them do not. Nonetheless, the 
legal  framework  does  appear  to  have  been  correctly  implemented  albeit  to  a  slightly  longer 
timetable than originally desired and many countries now have infrastructures which provide 
the appropriate basic tools. However this infrastructure is not based on common standards and 
interoperability  problems  exist,  creating  barriers  to  cross-border  e-Procurement.  There  are 
also  some  outstanding  legal  issues  to  be  addressed.  A  range  of  projects  and  studies  are  on-
going, looking into ways to  address the various  technical issues  and provide, in the coming 
years, some solutions to these interoperability problems on an EU-wide basis. This situation 
bears  marked  similarity  to  the  baseline  scenario  outlined  in  the  impact  assessment  i.e. 
the situation expected to be in place if no action was taken at Community level. Given 
that  action  was  taken,  it  would  seem  fair  to  conclude  that  less  has  been  achieved  than 
might have been expected. 

6.5.2.  Have  we  achieved  greater  efficiency  in  procurement,  improve  governance  and 

competitiveness? 

Again,  at  a  national  level,  there  is  some  evidence  that  procurement  has  become  more 
efficient as a result of e-Procurement – certainly many portals promote the savings made by 
using  their  systems.  Some  initial  improvements  in  governance  have  been  seen  –  at  least 

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
during the process of introducing e-Procurement, when many countries created national plans. 
Fewer countries appear to have plans/a clear strategy covering the future roll out and use of e-
Procurement. Goal oriented policy making does not seem to have been widely adopted – only 
seven  countries  seem  to  have  systems  for  regularly  collecting  data  and  information.  There 
are indications that competition has increased – some countries report increased numbers 
of bidders per tender – certainly many Economic Operators appear to be registering with the 
various  portals  available  nationally.  So  some  improvements  have  been  seen,  although 
again they are probably less than might have been expected. 

6.5.3.  Have  we  progressed  towards  an  international  framework  for  electronic  public 

procurement? 

Although the Commission has made progress and carried out the actions identified under the 
Action Plan, there has not been much progress in developing an international framework 
for  e-Procurement.  Here  expectations  were  perhaps  not  that  high  as  success  relied  on  a 
multitude of factors and was not always within the control of the EU.  

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
7. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Whilst Chapter 6 provided an assessment of how much the Action Plan has contributed to the 
progress  which  has  been  made  in  relation  to  e-Procurement,  this  chapter  will  focus  on 
answering the evaluation questions. It will also identify the outstanding issues and discuss the 
next steps, particularly in relation to developing a future monitoring and evaluation strategy.  

7.1. 

Answers to the evaluation questions 

7.1.1.  To what extent have public procurement procedures been "computerised"? 

As  has  been  shown,  progress  has  been  made  to  introduce  e-Procurement  systems  -  today 
systems  offering  some  level  of  functionality  exist  in  30  of  the  32  countries  (26  Member 
States).  The  services  provided  vary  quite  markedly  across  these  countries  however,  both  in 
terms of the number of phases/tools supported and also in terms of the approach taken and the 
level of sophistication of the ICT solutions adopted. In 25 of the 32 countries considered (24 
Member  States),  there  are  some  systems  available  and  capable  of  providing  e-
Submission and hence meet the definition of e-Procurement used for this evaluation. 18 
countries (17 Member States) offer the full pre-award phases. Some Member States or regions 
have  put  in  place  e-Procurement  systems  which  can  support  'straight  through  electronic 
procurement'  processes  –  at  least  for  purchases  of  standards  supplies  and  services.  Whilst 
these  figures  show  that  availability  has  increased  and  it  is  now  possible,  in  theory,  to 
conduct  procurements  electronically  in  the  majority  of  countries,  it  is  not  clear  how 
many  authorities  and  economic  operators  have  access  to  these  systems,  some  of  which 
are limited to certain users (e.g. central government).  

The actual number and value of tenders which are both being made available and concluded 
using  electronic  means  is  not  clear.  Actual  use  of  e-Procurement  is  difficult  to  measure, 
but is estimated to be much lower than might be inferred from the figures relating to the 
infrastructure  which  has  been  introduced.  Other  than  in  Portugal,  where  electronic 
procurement has been mandatory since 2009 and nearly 100% of all procurement is conducted 
electronically,  the  EU  average  figure  is  likely  to  be  less  than  5%  of  total  value.  France  and 
Italy,  countries  which  have  been  active  supporters  and  adopters  of  e-Procurement  estimate 
that  only  4%  and  2.5%  respectively  of  their  total  procurement  is  conducted  electronically. 
Uptake is likely to increase as experience with e-Procurement grows – many of the systems 
are  still  fairly  new  and  there  are  signs  that  momentum  is  building  in  the  e-Procurement 
market.  

Good progress has been made in terms of the phases which only require a one-way flow 
of  information  (e-Notification  and  e-Access),  which  have  also  perhaps  benefited  from  the 
incentives built in to the 2004 legislation. The introduction of systems which can conduct 
two-way  flow  of  information  has  been  more  difficult  -  mainly  due  to  issues  around  the 
required level of security/trust which a system must provide, but also perhaps influenced by 
lack of clear incentives for their use by all parties.  

Member  States  have  taken  the  widest  possible  range  of  positions  in  approaching 
authentication  -  from  simple  user  id/password  systems  available  to  all,  to  technically 
demanding  e-Signature  solutions  which  only  a  limited  number  of  operators  can  meet.  This 
has  had  knock-on  effects  for  the  systems  they  have  developed  and  ultimately  the 

EN 

81 

   EN 

 
accessibility of these systems by different EOs, particularly non-national operators. No 
known breaches of trust or security have been reported for either type of system. 

Different approaches have also been seen in terms of the degree of technological advancement 
built into a system. Some Member States/providers have produced systems which act mainly 
as communication channels between the CAs and EOs, permitting the upload and exchange of 
documents prepared locally by either the CA or EO; others have created systems which allow 
EOs  to  work  within  the  e-Procurement  system  itself,  entering  their  data  and  information 
directly into (standard) documents and forms on the central system. (See Annex III for further 
detail) 

Many  of  the  necessary  technical  building  blocks  which  were  expected  to  develop  over 
this period have not advanced to a point where the market has converged on common 
standards  or  approaches.  In  some  areas,  such  as  e-Attestations,  pragmatic  approaches  or 
workarounds  have  been  adopted  which  allow  e-Procurement  systems  to  operate.  It  is 
questionable  whether  such  systems  will/should  adopt  technologically  more  advanced 
solutions if they become available, or if they will continue to operate at a technologically less 
advanced, but more pragmatic level. 

Multi  user  platforms  appear  to  be  very  successful.  These  can  be  provided  in  a  range  of 
ways - for example CAs can hire space on a private system or can use a CPB, which may be 
publicly  or  privately  run.  Also  electronic  marketplaces  are  proving  successful  in  some 
instances  -  suppliers  freely  publish  catalogues  and  registered  administrations  procure  what 
they want in a "click and buy" fashion – although such solutions are generally suited to below 
threshold e-Procurement. The key concept appears to be the provision of solutions by 3rd 
parties.  

In summary, progress has been made, but there is a still a long way to go to achieve the 
vision  of  the  Action  Plan.  The  degree  of  technological  sophistication  evident  in  the 
systems  developed  varies  widely.  Some  countries  have  developed  "state  of  the  art" 
systems; others have adopted simpler, lower-tech solutions. As yet, no evidence has been 
presented  that  the  approaches  which  are  based  on  lower  levels  of  technology  have 
experienced  any  problems  in  relation  to  providing  acceptable  levels  of  security  and  trust. 
Building on such solutions, which are more accessible to EOs, including non-nationals, may 
thus be the best way to advance the switch from paper to computer based systems in the short 
to medium term and facilitate the possibility to conduce cross-border electronic procurement. 
Whilst  e-Procurement  in  the  EU  may  be  nearing  the  Manchester  target  of  100% 
availability in 2010, at least in theory, it is currently far short of the 50% use target. 

7.1.2.  To what extent did the EU Action Plan for e-Procurement identify the right priorities 

and strategy? To what extent has it been implemented? 

Whilst not all the measures foreseen under the Action Plan have been completed, or in a few 
instances not yet started, 13 have been completed and a similar number are still on-going. In 
assessing to what extent the Action Plan has achieved its objectives it has become clear 
that  the  areas  targeted  for  attention  were,  on  the  whole,  relevant  and  important  to 
improving  and  increasing  the  development  and  use  of  e-Procurement  systems.  Hence, 
the Action Plan did identify the right priorities:  

–  A single consistent legislative framework was required in the EU, defining in broad terms 

the requirements for e-Procurement systems; 

EN 

82 

   EN 

 
–  Solutions  needed  to  be  found  to  issues  such  as  interoperability,  standardisation  and 

authentication;  

–  To  manage  and  achieve  the  switchover  from  paper  to  computer,  clear  planning  and 

monitoring was required;  

–  Best practices and experience needed to be shared; and  

–  To a lesser extent, although still important, the EU needed to promote the advances being 
made within its borders and ensure that international developments were in step with what 
was happening in Europe. 

A  few,  perhaps  subtle  exceptions  may  be  highlighted  however.  One  relates  to  the 
emphasis placed on the adoption of qualified signatures. These technologically demanding 
solutions may be creating an unnecessary barrier to access and cross-border use. Whilst they 
have the same legal value as hand-written signatures, there is currently no evidence that such 
a sophisticated solution is actually required in practice. As yet, no "lower tech" solutions have 
caused problems relating to security / trust and to require e-Signatures at submission may be 
slightly  over  zealous.  The  solutions  requested  for  e-Procurement  should  be  proportionate  to 
the risks involved in the process. For example, further consideration could perhaps be given to 
the  possibility  that  it  is  only  once  a  contract  is  awarded  and  signed  that  legal  certainty  is 
required; if something goes wrong after that point, legal re-dress is ensured via the provisions 
of the contract itself. Whilst conducting the procurement process this trust and honesty can, to 
a large extent, be assumed. 

Secondly, the need to develop and use electronic certificates may have reduced, at least 
in the short to medium term, due to the more practical workarounds which have been 
adopted by some countries. The acceptance of declarations of compliance by CAs, allowing 
bids to be evaluated first and requiring proof of certain eligibility and suitability criteria only 
from  the  winning  bidder  can  significantly  reduce  the  administrative  burden  placed  on  EOs. 
Such measures are permitted under the 2004 Directives.  

Given that the majority of these priorities are still valid in 2010, it is perhaps more revealing 
to consider whether the strategy adopted by the Action Plan was appropriate. 

Firstly, it should be noted that the Public Procurement Directives are by their very nature, not 
prescriptive – they provide the framework within which Member States are free to define their 
own particular mode of operation. Also, in 2004 when the Action Plan was drawn up, the e-
Procurement  market  was  still  very  much  in  its  infancy.  In  particular,  many  of  the 
technological drivers for change, such as common standards and formats and ways to address 
interoperability,  were  undeveloped.  No  real  leading  contenders  could  be  identified  –  the 
market  needed  to  evolve  and  in  so  doing  find  solutions  to  the  various  issues.  After  some 
consideration64, a flexible, somewhat gentle, approach (rather than a prescriptive or directive 
one) was deemed most appropriate to prevent innovation and competition from being stifled. 
Of course, this ran the risk that a range of stand alone solutions would be developed which 
could not, at least in their initial versions, interact – which is precisely the situation we have 
today.  Equally,  the  Action  Plan  assumed  that  these  technological  advances  would  be  made 

64 

See EIA for further detail.  

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
                                                 
fairly  quickly;  actual  progress  has  been  slow and  it  is  only  now  in  2010  that  we  are  finally 
progressing to putting the necessary technological building blocks in place. 

According  to  the  EIA  (page  32),  the  strategy  proposed  relied  upon  "close  co-operation  and 
partnership between the Commission and the Member States in order to exploit the available 
synergies  and  co-ordinate  efforts  among  all  the  actors  involved  in  implementing  the  Action 
Plan."  Although  this  "soft-law"  approach  has  been  fruitful  and  encouraged  the 
development of creative solutions, with the benefit of hindsight, it might still have been 
better to be more pro-active and directive in relation to certain measures. Many Action 
Plan measures consisted of guidance or pilot studies which sought to test or promote certain 
solutions.  They  have  raised  awareness  of  problems,  pointed  towards  solutions  and  provided 
common  points  of  reference  for  the  wider  market.  However,  they  did  not  seek  to  impose 
particular  solutions  or  outcomes  at  a  time  when  technology  and  business  models  were  still 
evolving.  As  they  have  been  drafted  in  terms  which  are  sufficiently  broad,  it  is  possible  to 
claim  some  measure  of  success,  without  it  being  particularly  clear  what  contribution  they 
actually made to the progress achieved. If these actions had been somewhat more specific and 
included  pro-active  follow-up  measures  (e.g.  workshops  to  identify  and  agree  next  steps), 
their resultant impacts may have been greater (and easier to assess). Often where there were 
more  targeted  actions,  accompanied  by  the  use  of  clear  incentives  –  for  example  the 
changes  to  TED  and  e-Notification,  greater  success,  more  directly  attributable  to  the 
Action Plan (and the incentives) can be identified.  

Although  there  was  a  certain  natural  allocation  of  tasks  between  the  Commission  and 
Member  States,  and  it  was  assumed  that  all  parties  were  equally  willing  and  able  to 
carry  out  the  tasks  given  to  them,  this  has  not  always  happened.  There  may  be  many 
reasons  why  some  Member  States  have  not  advanced  their  e-Procurement  infrastructure  or 
followed  up  some  of  the  policy  recommendations  included  in  the  Action  Plan.  The  two 
actions  led  by  the  Public  Procurement  Network  (PPN),  a  forum  for  Member  States  run  by 
Member  States  have  been  delayed,  as  have  certain  actions  for  the  Commission  such  as 
adjusting  external  aid  instruments  where  progress  has  been  made  only  recently.  Since  there 
was no clear mechanism put in place to monitor developments and no powers were given to 
any party to enforce or demand that such actions were fulfilled, progress in some areas was 
always  likely  to  slip.  In  other  instances,  whilst  it  was  appropriate  (under  subsidiarity)  to 
encourage  Member  States  to  put  in  place  data  collection  and  monitoring  systems,  some 
central guidance from the Commission would also have been useful, helping to promote both 
action under this heading and in ensuring commonality and consistency between systems. 

In  terms  of  the  results  this  strategy  has  delivered,  judged  against  the  success  criteria 
identified  earlier  (see  4.4)  progress  has  been  less  than  might  have  been  hoped.  Legal 
barriers, or at least issues, still exist – some should be fairly simple to address e.g. by issuing 
further clarification, others such as the legal issues relating to the providers of e-Procurement 
systems and access to markets will require greater thought. Technical barriers have not been 
reduced  and  it  could  be  argued  that  with  the  increased  number  of  solutions  developed,  the 
increased number of e-Signatures available, they have even increased. No real interoperable 
systems  currently  exist  within  Europe  although  some  interoperability  is  possible  between 
systems existing at the national level (often because those systems have been developed from 
one common template).  

The use of qualified e-Signatures (and e-Signatures in general) has increased since 2004 but 
this has not led to them becoming the standard e-Signature type nor even the main approach 
to authentication – other forms are also used. Common standards do not currently exist, but 

EN 

84 

   EN 

 
there has been some progress towards them, particularly in post-award phases. Governance of 
public procurement has seen some improvement in some countries, but it is not clear if this 
was just focussed on the implementation stage – not many plans or strategies were identified 
for the upcoming period. Some countries have adopted better data collection and monitoring 
systems but not all. Given the interoperability issues, we know that some national markets are 
effectively closed to non-national economic operators. Centralisation may be reducing access 
to  markets  for  some  operators,  particularly  SMEs  although  some  countries  have  introduced 
quite detailed plans aimed at ensuring greater access to markets for SMEs. While proposals 
have  been  made  to  the  GPA  and  the  Commission  is  active  in  various  fora,  overall  progress 
towards an international framework for e-Procurement remains limited.  

Although dissemination has been fairly good within the e-Procurement community, more can 
be  done  to  reach  EOs  and  CAs  who  are  not  yet  aware  or  convinced  of  the  benefits  e-
Procurement can offer. The business case for e-Procurement needs to be promoted more – and 
to do this effectively, greater effort should be made to produce and use key statistics. 

This  assessment  hides  however  the  efforts  and  achievements  that  have  been  made  by  some 
contracting  authorities,  economic  operators,  CPBs  and  Member  States  to  adopt  the  changes 
that  have  been  made  to  date.  The  Action  Plan  perhaps  underestimated,  or  did  not  put 
sufficient  focus  on  the  large  organisational  and  operational  challenges  that  such  a  move 
requires.  It  is  not  clear  how  much  advance  has  been  made  in  simplifying  processes  and 
extracting  efficiencies.  Even  where  countries  had  the  political  support  and  hence  access  to 
technical and financial resources, change has been slow to happen. Different countries start at 
different  points  of  the  learning  curve;  they  also  have  different  issues  to  overcome.  For 
example,  large  countries  with  many  contracting  entities  face  different  problems  to  smaller 
ones; some countries already have fairly centralised procurement and hence may find it easy 
to  introduce  one  or  a  small  number  of  portals  –  in  countries  with  a  more  decentralised 
approach,  many  portals  are  likely  to  spring  up  bringing  with  them  further  issues  relating  to 
access, standardisation and interoperability. 

The review of websites and e-Procurement systems, plus more general feedback from various 
actors, implies that the guidance and pilot studies produced as a result of the Action Plan have 
been useful. They have raised awareness of problems, pointed towards solutions and provided 
common reference points for the wider market.  

Little information is available at national or EU level to allow a thorough assessment of how 
compliant the various actors have been with the measures proposed. However, given that 13 
measures are complete with a further three having shown good progress and 13 are on-going 
it is clear that much effort has been made. 

In summary, it would seem that broadly speaking the priorities identified in the Action 
Plan were generally correct, although more emphasis/action could have been directed at 
aiding and encouraging organisational change. The strategy itself, whilst appropriate in 
the  context  of  the  developing  market,  could  have  been  better  –  even  if  it  could  not  be 
prescriptive,  it  could  have  been  somewhat  more  pro-active  and  put  in  place  control 
mechanisms  or  procedures  to  ensure  actions  were  conducted.  Whilst  much  work  has 
been undertaken as a result of the Action Plan, as noted earlier, the ambitious objectives 
are  yet  to  be  met.  Perhaps  the  greatest  flaw,  although  no-one  could  know  this  at  the 
time, is that it assumed, incorrectly as it turns out, that technology would advance more 
quickly and create the optimal conditions for introducing and adopting e-Procurement.  

EN 

85 

   EN 

 
7.1.3.  How relevant, efficient and effective has the Action Plan been in achieving or at least 
nearing the stated objectives of efficient and unhindered cross-border e-Procurement 
in the EU? 

As has been identified above, e-Procurement is now a real possibility within the EU, but in 
practice  actual  use  remains  small  and  unhindered  cross-border  procurement  has  not  been 
achieved. In terms of the three evaluation criteria, the following conclusions can be drawn: 

–  Effectiveness  -  in  some  areas,  the  Action  Plan  measures  have  contributed  towards  the 
progress which has been made, although the actual objectives of the Action Plan have not 
been met. Hence the effectiveness of the Action Plan is limited; 

–  Efficiency  –  it  is  difficult  to  judge  how  well  resources  have  been  used  to  achieve  the 
results identified. Reviews of the existing systems imply that the studies and projects have 
contributed  to  the  progress  made  but  it  is  not  possible  at  present  to  assess  the  overall 
efficiency of the Action Plan.  

–  Relevance  –  the  assessment  provided  here  shows  quite  clearly  that  the  majority  of 
priorities  identified  by  the  Action  Plan  were  relevant  in  2004  and  many  remain  relevant 
today. Some slight shifts of emphasis may be appropriate in relation to authentication and 
e-Attestations and to some extent to the focus put on cross border e-Procurement. 

It  is  perhaps  also  pertinent  at  this  point  to  mention  a  few  results  which  were  not  expected 
under the Action Plan. These relate to the more pragmatic solutions adopted sometimes at a 
national level, sometimes more locally, which bypass some of the more technical issues and 
allow e-Procurement systems, albeit less sophisticated ones to operate. Most notably, this can 
be seen in the decision by some parties not to adopt the complex e-Signatures promoted by 
the  Action  Plan,  but  to  implement  simpler  systems  which  permit  wider  access.  The  other 
obvious area where this has occurred is in relation to e-Attestations – rather than creating or 
providing  such  electronic  documents,  there  has  been  a  move  to  accepting  declarations  of 
compliance or allowing Third Parties to assess compliance. 

Hence although the Action Plan has delivered its objectives to some extent, many of its 
priority  areas  are  still  relevant  and  if  the  vision  of  the  Action  Plan  is  to  be  achieved, 
further  co-ordinated  action  is  required.  The  following  section  summarises  the  main 
outstanding issues and barriers. 

7.2.  What are the remaining issues to be addressed? 

This evaluation has identified a number of challenges and weaknesses which, if not addressed, 
will prevent the realisation of wider take-up of e-Procurement and cross-border participation 
in  on-line  procurement.  Looking  to  the  future,  the  Commission  must  continue  to  act  to 
minimise the risks of a decentralised, fragmented approach at EU level. To this end it could, 
in broad terms: 

–  Adapt  Community  legislation  or  policy  actions  where  they  have  missed  their  targets  or 

where appropriate, re-define targets; 

–  Promote common principles, building blocks and models for regionally or nationally built 
them  or 

inter-connections  between 

technical 

e-Procurement  systems 
participation by operators in multiple systems; 

to  facilitate 

EN 

86 

   EN 

 
–  Encourage  convergent,  secure  but  commercially  viable  solutions  to  critical  phases  and 

applications; and 

–  Disseminate examples of best-practices. 

Within this framework of actions, the issues presented below (in no particular order) appear to 
have most importance. There is some cross-over and synergy between these areas. 

•  Provision of a supportive legal environment. As systems develop it may be necessary to 
set  clearer  conditions  for  their  use  and  to  define  the  obligations  relating  to  the  provision 
and operation of such platforms. In the wider legislative context, to facilitate and reinforce 
greater use of e-Procurement at both national and cross-border level and ensure a coherent 
legal  environment,  changes  might  be  required  in  related  legislation,  such  as  the  e-
Signatures Directive (currently being considered), e-Invoicing and VAT. 

•  More pragmatic approach, where appropriate, to technical issues: Many of the more 
sophisticated  approaches  to  authentication,  particularly  those  based  around  e-Signatures 
are  preventing  wider  access  and  interoperability.  The  desired  efforts  to  standardise  and 
restructure  business  documents  and  create  electronic  versions  which  are  usable  and 
acceptable across borders have been slow to materialise. Technology should be considered 
more as a means to achieve electronic procurement rather than an end in itself. 

•  Greater  support  for  administrative  simplification  and  organisational  change.  Many 
countries  have  reported  inertia  and  a  lack  of  interest  on  the  part  of  EOs  and  CAs.  More 
needs  to  be  done  to  identify  and  promote  ways  to  simplify  the  procurement  process  and 
facilitate organisational change. 

•  Lack  of  standardisation.  The  availability  of  standards  setting  common  rules  on  process 
and data structures for the exchange of business information is clearly a success factor for 
e-Procurement.  One  of  the  biggest  problems  in  relation  to  interoperable  e-Procurement 
systems, was in 2004, and remains today in 2010, the lack of a coherent set of standards for 
communication and format.  

•  Development  of  a  more  convergent  infrastructure.  Whilst  convergence  on  one 
monolithic system is neither desirable nor intended, it will facilitate participation if there is 
some common core functionality across systems. Little commonality is currently visible in 
the different systems which have been developed – individual island solutions have been 
developed and if action is not taken quickly to create bridges between these systems, there 
is a strong risk of market fragmentation. To foster e-Procurement take-up, one of the key 
challenges is to make available in the various alternative forms (standards specifications, 
off-the-shelf products, open-source software, application services provided by 3rd parties) 
the  largest  possible  number  of  building  blocks,  which  together  should  ensure  a  certain 
degree of homogeneity across e-Procurement systems. 

•  Improved  access  and  wider  inclusion.  Closely  linked  to  some  of  the  issues  identified 
above,  more  needs  to  be  done  to  ensure  that  e-Procurement  is  available  to  all  interested 
parties including SMEs and that the benefits can be shared by all. Increased use will lead to 
increased realisation of these benefits.  

•  Best  practice  and  dissemination.  As  we  move  forward,  it  is  vital  that  we  avoid  re-
inventing  the  wheel  and  find  a  mechanism  which  profits  more  directly  from  these 

EN 

87 

   EN 

 
experiences and more actively promotes and realises the wider benefits. Within this policy, 
steps should be taken to introduce better monitoring systems at both EU and national level. 
This  would  enable  progress  to  be  tracked  more  closely  and,  provided  the  appropriate 
indicators are introduced, facilitate timely action to address issues as they develop  rather 
than once they have become endemic.  

•  Greater emphasis on the pre-award phases, particularly e-Submission. This phase is a 
complex  and  interactive  phase,  involving  several  important  e-Procurement  challenges 
including: certification of submission time; authentication of the information provided by 
the bidder; submission of attestations; and ensuring the confidentiality and integrity of the 
bids  received.  Addressing  the  problems  posed  by  the  different  steps  within  the  e-
Submission  phase  and  moving  towards  a  more  homogeneous  landscape  of  e-Submission 
systems  would  greatly  increase  the  use  of  e-Procurement  in  general  and  hence  the 
realisation of the resultant benefits. It would also make it easier for economic operators to 
move between systems, both on a national and cross border level. 

7.3. 

Next steps 

Despite  the  inherent  potential  of  e-Procurement  to  facilitate  remote  participation  in  tenders, 
significant  levels  of  participation  in  cross-border  e-Procurement  procedures  have  not  yet 
materialised. This evaluation has identified a series of impediments to the wider up-take of e-
Procurement  and  increased  cross-border  participation  which  have  their  origin  in  legal, 
technical  and  administrative  features.  The  proliferation  of  e-Procurement  systems  and 
solutions at national/regional level will exacerbate the interoperability challenge. While there 
is  limited  evidence  to-date  that  technical  and  legal  barriers  are  stifling  cross-border 
participation  in  e-Procurement,  failure  to  address  these  barriers  at  the  outset  will  deprive 
economic operators and contracting authorities of the full benefits that e-Procurement offers. 

Faced with this situation, the Commission believes that there is a need for sustained attention 
at  EU  level  to  expand  the  use  of  e-Procurement  in  the  EU.  Rather  than  proposing  detailed 
recommendations here, the Services of the Commission would like to first propose a period of 
wider consultation, to build consensus on the most important issues to be addressed and the 
approach  to  be  adopted.  This  consultation  phase  will  be  triggered  by  the  publication  of  a 
Green  Paper,  building  on  the  results  of  this  evaluation,  intended  for  publication  in  October 
2010.  

7.4. 

Future Monitoring and Evaluation 

Monitoring  is  an  important  part  of  any  policy  intervention.  By  monitoring  a  system,  an 
information process is designed which permits users and managers to periodically measure or 
test the state of the system. It allows them to check that an activity is “on track” in relation to 
the pre-defined objectives and identify timely “corrective” actions if necessary.  

In researching this evaluation it has become clear that although progress has been made since 
2004, with much research undertaken and publication of case studies and findings, there is a 
marked  lack  of  commonly  defined  and  collected  statistics  and  indicators  at  an  EU  level. 
Although  some  Member  States  have  taken  action  to  define  and  implement  their  own 
monitoring strategies, there may be differences in approach which could make it difficult to 
use  and  compare  results.  Even  where  such  data  is  being  collected,  it  is  not  always  made 
publicly available. This lack of data has undoubtedly affected the ability to objectively assess 
and judge the progress which has been made. 

EN 

88 

   EN 

 
As  we  go  forward,  a  clear  monitoring  strategy  needs  to  be  defined  and  implemented  for  e-
Procurement. This strategy would define: 

•  The data to be collected, (taking into account the costs of data collection); 

•  The indicators to be compiled;  

•  When the above actions should be undertaken and however measurement will occur; 

•  Who will undertake this work. 

The indicators should initially measure what is happening in a Member State at national level 
and  a  method  should  be  defined  to  allow  compilation  of  EU  level  statistics.  Where 
appropriate, these indicators should build on existing measures, aiming for consistency across 
the countries involved and avoiding overlap/duplication wherever possible. 

Future  updates  might  then  allow  for  lower  level  indicators  to  be  considered  –  possibly  by 
regional  or  local  level,  or  in  relation  to  particular  purchase  types.  As  part  of  the  strategy,  a 
baseline  measurement  should  be  conducted,  against  which  future  progress  could  be 
benchmarked. Ideally this data would be collected before/at the start of the new policy stage, 
but more realistically, given the need to define the precise indicators, this might happen in the 
early stages of implementation.  

It is neither possible nor appropriate at this point to actually define the actual indicators, but in 
terms  of  the  areas  for  which  indicators  should  be  developed,  there  are  three  obvious 
candidates where effort must be targeted. Indicators must be agreed to measure both the 
availability and use of e-Procurement. Depending on the degree of sophistication required, 
it  may  be  necessary  to  develop  several  indicators  for  each  of  these  areas.  It  is  not  always 
necessary to create complicated indicators and it might be better to start with simple measures 
such as counts, which would at least provide some consistent information, and develop more 
sophisticated indicators over time. 

Particular  emphasis  should  be  placed  on  measuring  the  use  and  availability  of  the  e-
Submission  phase  as  this  has  been  identified  as  a  key  part  of  the  e-Procurement  dynamic, 
being the first phase where two-way information flows are required and hence an appropriate 
testing  ground  for  the  monitoring  the  degree  of  success  observed  in  solving  many  of  the 
issues which have been identified. 

For  availability,  possible  suggestions  include  simple  counts  per  country  of  available  sites 
providing  certain  tools  and  phases  possibly  by  type  of  provider  (public,  private,  CPB  etc); 
multi-criteria indicators could also be developed based on combinations of availability against 
pre-defined standards.  

In  relation  to  indicators  of  use,  measures  should  be  created  which  indicate  the  number  of 
contracts conducted electronically (which could again be measured by the phases completed 
electronically) and by the value of these contracts. These figures could then be compared to 
the total number and volume of contracts being publicly procured within the EU to give some 
idea of overall use.  

EN 

89 

   EN 

 
When  measuring  e-Submission  it  might  be  necessary  to  consider  how  various  tools  are 
provided  –  for  example,  actual  use  of  e-Signatures  in  bids  and  the  level  of  signature 
requested; the requirements for e-Documents/e-Attestations. 

Indicators  must  also  be  developed  relating  to  the  main  barriers  identified,  so  that 
progress  towards  reducing  or  removing  them  can  be  measured  clearly.  In  terms  of 
interoperability,  indicators  will  probably  include  some  measure  of  cross-border  activity  e.g. 
cross-border bidding and success. Use and availability indicators for various tools and phases 
may  be  sufficient  to  identify  progress  in  eliminating  issues  where  problems  of  clarity  or 
definition have been identified.  

Other topics for consideration could include a measure of the involvement of SMEs and some 
measurement  of  costs  and  benefits.  For  example,  it  would  be  useful  to  compare  costs  per 
paper  procedure  and  costs  per  electronic  procedure,  or  to  estimate  and  compare  pay  back 
periods for different e-Procurement systems.  

It  is  always  tempting  to  define  a  large  number  of  indicators  based  on  areas  of  interest  and 
possible hypotheses. Care must be taken to balance out the need for indicators against the cost 
of collecting consistent and reliable data across 32 countries. 

Only once the indicators have been developed and a baseline identified, should some thought 
be given as to whether targets should be set and by whom. 

EN 

90 

   EN 

 
ANNEX I - Glossary 

ACPC (Advisory Committee on Public Contracts) 

Advanced electronic signature  

An electronic signature which meets the following requirements: 

It is uniquely linked to the signatory 

•  It is capable of identifying the signatory 

•  It is created using means that the signatory can maintain under its sole control 

•  It is linked to the data to which it relates in such a manner that any subsequent change of 

the date is detectable. 

Attestation 

A  document  originating  from  a  party  other  than  the  economic  operators  intended  to 
demonstrate a quality or fact pertaining to the economic operator.  

Authentication 

The corroboration of the claimed identity of an entity and a set of its observed attributes (i.e. 
the notion is used as a synonym of “entity authentication”).  

BII Workshop 

Business Interoperability Interfaces on public procurement in Europe (BII) is CEN Workshop 
providing  a  basic  framework  for  technical  interoperability  in  pan-European  electronic 
transactions,  expressed  as  a  set  of  technical  specifications  that  in  particular  are  compatible 
with UN/CEFACT. 

BRITE (Business Register Interoperability Throughout Europe) 

An on-line business standards register 

CA (Contracting Authority) 

State, regional or local authorities, bodies governed by public law, associations formed by one 
or several of such authorities or one or several of such bodies governed by public law, subject 
to the European regulatory framework on public procurement 

Certification Authority 

A certification service provider which issues digital certificates for use by other parties. CAs 
is characteristic of many public key infrastructure (PKI) schemes. 

Contract Award Notice 

A  document  completed  by  the  Contracting  Authority  and  made  public  after  award  of  a 
contract. 

CC3P (e-Catalogue Classification in Public and Private Procurement) 

EN 

91 

   EN 

 
CEN  Project,  its  title  is  “Classification  and  catalogue  systems  for  public  and  private 
procurement”  (CC3P)  to  be  carried  out  within  the  framework  of  Workshop  eCAT 
'Multilingual e-Cataloguing and e-Classification in e-Business’. 

CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation – European Committee for Standardization) 

The  European  Committee  for  Standardization  (ISO’s  counterpart  and  the  European  entry 
point  to  UN/CEFACT).  CEN  Workshops  are  open  consensus  building  platforms  for 
contributing  to  standards,  especially  in  the  ICT  area,  and  their  product  is  a  CEN  Workshop 
Agreement. 

CEN/e-Invoicing 

A  CEN  Workshop  providing  an  open  platform  for  stakeholder  consensus  on  the 
implementation of e-Invoices in Europe. 

CEN / ISSS (Information Society Standardisation System)  

CEN/ISSS (Information Society Standardisation System) was created in mid-1997 by CEN as 
the focus for its ICT standards activities. 

CWA (CEN Workshop Agreement) 

CII (Cross-Industry Invoice) 

The CII standard was developed by UN/CEFACT with a view to enhance links between the 
business  and  financial  supply  chains  and  to  enable  cross-industry  and  cross-domain 
interoperability.  This  standard  is  based  on  a  set  of  business  requirements  from  different 
industries and stakeholders in both the private and public sectors 

Contract Notice 

A document completed by the Contracting Authority inviting companies to tender. 

CPB (Central Purchasing Body) 

A  contracting  authority  which  acquires  supplies  and/or  services  intended  for  contracting 
authorities,  or  awards  public  contracts  or  concludes  framework  agreements  for  works, 
supplies or services intended for other contracting authorities. 

CPC (Central Product Classification) 

The United Nations Product Classification, covering goods and service 

CPV (Common Procurement Vocabulary) 

The  CPV  establishes  a  single  classification  system  for  public  procurement  aimed  at 
standardising the references used by contracting authorities and entities to describe the subject 
of procurement contracts. 

CROBIES 

Study on Cross border Interoperability of e-Signatures. Its objective is to propose solutions to 
remove  barriers  to  cross  border  interoperability  of  qualified  electronic  signatures  and 
advanced electronic signatures based on qualified certificates. 

EN 

92 

   EN 

 
CSP (Certification Service Provider) 

An entity or a legal or natural person who issues certificates or provides other services related 
to electronic signatures. 

COM (European Commission) 

CWA (CEN Workshop Agreement) 

A CEN Workshop agreement is a standardisation document, developed in a CEN Workshop. 
The latter is open to the direct participation of anyone with an interest in the development of 
the agreement.  

DG MARKT (Internal Market and Services Directorate General) 

Internal Market and Services Directorate General of the European Commission 

DG DIGIT (Directorate General for Informatics) 

DG ENTR (Enterprise and Industry Directorate General) 

DG INFSO (Information Society and Media Directorate General) 

Digital certificate 

A small set of structured data that has been electronically signed by a Certification Authority 
to bind the identity of a legal or natural person to a 'public key' that can be used e.g. to verify 
electronic signatures created by that person. 

Directive 

A  Directive  is  a  legislative  act  of  the  European  Union  which  requires  Member  States  to 
achieve  a  particular  result  without  dictating  the  means  of  achieving  that  result.  Although 
obligatory to implement, Directives normally leave Member States with a certain amount of 
leeway as to the exact rules to be adopted. 

DPS (Dynamic purchasing system) 

A completely electronic process for making commonly used purchases, the characteristics of 
which,  as  generally  available  on  the  market,  meet  the  requirements  of  the  contracting 
authority,  which  is  limited  in  duration  and  open  throughout  its  validity  to  any  economic 
operator  which  satisfies  the  selection  criteria  and  has  submitted  an  indicative  tender  that 
complies with the specification. 

e-CERTIS 

Public database containing information on (e-)Attestations. 

EIA (Extended Impact Assessment)  

The  Extended  Impact  Assessment  relating  to  the  development  of  the  Commission’s  Action 
Plan for e-Procurement, COM (2004)841, is available on the DG MARKT website  

EO (Economic operator) 

EN 

93 

   EN 

 
Generic term for a contractor, supplier or service provider in a public procurement. The terms 
"contractor",  "supplier"  and  "service  provider"  mean  any  natural  or  legal  person  or  public 
entity  or  group  of  such  persons  and/or  bodies  which  offers  on  the  market,  respectively,  the 
execution of works and/or a work, products or services. 

eCl@ss 

The international standard for unified and consistent classification of products, materials and 
services along the entire supply chain 

EDI (Electronic Data Interchange) 

Electronic  Data  Interchange  refers  to  the  structured  transmission  of  data  between 
organisations  by  electronic  means.  It  is  used  to  transfer  electronic  documents  from  one 
computer system to another (i.e.) from one trading partner to another trading partner. 

EEA (European Economic Area) 

The Agreement creating the European Economic Area entered into force on 1 January 1994. It 
allows  the  EEA  EFTA  States  (Norway,  Iceland  and  Liechtenstein)  to  participate  in  the 
Internal Market on the basis of their application of Internal Market relevant acquits.  

e-ID 

An  electronic  representation  of  a  certain  subset  of  one  or  more  attributes  pertaining  to  an 
entity. While an entity has only one identity, it may have many electronic identities. It should 
be noted that eIDs can take many forms, and can be stored on many different types of media. 
An electronic identity or eID is not synonymous with an eID card: an eID card is only one of 
many tokens that can be used to support an eID. 

e-Invoicing Workshop 

The  CEN/ISSS  Workshop  providing  consensus-based  guidance  for  business  on  electronic 
invoicing.  Two  phases  were  completed  by  the  end  of  2009,  and  a  third  phase  started  in 
February 2010. 

Electronic attestation / e-Attestation 

A generic term for a dematerialised attestation. See under Attestation. 

Electronic auction / e-Auction 

A repetitive process involving an electronic device for the presentation of new prices, revised 
downwards, and/or new values concerning certain elements of tenders, which occurs after an 
initial full  evaluation of the tenders, enabling them to be ranked using automatic evaluation 
methods. 

Electronic invoice / e-Invoice  

A generic term for a dematerialised invoice. See under Invoice. 

Electronic Signature or e-Signature 

Electronic signatures are data in electronic form which are attached to or logically associated 
with other electronic data and which serve as a method of authentication. 

EN 

94 

   EN 

 
EPC (European Payments Council) 

The  European  Payments  Council  is  the  decision  making  and  co-ordination  body  of  the 
European banking industry in relation to payments. Its purpose is to support and promote the 
creation  of  a  single  euro  payments  area  (SEPA)  through  industry  self-regulation.  The  EPC 
defines  common  positions  for  core  payment  services  within  a  competitive  market  place, 
provides  strategic  guidance  for  standardisation,  formulates  best  practices  and  supports  and 
monitors implementation of decisions taken.  

e-Procurement 

A  public  procurement  procedure  initiated,  negotiated  and/or  concluded  using  electronic 
means,  i.e.  using  electronic  equipment  for  the  processing  and  storage  of  data,  in  particular 
through the Internet. 

ePWG (e-Procurement Working Group) 

e-Procurement Working Group of the Advisory Committee for Public Contracts 

ePPS (electronic Product Property Server) 

The  ePPS  project  aims  at  defining  a  systematic  and  generic  approach  to  implement  an 
operational product property server.  

The  ePPS  project  will  deliver  a  CEN  Workshop  Agreement  (CWA)  on  «Guidelines  for  the 
design, implementation and operation of a product property server». These guidelines will be 
drawn on the basis of data tested mainly in two industrial sectors - heating, ventilation, air-
conditioning, sanitary-ware (HVAC) and optical - and then extended to other industries. 

e-PRIOR (e-Invoicing and e-Ordering Pilot) 

Project established within the Commission to produce business requirements for e-Invoicing 
systems  in  a  public  procurement  context  and  cross  border  environment  and  set  up  an  e-
Invoicing and e-Ordering pilot to be used by DIGIT and some of its suppliers. An e-Catalogue 
component is in production. 

ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning)  

An  ERP  is  an  integrated  computer-based  system  used  to  manage  internal  and  external 
resources including tangible assets, financial resources, materials, and human resources.  

e-Senders/e-Notices 

e-Notifications  can  be  sent  via  online  forms  or  via  the  e-Senders  platform,  which  relies  on 
registered  service  providers  that  have  implemented  standard  XML  forms  in  their  software. 
The online forms are free, and are typically used by contracting authorities which send only a 
limited amount of notices each year, whereas the e-Senders platform is oriented more towards 
larger users. 

EU (European Union) 

FTP (File Transfer Protocol)  

FTP  is  a  standard  network  protocol  used  to  copy  a  file  from  one  host  to  another  over  a 
TCP/IP-based network, such as the Internet.  

EN 

95 

   EN 

 
Framework Agreement 

An  agreement  between  one  or  more  contracting  authorities  and  one  or  more  economic 
operators,  the  purpose  of  which  is  to  establish  the  terms  governing  contracts  to  be  awarded 
during a given period, in particular with regard to price and, where appropriate, the quantity 
envisaged. 

GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) 

GPA (Government Procurement Agreement) 

The GPA establishes a set of rules which (a) govern the procurement activities of its Parties 
and (b) enable the Agreement to function as an international one. 

GDP (Gross Domestic Product) 

A measure of a country's overall economic output. It is the market value of all final goods and 
services made within the borders of a country in a year. 

GPC (Global Products Classification) 

GPC  is  the  products  classification  of  GS1,  an  organisation  that  works  for  the  design  and 
implementation of global standards 

IDABC 

Interoperable  Delivery  of  European  e-Government  Services  to  public  Administrations, 
Businesses  and  Citizens.  A  Commission  programme  developing  recommendations  and, 
solutions  and  providing  services  helping  European  public  services  to  communicate 
electronically. 

Interoperability 

A  property  referring  to  the  ability  of  diverse  systems  and  organisations  to  work  together 
(inter-operate).  The  term  is  often  used  in  a  technical  systems  engineering  sense,  or 
alternatively in a broad sense, taking into account social, political, and organisational factors 
that impact system to system performance. 

Invoice 

The invoice is a document or a data set marked with the word ‘invoice’, formally specifying 
details of a (or part of a) trade and all settlement related information for the (or part of the) 
trade, explicitly and separately stating the applicable tax. 

ICT (Information and communication technologies) 

ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 

Organisation developing international standards and other types of normative documents. 

IT (Information technology) 

EN 

96 

   EN 

 
ITT (Invitation to Tender) 

A call for bids or call for tenders or invitation to tender (ITT) (often called tender for short) is 
a special procedure for generating competing offers from different bidders looking to obtain 
an award of business activity in works, supply, or service contracts.  

MDB (Multilateral Development Bank) 

Institution  created  by  a  group  of  countries,  which  provides  financing  and  professional 
advising  for  the  purpose  of  development.  MDBs  have  large  memberships  including  both 
developed donor countries and developing borrower countries. MDBs finance projects in the 
form of long-term loans at market rates, very-long term loans (also known as credits) below 
market rates, and through grants. 

The following are usually classified as the main MDBs: 

•  World Bank  

•  African Development Bank  

•  Asian Development Bank  

•  European Bank for Reconstruction and Development  

•  Inter-American Development Bank Group  

MEPA (The Italian Electronic Public Administration's Marketplace) 

MS (Member State) 

Member State of the European Union 

NES (Northern European Subset) 

NES  was  formed  in  January  2006  with  the  objective  to  facilitate  the  establishment  of  a 
common platform for e-commerce in national and cross border trade. Currently, the initiative 
comprises  government  representation  from  six  countries:  Norway,  Sweden,  Finland,  Great 
Britain, Iceland and Denmark. The technical development of NES is now carried out  in  the 
CEN/ISSS Workshop BII. 

OASIS (Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards) 

OASIS is a not-for-profit consortium that drives the development, convergence and adoption 
of standards in many domains, including Web services, security, and e-business.  

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) 

OJEU (Official Journal of the European Union) 

The Official Journal of the European Union is the gazette of record for the European Union.  

OP (Publications office of the European Union) 

EN 

97 

   EN 

 
PDF (Portable Document Format) 

PDF is a file format created by Adobe Systems in 1993 for document exchange. PDF is used 
for representing two-dimensional documents in a device-independent and display resolution-
independent fixed-layout document format. 

PEPPOL (Pan-European Public Procurement Online) 

PEPPOL is a large scale pilot project, with the objective to pilot solutions to make it easier for 
European economic operators, in particular SMEs, from one country to respond electronically 
and in an interoperable way to public procurement opportunities and carry out the subsequent 
business transactions, including invoicing. 

PKI (Public Key Infrastructure) 

Public  Key  Infrastructure  is  a  set  of  hardware,  software,  people,  policies,  and  procedures 
needed  to  create,  manage,  distribute,  use,  store,  and  revoke  digital  certificates.  In 
cryptography, a PKI is an arrangement that binds public keys with respective user identities 
by  means  of  a  certificate  authority  (CA).  The  user  identity  must  be  unique  within  each  CA 
domain.  The  binding  is  established  through  the  registration  and  issuance  process,  which, 
depending on the level of assurance the binding has, may be carried out by software at a CA, 
or under human supervision. The PKI role that assures this binding is called the Registration 
Authority  (RA).  For  each  user,  the  user  identity,  the  public  key,  their  binding,  validity 
conditions and other attributes are made unforgeable in public key certificates issued by the 
CA. 

PP (Public procurement)  

A procedure initiated by a contracting authority with a view of acquiring goods, services or 
public works for the fulfilment of its tasks. 

PPN (Public Procurement Network) 

Qualified Electronic Signature 

Advanced  electronic  signatures  which  are  based  on  a  qualified  certificate  and  which  are 
created by a secure-signature-creation device. 

Qualified Certificate 

A  digital  certificate  issued  by  a  supervised/accredited  Certification  Service  Provider  (CSP) 
and which meets the following requirements: 

•  the indication that the certificate is issued as a qualified certificate 

•  the  identification  of  the  Certification  Authority  and  the  State  (European  or  foreigner)  in 

which it is established 

•  the name (or pseudonym) of the signatory, to identify her/him 

•  signature-verification data which correspond to signature-creation data under the control of 

the signatory 

•  the indication of the period of validity of the certificate 

EN 

98 

   EN 

 
•  the identity code of the certificate 

•  the  advanced  electronic  signature  of  the  certification-service-provider  (Certification 

Authority) 

RSS (Really Simple Syndication) 

RSS is a family of web feed formats used to publish frequently updated works—such as blog 
entries,  news  headlines,  audio,  and  video—in  a  standardised  format.  An  RSS  document 
(which  is  called  a  "feed",  "web  feed",  or  "channel")  includes  full  or  summarised  text,  plus 
metadata such as publishing dates and authorship.  

SEPA (Single Euro Payments Area) 

The  Single  Euro  Payments  Area  will  be  the  area  where  citizens,  companies  and  other 
economic actors will be able to make and receive payments in euro, within Europe, whether 
between or within national boundaries under the same basic conditions, rights and obligations, 
regardless  of  their  location.  It  consists  of  the  European  Union  Member  States  plus  Iceland, 
Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland. 

SLA (Service Level Agreement) 

A  service-level  agreement  is  a  negotiated  agreement  between  two  parties  where  one  is  the 
customer  and  the  other  is  the  service  provider.  This  can  be  a  legally  binding  formal  or 
informal 'contract'. 

Service Provider 

Entities that provide services to end-users offer wide variety of business services and models 
ranging  from  supply  chain  and  procurement  services,  software  and  integration  services, 
invoice  and  related  document  transmission  and  networks  and  integration  with  financial 
services. 

SIMAP 

The SIMAP portal provides access to most important information about public procurement 
in Europe. 

SME (Small and Medium-sized Enterprise) 

The category of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises is made up of enterprises which 
employ fewer than 250 persons and have an annual turnover not exceeding 50 million euro, 
and/or an annual balance sheet total not exceeding 43 million EUR. 

SMS (Short Message Service) 

SMS is a form of text messaging on mobile phones. 

SPOCS (Simple Procedures Online for Cross border Services) 

SPOCS  is  a  pilot  project  launched  by  the  European  Commission  which  aims  to  remove  the 
administrative barriers European businesses face in offering their services abroad, notably in 
the context of the implementation of the Services Directive. 

EN 

99 

   EN 

 
STORK (Secure Identity Across Borders Linked) 

A  pilot  project  to  enable  the  interoperability  of  electronic  identification  solutions  between 
participating Member States.  

TED (Tenders Electronic Daily) 

TED is the online version of the 'Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union', 
dedicated to European public procurement. 

TFEU (The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) 

TRUST (Transparent Reliable Unhindered Secure Tendering) 

Part  of  a  study  for  which  the  objective  was  to  identify,  analyse  and  compare  optimum 
mechanisms for verifying in all EU/EEA Member States that the systems and tools existing or 
forthcoming in electronic public procurement comply with the requirements of the new public 
procurement Directives 2004/18/EC and 2004/17/EC. 

TTP (Trusted Third Party) 

In order to limit the transmission of identifiers and thus also the compilation of user profiles 
by third parties, the Trusted  Computing  Group makes it possible for a trusted third party to 
certify  users’  identities  and  confirm  them  to  their  correspondents  without  actually  revealing 
the identities. 

UBL (Universal Business Language) 

UBL is a library of standard electronic XML business documents such as purchase orders and 
invoices.  UBL  was  developed  by  a  Technical  Committee  in  OASIS  (an  industry  standards 
consortium) with participation from a variety of industry data standards organisations. Under 
an  agreement  between  UN/CEFACT  and  OASIS,  UBL  requirements  will  be  taken  up  in 
modifications to the relevant UN/CEFACT standards documents, including the CII. 

UN/CEFACT 

The United Nations’ Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business has a global remit 
to  secure  the  interoperability  for  the  exchange  of  information  between  private  and  public 
sector entities. It has developed UN/EDIFACT, the international standard for electronic data 
interchange together with supporting components and methodologies. 

UNCITRAL 

The United Nations Commission for International Trade Law 

UN/EDIFACT 

The  United  Nations  /  Electronic  Data  Interchange  for  Administration,  Commerce  and 
Transport. 

URL (Uniform Resource Locator) 

Link to a website 

VAT (Value added tax) 

EN 

100 

   EN 

 
VCD (Virtual Company Dossier) 

The Virtual Company Dossier (VCD) was developed within the PEPPOL pilot project, as a 
container used to exchange information among tenderers and procurers in the tendering stage 
to improve the outcomes of the tendering process.  

WTO (World Trade Organisation) 

XML 

XML (Extensible Markup Language) is a set of rules for encoding documents electronically. 
It  is  defined  in  the  XML  1.0  Specification  produced  by  the  W3C,  and  several  other  related 
specifications, all gratis open standards. 

Source: DG MARKT based on Siemens-Time.lex report 

EN 

101 

   EN 

 
ANNEX II - Bibliography 

Regulatory framework for e-Procurement, policy documents and internal reports 

Directive  1999/93/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  of  13  Dec  1999  on  a  Community 
framework for electronic signatures, European Parliament, December 1999, OJEC 

Directive  2004/17/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  31  March  2004 
coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport 
and postal services sectors, Directive, April 2004, DG MARKT website  

Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on 
the  coordination  of  procedures  for  the  award  of  public  works  contracts,  public  supply 
contracts and public service contracts, Directive, April 2004, DG MARKT website  

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1564/2005 of 7 September 2005 establishing standard forms 
for the publication of notices in the framework of public procurement procedures pursuant to 
Directives  2004/17/EC  and  2004/18/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council, 
Commission Regulation, October 2005, DG MARKT website 

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added 
tax,  which  is  effectively  a  recast  of  the  Sixth  VAT  Directive  of  1977  as  amended  over  the 
years, Council Directive, November 2006, Europa website 

Directive 2005/51/EC of 7 September 2005 amending Annex XX to Directive 2004/17/EC and 
Annex VIII to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and the Council  on public 
procurement, Directive, October 2005, DG MARKT website 

Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 
on  payment  services  in  the  internal  market  amending  Directives  97/7/EC,  2002/65/EC, 
2005/60/EC  and  2006/48/EC  and  repealing  Directive  97/5/EC  Text  with  EEA  relevance, 
November 2007, Europa website 

Commission  Regulation  amending  Regulation  (EC)  N°  2195/2002  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council on the Common Procurement Vocabulary (CPV and Directives 
2004/17/EC  and  2004/18/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  public 
procurement  procedures,  as  regards  the  revision  of  the  CPV,  Commission  Regulation, 
November 2007, DG MARKT website 

UNCITRAL  Model  law  on  Procurement  of  Goods,  Construction  and  Services  –  possible 
revisions, UNCITRAL study group, March 2009, UNCITRAL website 

European  Commission,  Commission  White  Paper  -  Modernising  ICT  Standardisation  in  the 
EU - The Way Forward, July 2009, DG ENTR website 

European  Commission,  Action  Plan  for  the  implementation  of  the  legal  framework  for 
electronic public procurement, December 2004, DG MARKT website 

Commission Staff Working Document, Extended Impact Assessment - Proposal for an Action 
Plan  for  the  implementation  of  the  legal  framework  for  electronic  public  procurement  - 
Extended impact assessment, December 2004, DG MARKT website 

European  Commission,  Commission  e-Procurement  Business  Survey  Results  of  the  online 
consultation, January 2005, DG MARKT website 

EN 

102 

   EN 

 
European Parliament, Report on specific problems in the transposition and implementation of 
Public  Proc.  Legislation  and  its  relation  to  the  Lisbon  agenda,  July  2006,  European 
Parliament website 

Council of the EU, Council’s Outcome of Proceedings report of 16 March 2010, March 2010, 
Council website 

European  Commission,  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council,  the  European 
Parliament,  The  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the 
Regions,  "Think  Small  First",  "  A  Small  Business  Act"  for  Europe,  Commission 
Communication, June 2008, DG ENTR website 

Reports, Benchmarking, Surveys, External studies 

Albano G.L., Dini F., Zampino R., Fana M., The determinants of suppliers’ performance in e-
Procurement:  evidence  from  the  electronic  public  administration’s  marketplace  (MEPA), 
August 2008, CONSIP website 

Austrian  Austrian  Federal  Procurement  Agency  (Bundesbeschaffung  GmbH)  –  National 
Report- AT, 2008, Bundesbeschaffung GmbH website 

Austrian  Federal  Chancellery,  National  report  –  AT:  2008  Administration  on  the  Net  -  The 
ABC guide of e-Government in Austria, July 2008, ePractice website 

Beschaffungskommission  des  Bundes  BKB  -  Informatikstrategieorgan  Bund  ISB,  National 
reports – CH: 2006-2008 Reports on e-Procurement strategy in the Swiss Federation 

Billentis, 2009 Billentis study on e-Invoicing / e-Billing in Europe, External study, February 
2009, Billentis website 

Capgemini,  Rand  Europe,  IDC,  Sogeti  and  DTI,  Smater,  Faster,  Better  e-Government,  8th 
Benchmark  Measurement, November 2009, External study for the Commission, DG INFSO 
website 

Capgemini, Report on SEPA: potential benefits at stake, External study for the Commission, 
September 2007, DG MARKT website 

Carsa,  Compliance  Verification  in  electronic  public  procurement,  External  study  for  the 
Commission, September 2007, DG MARKT website 

CONSIP,  National  reports  –  IT:  2009  CONSIP  reports  "The  determinants  of  suppliers’ 
performance  in  e-Procurement:  evidence  from  the  electronic  public  administration’s 
marketplace (MEPA)", August 2008, CONSIP website 

Court  of  Audit  (Cour  des  Comptes  –  Rekenhof),  National  report  –  BE:  2008  report  of  the 
Court of Audit (Cour des Comptes – Rekenhof) on framework contracts in central purchasing 
bodies, February 2008, National website 

Croatian  Ministry  of  the  Economy,  Labour  and  Entrepreneurship,  “Strategy  for  the 
Development  of  Electronic  Business  in  the  Republic  of  Croatia  for  the  period  2007-2010", 
October 2007, Ministry website 

Curtin  University,  International  survey  of  e-Procurement  systems,  External  study  for 
Multilateral Dev. Bank, May 2007, DG MARKT website 

EN 

103 

   EN 

 
CWA  15236  -  Analysis  of  standardization  requirements  and  standardization  gaps  for  e-
Procurement in Europe, CEN Workshop Agreement, February 2005, CEN website 

Czech Ministry for Regional Development, National Plan for the Introduction of Electronic 
Public Procurement over the Period 2006 – 2010, National portal 

DG MARKT, Certificates issued on the eligibility of tenderers and official lists of economic 
operators, April 2006, DG MARKT website 

Dimitri,  N.  Piga  G.,  Spagnolo,  G.,  Handbook  of  Procurement,  Cambridge  University  Press, 
2006 

DLA  Piper  Rudnick  Gray  Cary,  Legal  Study  on  unfair  commercial  practices  within  B2B  e-
markets - Final Report, External study for the Commission, May 2006, DG ENTR website 

DLA  Piper,  EU  Study  on  the  specific  policy  needs  for  ICT  standardization  –  final  report, 
External study for the Commission, July 2007, DG ENTR website 

Eidgenössisches Finanzdepartement EFD - , November 2008, ePractice website 

EIM  Business  and  Policy  Research,  Improve  Access  of  Small  Businesses  to  Public 
Procurement, External Study for the Commission, April 2005, DG ENTR website 

Eldoc,  Legal  study  on  legal  and  administrative  practices  regarding  the  validity  and  mutual 
recognition of electronic documents, with a view to identifying the existing legal barriers for 
enterprises,  External  study  for  the  Commission,  1st  interim  report  (Country  reports),  July 
2006, Final report, November 2006, IDABC website 

Europe Economics, Evaluation of "old" Public Procurement Directives, External study for the 
Commission, September 2006, DG MARKT website 

European  Commission,  European  Electronic  Invoicing  (EEI)  –  Final  Report,  European 
Commission Informal Task Force on e-Invoicing, July 2007, DG INFSO website 

European Commission, IDABC e-Invoicing and e-Ordering project for public procurement, e-
Catalogue Feasibility Study, October 2009, IDABC website 

European Commission, Infringements (DG MARKT), DG MARKT website 

European  Commission,  Report  on  the  operation  of  Directive  1999/93/EC  on  a  Community 
framework for electronic signatures, Commission Report, March 2006, DG INFSO website 

European  Commission,  Requirements  for  conducting  public  procurement  using  electronic 
means  under  the  new  public  procurement  Directives  2004/18/EC  and  2004/17/EC, 
Explanatory  Document  ,  Commission  Staff  Working  Document,  July  2005,  DG  MARKT 
website 

European  Dynamics,  Case  studies  on  European  electronic  public  procurement  projects  – 
consultant report, External study for the Commission, July 2004, DG MARKT website 

European  Dynamics,  e-Catalogues  in  electronic  public  procurement,  External  study  for  the 
Commission, November 2007, DG MARKT website 

European  Dynamics,  Electronic  transmission  of  public  procurement  notices  for  publication, 
External study for the Commission, September 2007, DG MARKT website 

EN 

104 

   EN 

 
European  Dynamics,  Functional  Requirements  for  conducting  e-Procurement  under  the  EU 
framework  (IDABC  programme),  External  study  for  the  Commission,  January  2005,  DG 
MARKT website 

French Economics and Finance Ministry, Statistical procurement information - Observatoire 
Economique de l'Achat Public (OEAP) – Ministry website 

Ghk,  Technopolis,  Evaluation  of  SMEs’  access  to  public  procurement  markets  in  the  EU, 
External study for the Commission, 2007, DG ENTR website 

ICT  Policy  Support  Programme  (PSP),  Guidelines  to  Common  Specifications  for  Cross-
border Use of Public Procurement, April 2007, DG INFSO website 

IDABC,  European  IDA  Bridge  and  Gateway  -  CA  Pilot  EBGCA,  October  2005,  IDABC 
website 

IDABC, IDABC e-Signature Workshop, January 2008, IDABC website 

Irish  Department  of  Finance,  National  Public  Procurement  Policy  Unit,  Improving  SME 
Access to Public Procurement, 2007, eTender website 

K.U.Leuven  –  ICRI,  Study  on  the  Legal  and  Market  Aspects  of  Electronic  Signatures  in 
Europe  (ELSIGN  Study),  External  Study  for  the  Commission,  September  2003,  DG  INFSO 
website 

Le portail des marchés publics pour les PME, Les mesures favorisant les PME dans le CMP 
2006, Marchés Publics PME website 

Luís  Valadares  Tavares,  European  Vortal  Academy,  Public  e-Tendering  in  the  European 
Union- Trust in eVolution, April-10 

Luís Valadares Tavares, National report – PT: 2009 Public Electronic Procurement and New 
Portuguese Legal Framework, May 2009, National Website 

National  Audit  Office  (NAO),  National  reports  –  UK:  2004  and  2006  reports  from  the 
National  Audit  Office  (NAO)  on  public  procurements,  particularly  via  the  Office  of 
Government Commerce (OGC), December 2006, NAO website 

Procurement  data,  Public  procurement  advertised  in  the  Official  Journal  (as  a  %  of  total 
public procurement and as a % of GDP), Eurostat website 

Public  Procurement-  An  overview  of  regulation  in  43  jurisdictions  worldwide,  2009, 
Kelemenis & co website 

Rambøll Management, Benchmarking of existing national legal e-business practices, from the 
POV  of  enterprises  (e-Signature,  e-Invoicing  and  e-Contracts),  External  study  for  the 
Commission, November 2006, IDABC website 

Rambøll  Management,  Extended  Impact  Assessment:  Action  Plan  on  electronic  Public 
Procurement,  External  study  for  the  Commission,  Baseline  Analysis -  Consultant  Report 
Vol. ,1Baseline Scenario - Consultant Report Vol. 2, Country reviews (extract from Extended 
Impact Assessment - Baseline Analysis),December 2004, DG MARKT website 

EN 

105 

   EN 

 
RSO – IDC, Benchmarking Framework - Pilot 2 to Develop and Improve the e-Government 
Indicators  LOT  2  2007  edition  (e-Procurement)  - Key findings and  recommendations  of the 
Pilot Study on e-Procurement (presentation), External Study for the Commission, December 
2007, DG INFSO website 

Sealed,  Study  on  the  standardisation  aspects  of  e-Signature,  External  study  for  the 
Commission, November 2007, DG INFSO website 

Siemens-time.lex,  Preliminary  Study  on  the  Mutual  Recognition  of  e-Signatures  for  e-
Government  applications  (IDABC,  External  study  for  the  Commission,  November  2007, 
IDABC website 

Siemens-time.lex,  Study  on  Mutual  Recognition  of  e-Signatures  update  of  Country  Profiles, 
External study for the Commission, July 2009, IDABC website 

Siemens-time.lex,  Study  on  the  evaluation  of  the  Action  Plan  for  the  implementation  of  the 
legal framework for electronic procurement, External study for the Commission, May 2010, 
Not yet published 

Siemens,  e-Certificates  II:  Preliminary  study  on  the  electronic  provision  of  certificates  and 
attestations usually required in public procurement procedures – Update of National Country 
Profiles, External study for the Commission, May 2009, DG MARKT website 

Siemens, e-Certificates Study – Preliminary Study on the electronic provision of certificates 
and  attestations  usually  required  in  public  procurement  procedures,  External  study  for  the 
Commission, February 2008, DG MARKT website 

Siemens, e-Certificates Study – Preliminary Study on the electronic provision of certificates 
and  attestations  usually  required  in  public  procurement  procedures-  1st  Interim  Report  - 
National Country Profiles, External study for the Commission, September 2007, DG MARKT 
website 

Siemens, e-Certificates Study – Preliminary Study on the electronic provision of certificates 
and  attestations  usually  required  in  public  procurement  procedures-  3rd  Interim  Report  - 
Scenario building, assessment and benchmarking, February 2008, DG MARKT website 

SIMAP, Standard forms for public procurement and e-Notices, SIMAP website  

Stoiber  Group,  2008  Opinion  of  the  High  Level  Group  of  Independent  Stakeholders  on 
Administrative Burdens, on the Reform of the rules on invoicing and electronic invoicing in 
Directive 2006/112/EC (VAT Directive); DG ENTR website 

TNS  Sofres,  National  report  –  FR:  2007  Qualitative  study  on  “The  perception  of 
dematerialisation, October 2008, National website 

TXT  e-solutions,  e-Procurement  Forum  –  e-Procurement  Online  survey,  External  study  for 
the Commission, June 2008, ePractice website 

University  of  Bremen,  PROCURE  PROJECT  -  Effects  of  national  laws  in  Spain,  Czech 
Republic  and  France  on  the  service  and  functional  scenarios  for  the  solution  -  Electronic 
Signatures  as  Obstacle  for  Cross-Border  e-Procurement  in  Europe,  External  study  for  the 
Commission, Mars 2009, ETEN website 

EN 

106 

   EN 

 
World  Trade  Organisation,  Revision  of  the  agreement  on  government  procurement  as  at  8 
December 2006, December 2006, WTO website 

Other consulted sites (see also Annex VII) 

Digital signature http://www.sk.ee 

Elektronish handel i den offentliga sektorn, http://www.svefaktura.se/ 

ePractice, http://www.epractice.eu/ 

European e-Business lab http://www.euebl.or 

Factura electronica, http://www.facturae.es 

Fiche pratique France: l'accord cadre, http://www.publictendering.com 

Finvoice online invoice for businesses and e-invoice for consumers, http://www.finvoice.info/ 

Guidelines and Functional Requirements, November 2009, IDABC website  

Oasis – Universal Business Language (UBL) http://www.oasis-open.org 

PEPPOL website Pan-European Public Procurement on line http://www.peppol.eu 

Public procurement network http://www.publicprocurementnetwork.org/ 

Publication office, http://publications.europa.eu/ 

Publiskās un privātās partnerības, http://www.ppp.gov.lv/ 

SIMAP, http://simap.europa.eu 

Single European Payment Area, DG MARKT website 

The Open Source Observatory and Repository for European public administrations , 
OSOR.eu  

TRIAS Wiki, the e-Government Encyclopedia, http://wiki.triastelematica.org 

Source: DG MARKT based on Siemens-time.lex report

EN 

107 

   EN 

 
ANNEX III – What is e-Procurement? 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This  document  examines  common  functionalities  of  an  e-Procurement  system  across  all 
phases of a procurement process. It is not intended as a reference framework for building e-
Procurement applications. It just presents and discusses some of the implementation options 
available  to  a  public  organisation's  system  planners  and  designers  when  setting  up  an  e-
Procurement  solution,  taking  into  account  the  potential  of  current  technology,  common 
approaches that are emerging in existing e-Procurement operations and the goals pursued by 
the 2004 e-Procurement Action Plan. 

2. 

FUNCTIONAL  DESCRIPTION  OF  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  E-
PROCUREMENT 

The various functionalities of an e-Procurement system, across all the sequential phases of a 
typical procurement process, are examined below. 

2.1 

E-Notification 

The first element of an e-Procurement system is, in general, the provision of web-based tools 
for creating and publishing the various public procurement notices. This usually involves the 
automatic generation of an XML notice for publication in the Official Journal of the European 
Union (OJEU). Such notices are mandatory for procurement above the threshold set out in the 
EU Directives. 

Within  this  element  all  the  standard  communication  types  should  be  supported:  advance 
notices, contract notice, contract awarded, etc. 

Sophisticated  systems  supporting  the  whole  e-tendering  process  may  handle  notice 
preparation as part of the overall preparation for a new call. Where this is the case, the call for 
tender's  manager  is  asked  to  enter  the  call's  data  only  once  and  the  system  is  able  to 
(transparently) use such data to generate the notice, together with the overall workflow for the 
full procedure. 

The system should have the capability to generate multiple XML outputs in order to publish 
the  same  data  through  all  the  communication  channels  prescribed  by  law  including,  where 
relevant,  possible  third  parties  and  public  and  privately-operated  information  resources 
grouping business opportunities. 

2.2 

Registration 

Most e-Procurement systems include a registration module enabling the business parties that 
take  part  in  a  procurement  process  to  be  uniquely  identified.  An  account  is  created  on  the 
system  for  each  actor  taking  part  in  the  process  (e.g.  the  call's  managers,  the  evaluation 
committee members, the tenderers). 

Two major approaches have been identified for registering tenderers: 

•  Once-and-for-all registration, enabling the registered tenderers to take part in multiple calls 

issued by the same awarding authorities; 

EN 

108 

   EN 

 
•  Call-basis registration - which involves participation in one call at a time. A new account 

(with the associated registration process) is set up for each call.  

Once-and-for-all registration may help procurers streamline the administrative process. Where 
permitted by the national law implementing the Directive, the registration phase may enable 
submission of the relevant certificates and attestations relating to the selection and exclusion 
criteria  which  remain  valid  for  all  the  competitive  procedures  held  by  a  single  contracting 
authority on that particular system (with refreshment of data at agreed time intervals or upon 
changes of status).  

Registration may be scheduled at various stages of the procurement process. 

In principle, the earlier the registration is done the greater the control the call manager has on 
the process at the pre-tendering stage. If tenderers get registered at a preliminary stage (e.g. 
when they have shown their interest in the call by downloading the tender specifications) then 
subsequent stages and phases (especially communications) can be more efficiently controlled, 
because  the  user  group  being  set  up  around  a  specific  call  for  tenders  can  be  profiled  at  an 
early stage to the advantage of the contracting authority.  

However,  to  foster  the  maximum  possible  number  of  tenderers,  an  e-Procurement  solution 
should  not  place  burdens  on  interested  parties.  It  would  be  more  beneficial  to  let  would-be 
procurers freely download specifications and submit enquiries without prior registration. All 
the  communication  issues  could  be  solved  by  publishing  news  on  a  web  page  reserved  for 
each specific call, which is open to everybody (in this case the contracting authority will have 
to  specify  in  the  terms  of  reference  that  all  interested  tenderers  must  check  this  page 
regularly). 

This would permit registration to remain open until the very end of the pre-tendering phase – 
i.e. when the would-be tenderer actually decides to submit a proposal - and closed forever on 
conclusion of the call at hand. 

A challenge for registration at the moment is to develop the ability for a business to register 
once on an e-Procurement system and this registration to be automatically accepted by other 
systems, leveraging off a shared (standard) distributed ID management model. 

2.3 

Generation and publication of a call's terms of reference (TOR)  

The Terms of Reference documentation (TOR) is the set of specifications and directions for 
tenderers interested in responding to a call for tender. 

The  Contracting  Authority  draws  up  the  TOR  and  publishes  it  so  that  interested  companies 
can  get  all  the  relevant  information  (including  for  example  downloading  specific  tools  for 
local use) to respond to the call for tender. 

The  TOR  editing  and  publication  process  is  dependent  on  the  e-submission  mechanism 
supported by the procurement system. Two major application classes can be profiled based on 
the way the e-submission process is currently handled: 

•  Support for the communication process only; 

•  Support  for  preparing  both  the  content  of  the  TOR  and  the  response  by  an  interested 

company (support to both parties). 

EN 

109 

   EN 

 
2.3.1  Support for the communication process 

Certain  types  of  systems  do  not  offer  content-related  functionality  but  rather  handle  the 
communication  process  only.  Such  systems  just  focus  on  the  process  and  transactions  to  be 
exchanged between the Contracting Authority and the tenderers using the underlying secure 
platform for e-submission.  

For  such  systems  the  TOR  is  usually  just  a  document  (typically  PDF).  The  Contracting 
Authority prepares the tendering specifications offline, as in a traditional paper-based process, 
using standard office tools, for later publication on the website.  

To respond to such a type of call, the tenderer too prepares the documentation in the format of 
unstructured,  textual  documents.  The  tenderer  also  generates  PDF  documents  and  sends  (or 
uploads)  them,  upon  completion,  to  the  Contracting  Authority  website  within  the  deadline, 
following  the  rules  established  in  the  TOR.  The  platform  is  just  the  means  to  perform  e-
submission, replacing the traditional registered mail-based submission. 

2.3.2  Support of the tendering content preparation 

The  other  main  type  of  system  supports  to  a  large  extent  the  management  of  the  tendering 
contents. This system offers a tool for: 

i) The Contracting Authority to prepare the call's terms of reference, and 

ii)  Tenderers  to  prepare  their  individual  responses  meeting  the  formal,  legal,  technical  and 
management requirements set out in the call. 

Specifications may be structured as catalogue-based forms, that the Contracting Authority sets 
up  and  publishes  on  the  website  for  the  responding  tenderers  to  fill  in  (probably,  but  not 
necessarily, online – see below).  

The specifications preparation process can be described as follows: 

•  Using a form generator, the Contracting Authority prepares on screen the list of products 
and services being procured (i.e. the technical specifications attached to the call for tender) 
providing details of all relevant characteristics for each of them; 

•  Certain  systems  might  require  the  Contracting  Authority  to  freely  write  product/services 
item descriptions e.g. on an Excel sheet, while other systems might enable the Contracting 
Authority to download the product definitions from a product property server. The product 
property  server  is  a  database  describing  market  products  and  services  and  their 
characteristics. The database may be part of the e-proc system itself or an external service 
provided  by  third  parties  in  the  form  of  an  ASP  service  (see  below).  The  process  is 
designed  to  let  the  Contracting  Authority  select  the  items  to  be  procured  and  all  other 
elements (e.g. delivery time, ancillary services, etc.) from a product/services catalogue. 

•  On completion of the selection, the Contracting Authority instructs the system to make the 
resulting  form(s)  available  on  the  procurement  website.  To  complete  the  package,  the 
form(s)  are  accompanied  by  all  the  supporting  documents  (e.g.  description  of  projects 
context,  instructions  for  tenderers,  draft  contract,  etc.).  Therefore  to  complete  the 
publication process the Contracting Authority has to upload on its website all the relevant 
documents not just the catalogue information it has created. 

EN 

110 

   EN 

 
Once the TOR package (the catalogue file and attached documents) is loaded on the system 
and  published  on  the  internet,  the  call  is  open  for  tenderers  to  prepare  and  submit  their 
proposals. 

Each tenderer responding to the call accesses the catalogue form (various process models can 
be defined for this particular procedure – see below) and fills in the fields that are requested 
for each item of the call, thereby providing the detailed specification of the product or service 
they can provide. 

The  catalogue-based  model  described  presents  a  number  of  challenges  and  opportunities 
including: 

1) 

Use of standards-based catalogues. If the system uses a standards-based, third-party 
product server to prepare the form, the following benefit can be achieved: 

•  The  same  view  of  the  products/services  being  procured  as  defined  within  the 
Contracting  Authority's  e-proc  system  is  shared  by  any  counterpart  system  (e.g. 
ERP)  potentially  used  by  the  supplier.  As  a  result,  by  mapping  the  tenderer's 
catalogue  information  onto  the  Contracting  Authority's  catalogue  information,  a 
tenderer's  system  could  be  set  up  to  automatically  perform  most  stages  of 
preparing  a  response  to  a  call  (including  decisions  such  as  the  capability  or 
opportunity for the tenderer to actually respond to that particular call), leaving the 
tenderer with the ultimate task of determining any possible price reduction and/or 
technical improvements within a particular bid; 

•  The  intrinsic  language  independence  of  a  standard-based  catalogue  would 
maximise the chance for cross-border participation,  as  the catalogue data can  be 
prepared  in  any  language  by  the  Contracting  Authority  and  read  in  another 
language by the suppliers; 

2) 

3) 

information 

the  use  of  structured 

to  define  product/services 
Maximising 
characteristics  as  opposed 
textual  descriptions  would  minimise  human 
interpretation  at  the  proposal's  evaluation  stage  (see  below,  e-Evaluation).  This 
increases  the  specification  effort  from  the  Contracting  Authority,  but  decreases  the 
risk of challenges because the evaluation criteria are specified in detail in the TOR 
and detected on the proposal in an automatic, unbiased manner. 

to 

Process control tools would enable a high degree of support for all parties throughout 
the e-Procurement phases thereby reducing the risk of errors as well as the time to be 
devoted to ancillary tasks. 

2.4 

Managing question / answer sessions on a call's terms of reference 

As soon as the complete set of specifications and the TOR documentation are online, would-
be tenderers are entitled to ask the Contracting Authority for clarifications. 

An  e-procurement  system  can  group  all  the  information  relating  to  a  specific  call  in  a 
recognisable  web  section  open  for  wide  consultation.  Using  common  web-content 
management  tools  (e.g.  a  web  form),  the  Contracting  Authority's  website  should  enable 
interested parties to submit queries to the Contracting Authority within a time limit that is to 
be set by the Contracting Authority in the TOR.  

EN 

111 

   EN 

 
The same tool should enable the Contracting Authority to prepare responses and publish them 
in a recognisable chapter of the same section. Questions and answers are an integral part of 
the  TOR.  As  such,  they  shall  remain  on  line  for  public  consultation  together  with  all  other 
TOR material. 

A particular issue arises in case of clarifications or rectifications affecting a catalogue-based 
specification set. This may require a further specification or modification of some catalogue 
items.  The  system  should  therefore  enable  the  Contracting  Authority  to  publish  a  revised 
catalogue  while,  for  documentation  purpose,  maintaining  the  previous  version  of  the 
catalogue  available  under  a  tracking  system  easily  visible  and  accessible  by  the  interested 
tenderers. 

2.5 

E-Access to tender specification 

The publication system should enable free access to all the tendering documentation by any 
interested party wishing to gain an understanding of all the details of the call for tender. 

In  general  this  is  all  the  access  functionality  that  an  e-proc  system  supporting  a  simple 
electronic document submission needs to enable. Interested tenderers, once the specification 
are  downloaded  on  their  local  system,  prepare  their  response  locally  using  standard  office 
tools. 

Similarly, catalogue-based systems just need to support the downloading functionality if they 
do not offer interactive access to the e-catalogue. The e-catalogue is a common file that the 
tenderers  download  onto  their  own  local  systems  for  further  processing  by  some  "tender 
response  editing"  software.  Such  software  may  be  a  common  spreadsheet  or  a  specialised 
application that the tenderer may download from the Contracting Authority's website itself. In 
a  near  future,  the  tenderer  may  already  have  such  specialised  software  available  locally, 
embedded in their own ERP system and capable of performing an automatic mapping of the 
tenderer's local catalogue (i.e. what the tenderer can offer within a given set of products and 
services) to the call's catalogue (i.e. what the Contracting Authority is asking within a specific 
call for tenders). 

Finally,  some  catalogue-based  systems  may  offer  an  on-line  tender  response  editor.  This 
would  be  a  web  application  operating  on  the  Contracting  Authority's  website  enabling  the 
tenderer-user to navigate in a structured fashion between all the requested catalogue items and 
to provide detailed response data. To do so, the system needs to feature: 

•  A user workspace where tenderers can store all their drafts and relevant documents that are 

necessary for preparing their response until the deadline for submission; 

•  A  set  of  security  measures,  including  tracking  and  auditing  mechanisms,  to  ensure  the 
"inviolability"  of  the  proposal  until  the  opening  process  begins  (see  below).  That  means 
that top-level confidentially is to be enforced against potential access to data from anybody 
(especially  in  the  Contracting  Authority's  organisation,  including  system  administrators) 
other than designated "editors" appointed by the candidate tenderers. 

Systems supporting the tender editorial process should enable submission versioning, i.e. the 
tenderer may complete the uploading of the documents in subsequent stages, even modifying 
the contents of documents already submitted until the deadline expires (at that stage, only the 
final version of the submission would be retained for subsequent processing). 

EN 

112 

   EN 

 
2.6 

E-Submission 

Once the tenderer, with or without web application support, has completed their response to 
the  TOR,  then  the  tender  package  is  either  uploaded  to  the  platform  or  sent  via  an 
asynchronous, email-type communication channel (e.g. standard email – with various security 
mechanisms  on  top  –  or  a  dedicated  communication  infrastructure  such  as  the  one  being 
developed by PEPPOL) according to the instructions provided by the Contracting Authority 
in the TOR.  

At this stage, several issues arise, that need to be tackled by the e-proc system in such a way 
as  to  not  artificially  restrict  the  range  of  potential  tenderers  based  on  the  technology  and 
process being used.  

The problem areas are individually addressed below. 

2.6.1  Certification of submission time 

The  alternative  submission  methods  require  a  completely  different  approach  as  to  the 
certification of the submission time: 

•  In  the  uploading  model,  the  e-Procurement  system  issues  a  digitally  signed  receipt 

certifying date and time of submission; 

•  In the asynchronous transmission model (e.g. PEPPOL) an external time stamping service 
is required (at the moment this poses a cross-border obstacle as an interoperable EU-wide 
time stamping system does not exist). 

2.6.2 

Authentication of the submission 

Authentication of submission has to do with the mechanisms enforced by the e-proc solution 
to ensure that: 

•  The  tender  is  submitted  by  a  physical  person  who  effectively  is  the  person  that  he/she 

purports to be (i.e. the person legitimate to commit the tendering business); 

•  The tenderer cannot deny having submitted a proposal; 

•  The  material  that  is  submitted  is  not  altered  (accidentally  or  on  purpose)  from  the  very 

moment it is sent by the officer authorised by the tenderer to submit. 

At the moment the level of assurance that an e-proc solution has to enforce against the above 
risks is established by the national implementation of the procurement Directives.  

Contracting  Authorities  in  certain  Member  States  are  allowed  to  use  a  simple  user 
registration-based  model.  In  such  Member  States,  the  law  recognises  the  legal  value  of  an 
electronic  transaction  replacing  traditional  signed  tendering  documents,  and  attaches  a 
sufficient  level  of  assurance  to  user-id  and  password  to  permit  user  identification  and 
authorisation as well as for non-repudiation. However, for such systems, it is important that a 
security token (e.g. a digital certificate for e-Signature) is downloaded from the Contracting 
Authority  website  to  ensure  that  the  documents  being  submitted  are  protected  against 
tampering. This solution is posing no interoperability problems (including cross-border). 

EN 

113 

   EN 

 
In countries that mandate the use of qualified electronic signatures for e-Procurement, there 
may be various differences in the ways electronic signatures are used e.g.: 

•  E-Procurement  systems using a one-for-all registration procedure demand  the  tenderer to 
register once thereby enabling the tenderer to respond to several calls launched within that 
particular  context.  In  such  a  scenario,  the  Contracting  Authority  may  mandate  the 
submission  of  a  unique  digitally  signed  request  for  registration.  On  conclusion,  the  user 
receives a user ID and tools that ensure top-level user authentication without requiring later 
submissions to be electronically signed. 

•  One-time  registration  systems  mandate  the  supplier  to  submit  electronically  signed 

proposals each time. 

Either way, there are currently interoperability problems in using electronic signature services 
across Europe. This means that if a foreign tender is received there is a high risk that the e-
Procurement system cannot verify the digital certificate supporting the signature. 

The  problem  can  be  dealt  with  in  a  wide  range  of  ways.  One  solution  is  the  work  being 
undertaken by the Commission and the Member States to establish the so called "trust list" (an 
electronic,  machine-processable  list  that  should  enable  cross-border  verification  of  qualified 
electronic  signatures),  in  the  meantime  Contracting  Authorities  need  to  set  up  a  double 
submission channel to enable foreign competitors to take part in the call. 

Another possible solution is for a call to enable those who do not own a compatible qualified 
electronic  signature  to  submit  an  unsigned  electronic  file  and  simultaneously,  via  ordinary 
registered mail or fax, a statement - generated by the e-Procurement website itself and linked 
(maybe  via  a  barcode)  to  the  digital  transmission  -  duly  signed  by  the  company's  legal 
representative. 

2.6.3 

Submission of e-Attestations 

The  e-Attestations  that  tenderers  have  to  attach  to  their  proposals  to  demonstrate  their 
suitability to take part in a call for tender are affected by problems similar to those described 
above for authentication. 

At present e-Attestations digitally signed by issuers in the Member States are rarely available. 
Therefore  the  Contracting  Authority  has  to  enforce  a  transitional  solution  to  enable 
completion of the electronic procedure in compliance with the evidence requirements of the 
procurement Directives. 

As  for  the  situation  with  incompatible  electronic  signatures,  one  solution  could  be  for  a 
Contracting Authority to allow the tenderer to: 

•  Attach  a  provisional  electronic  statement  within  the  e-tender  package,  in  order  not  to 

hinder/delay the automatic processing of the submission; 

•  Prepare, in parallel, a paper-based file and send it in via registered mail within a deadline 

set in the TOR. 

EN 

114 

   EN 

 
2.6.4  Confidentiality of the tender until formal opening 

Another  key  aspect  of  the  submission  relates  to  the  "inviolability"  of  the  tender  until  the 
opening process begins.  

Tendering documents must be within the Contracting Authority's document repository when 
the deadline for submission expires, but they must also be inaccessible to everybody until the 
tenders are opened. There are several techniques commonly used to ensure this. One example 
is  a  one-time  password  that  the  tenderer  selects  to  encipher  the  documents  and  uses  at  an 
agreed time to decipher the documents on the portal, thereby enabling authorised persons to 
officially access the data. 

Another solution consists in ensuring that the tendering documents do not leave the tenderer's 
system, i.e. where they are prepared, until the deadline. As soon as the deadline expires, the 
Contracting  Authority's  system  uploads  the  documents  from  all  tenderers'  systems.  This 
method has the opposite sensitivities: to ensure that the documents cannot be changed by the 
tenderers  after  the  deadline  is  expired.  This  would  be  achieved  by  the  tenderer  using  time-
stamping  services,  to  be  applied  to  a  proposal  upon  the  deadline  thereby  ensuring  that  the 
proposal cannot be modified. This method has a large shortcoming: the current unavailability 
of an interoperable time-stamping service across the EU.  

2.7 

Tender opening process 

Once the deadline for submission has expired the opening process begins, causing: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

All  tendering  documents  to  become  visible  to  designated  people  within  the 
Contracting  Authority's  organisation  (i.e.  tendering  evaluators  and  administrative 
staff); 

Verification  of  completeness  of  the  information  included  in  each  tender  e-package 
submitted. Verification at this stage is probably only required in the case of systems 
supporting  simple  submission.  When  a  system  supports  tendering  preparation,  the 
system  is  likely  not  to  allow  submission  of  incomplete  information.  However,  the 
opening stage may result in rejection of incomplete proposals, to be handled as part 
of the workflow; 

Communication to all participating tenderers of the list of tenderers admitted to the 
selection, the list of rejected tenderers on grounds of proposal incompleteness and all 
other information that tenderers are entitled to know about their competitors.  

The  opening  is  a  formal  process  that  in  certain  Member  States  is  carried  out  via  a  public 
procedure that all tenderers are entitled to take part in. Therefore an e-proc system covering 
this  phase  needs  to  make  available,  simultaneously  to  all  the  tenderers,  all  relevant 
information for each single tender that must be disclosed by law, as appropriate. 

To  this  respect,  it  should  be  noted  that  in  some  countries  the  price  of  each  tender  is  made 
public at the opening stage (e.g. Austria), while in other countries (e.g. Italy) price is the very 
last  information  to  be  disclosed/read  under  the  procedure  –  this  happens  after  the  tendering 
evaluation  is  completed  –  and  made  publicly  available  via  a  public  procedure.  In  such 
situations the price must remain "inviolable" until the final opening is made. This may be a 

EN 

115 

   EN 

 
major  factor  preventing  replication  of  the  applications  across  countries,  but  does  not  hinder 
accessibility within countries. 

2.8 

E-Selection 

E-selection is the process through which the capability of the tenderers to deliver the products 
/ services that are the subject of the call is checked against the exclusion and selection criteria 
stated in the TOR. Limitations or non-compliance in any such areas lead to exclusion of the 
tender  without  any  evaluation  of  the  technical  proposal  on  the  basis  that  the  tenderer  is  not 
appropriate/able to carry out the project at hand. 

E-selection  could  in  principle  be  fully  automated,  in  that  the  Contracting  Authority  sets  the 
minimum reference parameters in purely quantitative terms (e.g. minimum acceptable amount 
for  total  yearly  turnover,  minimum  acceptable  amount  for  turnover  related  to  the  specific 
project,  absence  of  conviction  for  the  tenderer  representative,  etc.)  and  provides  a  standard 
electronic form to gather each tenderer's data. On this basis, the system could then check data 
against reference values and validate the tenderer's statement against the electronic supporting 
evidence attached to the tender. 

In practice the current lack of general availability of e-Certificates and e-Attestations which 
are  machine-processable  makes  it  quite  unlikely  that  a  fully  automated  selection  can  be 
conducted.  

A  partially  automated  selection  may  instead  be  possible  in  which  the  values  stated  by  the 
tenderers  in  the  electronic  form  for  all  evidence  items  mandated  in  the  TOR  is  checked 
against the attached certificates and attestations by an evaluator appointed by the Contracting 
Authority, who fills in a selection form provided by the e-proc system. 

2.9 

E-Evaluation/ e-Award 

In a similar manner to e-Selection, e-Evaluation can be supported by e-proc systems offering 
a computer-assisted tool for: 

•  Contracting  Authorities  to  set  evaluation  criteria  using  an  electronic  form,  that  will  be 

published as part of the tendering specifications; 

•  Tenderers to supply information that automatically fills the form with performance data; 

•  Evaluation  panel  members  to  assess  individual  tenders  and  award  the  contract  to  the 

winning tenderer based on the award criteria established in the TOR. 

Commonly, tools handle the following evaluation criteria (identified in the TOR) according to 
the European and national law:  

•  Best price; 

•  Price + technical evaluation (most economically advantageous tender); 

•  Price + [technical evaluation +] a final auction. 

Best  price  evaluation  can  be  conducted  by  the  system  in  a  totally  automated  fashion.  The 
price is encoded in each tender and the role of the contracting authority's evaluation panel is 

EN 

116 

   EN 

 
just to verify that tenderers effectively commit to supplying products/services requested in full 
compliance  with  the  TOR  (basically  this  boils  down  to  completeness  of  the  tender).  The 
system then automatically ranks the tenders by price resulting in the choice of the best bid. 

The "Most economically advantageous tender evaluation" criterion requires judgement by the 
Contracting  Authority.  A  specific  evaluation  panel  is  appointed  with  the  responsibility  for 
marking  the  tenders  based  on  the  criteria  provided  in  the  TOR.  To  support  this  process,  a 
comprehensive  e-proc  system  may  prepare  and  make  available  to  designated  evaluators  an 
evaluation  sheet,  which  each  assessor  fills  in  with  merit  indicators  for  each  of  the  tenders 
received.  

In such instances, the electronic part of the evaluation is simply the process of recording this 
data  for  each  tender  and  performing  the  subsequent  calculations.  Once  the  designated 
evaluators have assigned performance marks to each characteristic of the proposals the system 
automatically performs the ranking, combining technical and price score information based on 
the awarding algorithm (whose publication in the TOR is made mandatory in most countries) 
and generates the necessary reports and lists. 

The  auction  is  a  further  step  that  the  Contracting  Authority  may  want  to  carry  out  after 
evaluation,  on  a  short  list  of  tenders  that  meet  the  TOR  requirements.  (Obviously,  such  a 
choice must be clearly specified in the TOR.) 

E-Auctions  involve  a  public  interactive  session  on  the  internet  which  starts  after  the 
evaluation has been conducted, where the tenderers are invited to propose: 

•  Further price reduction (reverse auction) – this is the case for the procurement of generic, 
common  and  comparable  products  where  price  is  the  only  relevant  factor  to  affect  the 
Contracting Authority's decision; 

•  Further improvement of price and other significant aspects of the tender, which is possible 
when some features of the supply are generic, well defined and comparable across tenders 
(e.g.  delivery  time)  and  are  regarded  as  a  key  factor  in  determining  the  Contracting 
Authority's choice. 

E-Evaluation ends with a ranking of bidders. 

The e-Award phase involves all the communications required by law to the winner and other 
participants on the awarding decisions made by the awarding authority. Communications may 
be  handled  by  the  system  by  having  the  Contracting  Authority  publish  individual  letters, 
digitally signed, in the reserved area assigned to each tenderer for the latter to download. 

E-Award  ends  with  the  preparation  of  contractual  records,  containing  all  elements  and 
characteristics  of  the  supply  that  is  forwarded  to  the  selected  tenderer  for  final  contract 
signing. This then marks the end of the pre-award phase of procurement. 

2.10 

E-Ordering 

E-ordering is the process enabling: 

•  Direct  procurement  -  an  order  is  issued  to  a  specific  supplier  without  prior  selection  of 
tenderers  (e.g.  possible  in  many  countries  for  procurement  below  the  threshold  or  under 
specific circumstances indicated by law); 

EN 

117 

   EN 

 
•  A specific order within a framework contract or a DPS. 

fully-fledged  e-ordering 

A 
requirements, requirements approval and making and sending orders to suppliers.  

functionality 

the  definition  of  e-procurement 

involves 

In  the  case  of  direct  procurement,  requirements  are  defined  from  scratch  and  a  supplier  is 
chosen  freely  –  possibly  from  supplier  lists  already  held  in  the  system  -  as  no  previous  e-
tendering process has been carried out. In the case of an existing framework contract or a DPS 
requirements  are  just  specified  in  more  detail  (e.g.  quantities,  delivery  dates,  etc),  since 
product  and  services  profiles  have  been  spelled  out  within  the  pre-awarding  phase  and  the 
suppliers to be invited are those the Contracting authority has signed a contract with. 

E-ordering is commonly achieved via the above illustrated process of catalogue-item selection 
and preparation of an electronic formal communication for the tenderer. 

2.11 

E-Contract management 

E-contract management is the function that enables the Contracting Authority to keep track of 
the  supply  or  the  provision  of  services.  The  Contracting  Authority  monitors  contract 
performance  and  records  all  deliverables  that  are  received  as  part  of  the  contract.  Formal 
approval statements from designated reviewers are recorded. 

As soon as a deliverable or a set of deliverables that contractually involve an agreed payment 
is  released  (and  approved),  e-Invoicing  is  given  green  light  from  the  Contracting  Authority 
point of view. 

2.12 

E-Invoicing 

From the point of view of a Contracting Authority organisation, e-Invoicing is the process of 
receiving an invoice electronically from a supplier or service provider and: 

•  Verifying that the invoice corresponds to a payment due based on an existing order or part 

order (in case of partial payments foreseen in the contract); 

•  Verifying that the amount is correct against the order (see above, e-Ordering); 

•  Verifying that the amount is payable because the conditions for payment as established in 

the order occur (see above, e-contract management); 

•  Handling any non-compliance with regard to the above; 

•  Triggering the payment; and 

•  (In the case of full compliance), archiving it in line with the bookkeeping obligations. 

2.13 

E-Payment 

E-payment is an electronic order issued by the Contracting Authority's system to the financial 
institution of the Contracting Authority to proceed with the payment of the amount due to the 
contractor.  

EN 

118 

   EN 

 
3. 

SUPPORT FOR DIFFERENT PUBLIC PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES 

The functions described in the  previous section are variously combined to implement on an 
electronic infrastructure the different administrative procedures and contractual arrangements 
defined  in  the  procurement  Directives.  This  section  outlines  possible  ways  of  implementing 
such procedures. 

3.1 

Open procedure 

In an open procedure wide participation of businesses is sought by the Contracting Authority 
who  issues  a  general  invitation  to  which  anybody  meeting  the  profile  specified  in  the  TOR 
can respond.  

In  principle  the  Contracting  Authority  does  not  know  who  is  going  to  take  part  in  the 
tendering  process  until  the  tendering  submission  deadline.  However,  if  the  e-Procurement 
system offers would-be tenderers a tender preparation environment then a registration process 
must be completed well before formal submission. 

Systems offering a simple submission mechanism only may allow registration until or as part 
of the very stage of formal submission. 

As the deadline for submission expires, the submission channel is disabled and all tenders that 
have been submitted by that time qualify for selection and evaluation. 

All phases outlined in sections 2.1 to 2.10 are carried out in a sequential manner. 

3.2 

Restricted procedure 

In  a  restricted  procedure,  following  an  open  invitation  which  everybody  can  respond  to  by 
submitting the information specified in the TOR (in general describing the technical, financial 
and management capability of the company), several respondents are selected and invited to 
submit a proposal. 

The process is therefore split up in two phases: 

•  Phase  1  includes  the  selection  phase  and  ends  with  a  comparative  evaluation  of  the 
tenderer  capability,  resulting  in  a  shortlist  of  tenderers  to  be  retained.  The  short  listing 
process  may  be  designed  as  a  particular  form  of  e-Evaluation  and  e-Award,  with  all  the 
implications  discussed  under  sections  2.1  to  either  2.8  or  2.9  resulting  in  a  number  of 
"winners" instead of a single "winner"; 

•  Phase  2  moves  on  from  the  invitation  of  tenderers  and  goes  through  a  standard  e-

submission process up to contract conclusion. 

3.3 

Framework agreement 

In  a  framework  contract  a  Contracting  Authority  establishes  with  one  or  more  contractors 
conditions and terms for the provision within a given time frame of a number of products and 
services.  On  this  basis  the  Contracting  Authority  issues  specific  orders  as  needed,  based  on 
the requirements of the organisation being served. 

To support such a process a procurement system has to feature two main components:  

EN 

119 

   EN 

 
•  The  module  for  selection  of  the  supplier  (or  the  suppliers  in  the  case  of  framework  with 
reopening  of  competition),  offering  the  functionality  described  in  sections  2.1  to  2.9 
(namely  e-notification,  e-access,  e-submission  e-Evaluation  and  e-Awarding)  aimed  at 
setting up a catalogue of products and services available for a given period of time. This 
catalogue does not immediately result in an order placed to the selected contractor but just 
in a contractual framework in which the products available under the contract are specified 
in all details including price; 

•  The e-Ordering module, supporting the functionality as described under 2.10, available to 
the Contracting Authority for issuing specific orders. If the framework is simple (i.e. there 
is only one supplier selected or a supplier is selected for each specific lot) then the client 
organisation navigates the catalogue of products available and issues an order specifying, 
transactional  application,  quantities  and  characteristics  of 
by  means  of  a  web 
products/services. If the framework is complex (i.e. any specific order may be issued only 
on conclusion of a competitive process where the order is placed with the supplier offering 
best price or best performance where performance can be described in quantitative terms) 
then  the  process  goes  through  simplified  phases  of  e-notification,  e-submission,  e-
Evaluation and e-Award. 

3.4 

DPS 

A  DPS  implementation  has  a  lot  in  common  with  the  implementation  of  framework 
agreement with the reopening of competition. 

A DPS can be seen as a procurement process through which a Contracting Authority acquires 
over time standardised (generic, common and comparable) goods, services or works.  

Economic  operators  are  first  invited  to  join  a  catalogue-based  e-procurement  system  via  an 
indicative  tender  meeting  framework  requirements  defined  in  the  TOR  by  the  contracting 
authority  running  the  DPS,  and  subsequently,  when  the  Contracting  Authority  launches  a 
specific procurement process, submit the details of the products / services they can provide.  

The first part of the procedure is carried out with an application supporting the functionality 
described  under  2.1  to  2.9.  The  second  part  of  the  procedure  is  done  with  a  standard  e-
ordering  functionality  supporting  a  competitive  supplier  selection  process  within  the 
contractor list set out in the DPS (e-notification, e-submission, e-Evaluation and e-Award). 

As opposed to framework agreement, though, a DPS system must support the publication of a 
new  notice  using  the  channels  prescribed  by  law  (i.e.  the  OJEU  and  other  sources  possibly 
prescribed  at  national  level)  at  any  specific  order  that  the  Contracting  Authority  issues,  to 
allow  new  bidders  to  join  in  by  submitting  a  specific  tender  via  reiteration  of  the  process 
described under 2.1 to 2.9. 

3.5 

Direct order (for purchases under the threshold) 

For procurement under threshold, a Contracting Authority has greater autonomy in terms of 
supplier  selection.  It  should  be  noted  that  some  Member  States  may  have  defined  in  their 
national  law  implementing  the  Directives  a  lower  threshold,  setting  an  area  between  the 
national  threshold  and  the  EU  threshold  where  specific  national  rules  for  selection  and 
awarding may apply. Therefore it is under this national level, if any, that national Contracting 

EN 

120 

   EN 

 
Authorities  may  in  principle  award  a  contract  to  a  trusted  supplier  via  direct  order  without 
prior competition among tenderers. 

To handle direct orders, two scenarios can be envisaged: 

1. 

2. 

Placing  an  order  by  sending  a  "request  for  quotation"  to  the  trusted  supplier.  The 
latter  replies  by sending to the Contracting Authority a catalogue-based file for  the 
Contracting  Authority  to  approve  or  ask  for  modifications  until  an  agreement  is 
reached  and  an  order  confirmation  is  issued.  The  process  described  configures  the 
most typical e-Ordering case (see 2.10) and is fairly commonly supported in current 
ERP environments. 

Placing  an  order  to  an  existing  Marketplace  offered  by  national  procurement 
authorities.  These  are  services  increasingly  offered  in  the  Member  States  whereby 
Contracting  Authorities  navigate  a  general  catalogue  of  products  and  services 
available and chose each item by placing it into a typical "shopping cart". Interested 
suppliers  publish  their  products  on  the  catalogue  specifying  price,  delivery  time, 
areas served, guarantee period, etc. 

3.6 

E-Auctions 

The present document handles e-Auctions as an awarding mechanism (see 2.9), although the 
Directives  include  e-Auction  among  the  new  administrative  procedures.  Basically,  the  e-
Auction process follows the steps outlined for the open procedure until e-Awarding, at which 
stage an interactive session is opened allowing selected tenderers to submit price reductions 
(or  improvement  of  individual  characteristics  of  the  suppliers  that  can  be  quantitatively  be 
expressed) until the most economic (or advantageous) tender is found. 

Source: DG MARKT 

EN 

121 

   EN 

 
ANNEX IV – Measures under the Action Plan and current status 

Action Plan measure 

Issues to be addressed 

State of Play 

to 

issue 
Commission 
interpretative  document  on 
the  new  rules  on  electronic 
public procurement 

Commission  to  make  online 
demonstrators 
training 
available,  allowing  CAs  and 
EOs  to  familiarise  with  new 
e-proc provisions and tools 

to 

provide 
Commission 
appropriate  assistance 
to 
in 
Member 
transposing  the  new  legal 
provisions 

States 

Legal 

Completed 

Commission 

- 
Staff 
Working  Document  (SEC 
959 of 8.7.2005; EN only) 

Completed 

2005:  Applications 
IDABC65 

on 

- 
available 
website66 

Technical 

Trust 

Resistance to change 

Lack  of  understanding  of 
benefits  

-  helpdesk  services  (2005-
2009) 

Doubts on feasibility 

Accessibility 

Set up a reference model 

Legal 

Completed  

(ePWG)  of 

-  e-Procurement  Working 
the 
Group 
Advisory  Committee  for 
Public  Contracts,  meetings 
(from 2003) 

- DG MARKT website 

Forms 

Commission  to  adopt  new 
for 
Standard 
procurement  notices  taking 
account  of  new  procedures  + 
the use of electronic means of 
communication 

Standardisation 

Completed 

Transparency 

Publicity/dissemination  

-  Regulation  N°1564/2005 
of  7  September  2005  on 
Standard Forms67 

Cross-border 

Common understanding 

65 

66 
67 

Interoperable  Delivery  of  European  eGovernment  Services  to  public  Administrations,  Businesses  and 
Citizens.  A  Commission  programme  that  ran  between  2005  and  2009,  developing  recommendations 
and, solutions and providing services helping European public services to communicate electronically 
http://ec.europa.eu/idabc  
The standard forms are available online at SIMAP website (http://simap.europa.eu) 

EN 

122 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Action Plan measure 

Issues to be addressed 

State of Play 

to 

Commission 
present 
proposals  for  revision  of  the 
Procurement 
Common 
Vocabulary (CPV)  

Standardisation 

Completed 

Cross-border 

Interoperability 

-  Regulation  N°213/2008 
of  28  November  2007 
amending CPV68 

to 

for 

Commission 
present 
Blueprint 
fully 
the 
electronic  system  for 
collection  and  publication  of 
procurement notices on TED 

a 

Common understanding 

Transparency 

Completed  

Accessibility 

Automation 
(Simplification) 

Cross-border 

July 

Feasibility 

- 
completed 
('Mandatory 
transmission 
procurement  notices 
publication')69 

study 
2007 
electronic 
of 
for 

Member  States  to  implement 
fully  electronic  systems  at 
including 
level 
national 
for 
appropriate 
+ 
automated 
publishing in TED 

tools 
collection 

States 

Member 
and 
Commission  test,  refine  and 
IDA 
validate 
common 
functional 
requirements 
e-
for 
Procurement systems 

results  of 

Transparency 

On-going  

Accessibility 

Automation 
(Simplification) 

Legal 

Accessibility 

Cross-border 

Technical 

Dissemination 
practices 

of 

best 

Common understanding 

Completed  

-  Report  on  Preliminary 
Functional  Requirements 
for 
e-Procurement 
(03/2005) 

-  Report  on  Preliminary 
Functional  Requirements 
e-Catalogues 
for 
(12/2007)70 

68 
69 

70 

EN 

at  DG  MARKT  website  http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/e-

The old and new CPV versions are available online at SIMAP website (http://simap.europa.eu) 
Available 
procurement_en.htm#feasability 
Available 
procurement_en.htm#feasability 

at  DG  MARKT  website  http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/e-

123 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Action Plan measure 

Issues to be addressed 

State of Play 

Member  States 
to  review 
whether  all  operational  e-
Procurement  schemes  have 
the 
been 
requirements 
the 
Directives 

adjusted 

of 

to 

introduce 
Member  States 
accreditation 
national 
schemes 
verify 
to 
compliance  of  e-tendering 
systems with legal framework 

States 

and 
Member 
consider 
Commission 
through  a  feasibility  study 
whether 
a 
European 
compliance 
verification scheme 

introduce 

to 

to 

under 

an 
Commission  proposes 
IDABC 
action 
programme 
help 
Member  States  co-ordinate 
implementing  the  use  of 
qualified 
advanced 
signature 
resolve 
interoperability problems  

to 

On-going 

On-going 

Completed 

study  on 
-  Feasibility 
Common 
Compliance 
Verification  mechanisms, 
completed 07/200770 

Completed 71 

Legal 

Accessibility 

Cross-border 

Technical 

Common understanding 

Legal 

Trust 

Accessibility 

Policy 

Cross-border 

Legal 

Trust 

Policy 

Cross-border 

Authentication 

Interoperability 

Cross-border 

if 
Member  States  apply, 
required  by  national 
law, 
interoperable  qualified  e-
Signatures 

Authentication 

On-going 

Cross-border 

Interoperability 

71 

EU Action Plan for interoperable e-Signatures and e-Authentication has been adopted (2008), EC inter-
service group has been set up 

EN 

124 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Action Plan measure 

Issues to be addressed 

State of Play 

CEN  /  ISSS  completes  gap 
analysis  on  interoperability 
e-
for 
needs 
Procurement 

effective 

activities 

to 
Commission  proposes 
continue 
on  
e-Procurement  under  the 
IDABC  programme 
for 
exchange  and  discussion  on 
interoperability 
issues  and 
monitoring of Member States' 
developments 

Commission  and  Member 
States 
promote 
standardisation  activities  at 
liaise 
European 
international 
with 
standardisation bodies 

level  and 

Interoperability 

Completed  

Accessibility 

Cross-border 

CEN 
- 
Agreement 
15236:200572  

Workshop 
CWA 

Interoperability 

Completed  

Accessibility 

Cross-border 

Policy 

Dissemination 
practices 

of 

best 

Standardisation 

Interoperability 

Cross-border 

Accessibility 

Policy 

Dissemination 
practices 

of 

best 

On-going73  

Partially completed 

Member  States  to  prepare 
plans 
for 
national 
introducing 
e-Procurement 
measurable 
setting 
performance  targets,  taking 
account  of  specific  national 
needs 

Policy 

Security 

Trust 

Inclusion 

Monitoring 

Dissemination 
practices 

of 

best 

72 

73 

Analysis  of  standardization  requirements  and  standardization  gaps  for  e-Procurement  in  Europe, 
available  at  CEN  website  ftp://ftp.cenorm.be/PUBLIC/CWAs/e-Europe/eProc/cwa15236-00-2005-
Feb.pdf  
COM has successfully promoted standardisation over the last years. Various standardisation activities 
have been completed by CEN and OASIS on XML automated messaging. Development of standards is 
still on-going. 

EN 

125 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Action Plan measure 

Issues to be addressed 

State of Play 

Member  States  to  encourage 
preparation  of  similar  plans 
national 
by 
buyers  and  coordinate  + 
monitor their implementation 

individual 

Policy 

Security 

Trust 

Partially Completed 

Inclusion 

Dissemination 
practices 

of 

best 

to 

Commission 
continue 
e-
monitoring  work 
on 
invoices  by  CEN/ISSS  and 
propose continuation of XML 
activities undertaken in 2003-
2004  on  e-invoices  and  e-
Ordering under IDABC 

to  set  up 
Member  States 
efficient  electronic  systems 
for 
and 
processing 
statistical 
procurement data 

collection 

the 

of 

to 

supply 

Commission 
proposing  services  for 
electronic 
business 
certificates 
procurement 
implementation  under 
IDABC programme 

consider 
the 
of 
information  and 
public 
for 
the 

in 

Monitoring 

Standardisation 

Interoperability 

Cross-border 

Dissemination 
practices 

Monitoring 

On-going74 

of 

best 

Partially completed 

-  Study  on  the  automation 
of statistical data collection 
in 11 Member States (April 
2007) 

-  Appropriate  measures 
taken  by  some  Member 
States 

Accessibility 

Completed 

Standardisation 

Cross-border 

Automation 
(Simplification) 

Re-usability 

-  Feasibility  study  on  the 
electronic  provision  of 
certificates  &  attestations 
most frequently required in 
PP, completed (12/2008).75 

74 

75 

Activities  monitored  on  various  standardisation  activities  by  CEN  and  OASIS  on  XML  automated 
messaging for e-Ordering & e-Invoicing, and various operational initiatives by DIGIT, ENTR 
Available 
procurement_en.htm#feasability 

at  DG  MARKT  website  http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/e-

EN 

126 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Action Plan measure 

Issues to be addressed 

State of Play 

States 

Member 
and 
Commission  agree  on  a 
common  set  of  frequently 
required 
electronic 
certificates for use in e-proc 

proposes 
Commission 
on 
study 
launching 
e-
(in  DPS  + 
catalogues 
electronic 
framework 
agreements)  using  work  by 
CEN/ISSS  under  the  IDABC 
programme 

Public  Procurement  Network 
to  organise  benchmarking 
on transparency, auditing + 
traceability 
e-proc 
systems 

of 

Public  Procurement  Network 
to 
to  organise  workshops 
promote 
on 
tender 
document 
standardisation 

exchanges 

Member States to launch and 
support  specific  awareness 
campaigns  +training 
for 
SMEs  at  national  +  regional 
level 

to 

Commission 
pursue 
negotiations on the review of 
Government 
the 
Procurement 
Agreement 
(GPA) 

Accessibility 

On-going 

Standardisation 

Cross-border 

Re-usability 

-  e-CERTIS  Feasibility 
study ('e-Certificates II') on 
creation  of 
an  online 
database  on  certificates  & 
(funded  by 
attestations 
IDABC) 

Standardisation 

Completed  

Technical 

Inclusion 

-  Feasibility  study  on  e-
Catalogues 
(November 
2007)76 

Transparency 

Delayed 

Legal 

Trust 

Common understanding 

Accessibility 

Delayed 

Standardisation 

Automation 
(Simplification) 

Inclusion 

Policy 

On-going 

International cross-border 

On-going77 

Policy 

Legal 

76 

77 

at  DG  MARKT  website  http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/e-

Available 
procurement_en.htm#feasability 
COM has taken action according to the Action Plan's objectives, but the negotiation is still on-going. 

EN 

127 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Action Plan measure 

Issues to be addressed 

State of Play 

International cross-border 

On-going78 

Standardisation 

Policy 

International 
understanding 

common 

International cross-border 

On-going 

Policy 

Standardisation 

Interoperability 

International cross-border 

On-going 

Policy 

Inclusion 

Policy 

On-going 

Transparency 

in 

to 

the  GPA 

take 
Commission 
initiatives 
to 
progress towards utilisation 
common 
of 
single 
a 
nomenclature 
the 
classification  of  procurement 
goods and services 

for 

Commission  to  promote  the 
activities  of  and  liaise  with 
international 
standardisation  bodies  & 
fora  to  avoid  emergence  of 
interoperability  barriers  at 
international level 

to  cooperate 
Commission 
Multilateral 
with 
Banks 
Development 
(MDBs)  network  in  view  of 
co-ordinating technical assist. 
to  3rd  countries,  supporting 
and 
re-organising 
computerising 
PP 
regimes 

their 

Commission  to  consider  any 
adjustments  necessary  + 
feasibility  of  e-Procurement 
in context of EU external aid 
instruments 

Source: DG MARKT 

78 

COM has taken action according to the Action Plan's objectives, but the negotiation is still on-going. 

EN 

128 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX V– Table of public procurement legislation 

NB:  This  table  mentions  the  thresholds  as  foreseen  in  the  initial  text  of  the  Directives  mentioned.  It  does  not  include  updates  for  any  subsequent 
adaptation of the thresholds' value over time. 

Directive 
71/305/EEC 

Who 
Public sector 

Coverage and threshold 
Works contracts, equal to and above € 1 million 

77/62/EEC 

Public sector 

Supplies contracts, equal to and above € 200,000 

80/767/EEC 

Public  sector,  central 
state authorities 

Supplies contracts, equal to and above € 140,000 

88/295/EEC 

Public sector 

89/440/EEC  

Public sector 

Supplies  contracts,  equal  to  and  above  €  130,000  (for 
central state  authorities), otherwise equal to and above 
200,000 €  
Works  contracts,  works  concessions  contracts,  works 
contracts awarded by concessionaires, subsidised works 
contracts, equal to and above € 5,000,000 

90/531/EEC 

92/50/EEC 

Utilities 
(water, 
energy,  transport  and 
telecommunications 
sectors) 
Public sector 

93/36/EEC 

Public sector 

Works contracts, equal to and above € 5,000,000  
Supplies  contracts  €  400,000  –  600,000  (central  State 
authorities – others) 

Service contracts,  subsidised contracts,  design contests 
equal to and above € 200,000 
Supplies  contracts,  equal  to  and  above  €  130,000  – 
200,000 (central State authorities - others) 

93/37/EEC 

Public sector 

Works  contracts,  works  concessions  contracts,  works 
contracts awarded by concessionaires, subsidised works 
contracts, equal to and above € 5,000,000 

Comments 
Works  concessions  not  covered,  transport,  water  and  energy 
sectors excluded 
Transport,  water,  energy  and  telecommunications  sectors 
excluded 
Amending  Directive  77/62/EEC,  mainly  because  of  the  1979 
GATT  Agreement  on  Government  procurement.  Transport, 
water, energy and telecommunications sectors excluded 
Amending  Directive  77/62/EEC,  i.a.  because  of  the  1986 
GATT  Agreement  on  Government  procurement.  Transport, 
water, energy and telecommunications sectors excluded 
Amending  Directive  71/305/EEC.  Definition  of  contracting 
authorities  broadened  (bodies  governed  by  public  law), 
definition of works contracts broadened (execution and design 
… or the execution by whatever means …). Transport, water 
and energy sectors excluded 
Works  concessions  contracts  not  covered,  very  broad 
definition of special or exclusive rights 

Two tier system, service concessions excluded. Water, energy, 
transport and telecommunications sectors excluded. 
Codified Directive 77/62/EEC and its subsequent amendments 
and  introduced  substantial  changes.  Definition  of  contracting 
authority  broadened  (body  governed  by  public  law).  Water, 
energy, transport and telecommunications sectors excluded. 
Purely  a  codification  of  Directive  71/305/EEC  and  its 
subsequent  amendments  (see  remarks  to  89/440/EC).  Water, 
energy, transport and telecommunications sectors excluded. 

EN 

129 

EN 

 
  
Directive 
93/38/EEC 

97/52/EC &  
98/4/EC 

2004/17/EC 

Who 
Utilities 
(water, 
energy,  transport  and 
telecommunications 
sectors) 
Public 
Utilities 

sector 

and 

Utilities 
(Water, 
energy,  transport  and 
postal sectors) 

2004/18/EC 

Public sector 

Source: DG MARKT 

Coverage and threshold 
Works  contracts,  supplies  contracts  services  contracts¸ 
design  contests,  equal  to  and  above  €  5,000,000  for 
works,  equal  to  and  above  €  400,000  –  600,000  for 
supplies and services (central State authorities – others) 
Changes  to  previous  thresholds.  equal  to  and  above 
€5,000,000 / SDR 5,000,000 for works, SDR 130,000 - 
€ 600,000 for supplies and services contracts 

Works, equal to and above € 6,242,000  
Supplies  and  services  contracts,  design  contests,  equal 
to and above € 499,000. 
(Currently:  equal  to  and  above  €  4,845,000  for  works 
contracts;  equal  to  and  above  €  387,000  for  supplies, 
services) and design contests. 
Works,  works  concessions  contracts,  works  contracts 
awarded by concessionaires, subsidised works equal to 
and above € 6,242,000  
Supplies  and  services  contracts,  subsidised  service 
contracts, design contests, equal to and above € 162,000 
– 249,000 
(currently:  equal  to  and  above  €  4,845,000  for  works, 
works  concessions  contracts,  works  contracts  awarded 
by  concessionaires,  subsidised  works.  equal  to  and 
above  €  125,000  –  193,000  for  supplies  and  services 
contracts, subsidised service contracts, design contests) 

97/52/EC 

amended  Directives 

Comments 
Codification of Directive 90/531/EEC with the new provisions 
concerning  service  contracts.  Two  tier  system  for  services. 
Works  and  service  concessions  contracts  not  covered,  very 
broad definition of special or exclusive rights 
Directive 
92/50/EEC, 
93/36/EEC and 93/37/EEC, while Directive 98/4/EC amended 
Directive  93/38/EEC.  Mainly  because  of  the  1994  WTO 
Agreement on Government procurement. 
Replaced  Directive 
subsequent 
93/38/EEC 
modifications.  Two  tier  system  for  services.  Works  and 
service  concessions  contracts  not  covered.  Narrower  but 
refocused  definition  of  special  and  exclusive  rights.  Postal 
sector  added  and 
telecommunications  sector  excluded. 
Provisions on e-Procurement included. 
Replaced  Directives  92/50/EEC,  93/36/EEC  and  93/37/EEC 
and  subsequent  modifications.  Two  tier  system  for  services. 
Service  concessions  contracts  not  covered.  Water,  energy, 
transport,  telecommunications  and  postal  sectors  excluded; 
Provisions on e-Procurement included. 

and 

its 

EN 

130 

EN 

 
  
First objective - Ensure a well functioning Internal Market in electronic public procurement 

Source: Siemens-time.lex study 

ANNEX VI - Intervention logics 

Aim(s) of the Action Plan for this 
objective 
(proposed measure) 

Expected results linked to this 
objective 
(expected reaction to the action) 

Impacts 

Direct 
(desired effect) 

Indirect 
(possible other effects) 

Implement the legal framework correctly and on time 

Commission must issue explanatory document on the new rules on 
electronic public procurement 

Commission must issue online training demonstrators to familiarize 
MS with the new e-proc provisions and tools 

Commission must provide assistance to MS in transposing the new 
legal provisions 

Complete legal framework by appropriate basic tools 

Implementation  is facilitated and 
speeded  up (deadline: 31/1/2006) 
Error free implementation; no 
misunderstandings about scope of 
new provisions 

Commission adopts new Standard Forms for procurement notices  

Consistent and transparent public 
procurement 

Commission coordinates the revision of the CPV 

Commission provides a blueprint for a fully electronic system for 
the collection and publication of procurement notices on TED 

Implementation by MS of electronic systems at national level incl. 
tools for automated collection + publishing in TED 

Single, common EU infrastructure for 
eNotices  
National infrastructure for eNotices 
compatible with EU system 

Greater legal certainty 
Administrative simplification  
Effort/cost of participation 
drops for tenderers 

No legal barriers for 
eProcurement 
Common EU understanding 
of eProc 
Greater PP participation  

Accelerated uptake of eProc 
& of new tools 
Accelerated uptake of 
electronic notices 

Improve eGov 
interoperability and 
sophistication in general 
Reduced risk of market 
fragmentation 
Private and public proc. 
can share best practices 

Technical know-how may 
favour participants with 
more sophisticated 
technical infrastructures 
Automation may eliminate 
now unnecessary jobs; this 
may be offset by new jobs 
in innovative services  
Increased eProc/eGov 
investment (incl. private 
sector) 

Overall 
impacts 
(overall objective of 
the AP) 

Improve cross 
border access to 
public procurement 
markets, thus 
supporting the 
Internal Market 

Reduce costs for 
the public sector by 
improving efficiency 
and stimulating 
competition in the 
Internal Market 

Context: 

Member State Action: 

External factors: 

• General goal: public proc must be non-discriminatory, generally available 

and interoperable and by no means restrict economic operators’ access 
to the tendering procedure  

• They must implement the legal framework, including 

notably the new forms and the CPV 

• Linked legislation includes specifically the eSignatures Directive (provides a 
basic working tool) and VAT Directive 2006/112/EC (including 
eInvoicing as described in articles 232 and following) 

• Overall policy context: i2010 objectives 

• eProcurement uptake is encouraged and expected but not 
mandated by the Directives (or the Action Plan) 

•The Services Directive could have a strong impact, especially through the 

eSignatures work (CROBIES), and due to eDocuments concerns (IMI 
system)  

•Large scale pilots provide key building blocks; notably PEPPOL, but also STORK 

and SPOCS 

•Greater call for simplification, also from a political perspective, see e.g. Stoiber 

Group and ongoing review of eInvoicing rules 

EN 

131 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
First objective - Ensure a well functioning Internal Market in electronic public procurement (continuation) 

Source: Siemens-time.lex study 

Aim(s) of the Action Plan for this 
objective 
(proposed action/measure) 

Remove/prevent barriers in e- procurement procedures 

MS  and  Commission 
eProcurement systems 

issue 

functional 

requirements 

for 

MS review whether e-proc systems have adjusted to Directives 

introduce  national  accreditation  schemes 

MS 
compliance 

to  verify 

legal 

MS  and  Commission  perform  a  feasibility  study  for  a  European 
compliance verification scheme 

Commission  proposes  initiatives  to  assist  the  MS  to  resolve 
interoperability problems for e-signatures 

MS apply interoperable qualified electronic signatures 

Detect and address interoperability problems over time 

Commission  and  MS  promote  standardisation  activities  at 
European level and liaise with international standardisation bodies 

CEN/ISS issues gap analysis on interoperability needs  

Commission  proposes  to  continue  activities  on  e-  procurement 
under the IDABC programme on interoperability issues  

Context: 
• General goal: public proc must be non-discriminatory, generally available and 

interoperable and by no means restrict economic operators’ access to 
the tendering procedure  

• Linked legislation includes specifically the eSignatures Directive (provides a 

basic working tool) and Services Directive (addresses similar issues) 

• Overall policy context: i2010 objectives 

Expected results linked to this objective 
(expected reaction to the action) 

Impacts 

Overall impacts 
(overall objective of the AP) 

Direct 
(desired effect) 

Indirect 
(possible other effects) 

Improve cross border 
access to public 
procurement markets, thus 
supporting the Internal 
Market 

Reduce costs for the public 
sector by improving 
efficiency and stimulating 
competition in the Internal 
Market 

MS have eProcurement systems that support 
the new tools based on a common 
understanding of the European framework 

Increased confidence in 
eProcurement 
Increased transparency 

MS’ eProcurement systems comply 
with the legal framework 

Usage of qualified electronic signatures is 
facilitated, including at the cross border 
level

Better understanding of interoperability issues 
and greater interoperability between Member 
States 

Increased standardisation  

Greater participation and 
competition (especially 
cross border) reduces 
costs for public sector 
Effort/cost of participation 
drops for all participants 
(public and private) 
Greater security and 
reliability of procurements 

No legal and few technical 
barriers for cross border 
eProc & use of new tools 
All new tools used, correctly 

Improve eGov 
interoperability and 
sophistication, including for 
eCertificates / eSignatures 
Standardisation will likely 
trickle through to private 
section initiatives (including 
private procurement, 
eInvoicing, e-signatures) 

Technical know-how may 
favour participants with 
more sophisticated 
technical infrastructures 
Automation may eliminate 
now unnecessary jobs; this 
may be offset by new jobs 
in innovative services  
Standardisation will 
improve return on 
investment for eProc  
Security may increase 
costs of compliance 

Member State Action: 

External factors: 

• MS are expected (but not required) to implement compliant eProcurement 
infrastructure. Use of these systems was expected, as was the 
adoption of qualified signatures, but not required. 

•The Services Directive could have a strong impact, especially through the 

eSignatures work (CROBIES), and due to eDocuments concerns (IMI 
system)  

•Large scale pilots provide key building blocks; 
•Greater call for simplification, also from a political perspective, see e.g. Stoiber 

Group and ongoing review of eInvoicing rules 

EN 

132 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Second objective - Improve procurement efficiency, governance and competitiveness 

Source: Siemens-time.lex study 

Aim(s) of the Action Plan for this 
objective 
(proposed measure) 

Increase procurement efficiency and improve governance 

MS  will  adopt  national  action  plans  for  introducing  eProcurement, 
including  measurable  performance  targets,  and  will  encourage 
preparation of similar plans by individual national buyers  

Commission  will  continue  monitoring  work  on  eInvoices  by 
CEN/ISSS and XML activities on eInvoices and eOrdering 

MS  will  set  up  efficient  electronic  systems  for  the  collection  and 
processing of statistical procurement data (including TED data) 

Increase competitiveness of EU public procurement markets  

Commission  will  consider  to  propose  services  for  the  electronic 
supply of business information / certificates in public procurement; 
MS  and  Commission  will  agree  on  a  common  set  of  frequently 
the  Public  Procurement  Network 
required  eCertificates;  and 
organizes 
transparency, 
on 
benchmark 
a 
auditing+traceability of e-proc systems 

exercise 

Commission  studies  eCatalogues 
agreements) 

(in  DPS  and 

framework 

Public  Procurement  Network  organises  workshops  to  promote 
tender document standardisation 

MS  launch  and  support  specific  awareness  campaigns  +training 
programmes for SMEs 

Expected results linked to this objective 
(expected reaction to the action) 

Impacts 

Overall impacts 
(overall objective of the AP) 

National action plans are established
Individual buyers adopt similar strategies 
Statistical data on eProc is collected 

More efficient/consistent national eProc policy

Adoption of eInvoicing and eOrdering in 
transactions with the public sector 
More standardised eCertificate/eDocument 
practices, leading to easier exchange/use of 
common eCertificates/eDocuments  
Increased use/uptake of eCatalogues, incl. in 
DPS and framework agreements 

Greater participation in eProcurements, including cross 
border, specifically for SMEs 

Direct 
(desired effect) 

Indirect 
(possible other effects) 

Improved national 
coordination of PP / 
eProcurement strategies 
Goal-oriented policy 
making is promoted 
through quantifiable 
targets; weaknesses can 
be seen and addressed 

Increased centralization 
Improve eGov 
Improved ROI 
interoperability and 
Standardised certificate practices 
sophistication, including for 
may improve efficiency of the public 
eCertificates / eSignatures 
sector outside of public procurement 
More centralization and 
improved return on 
investment 
More effective investment 
in eGov infrastructure 

Increased use of eProc 
(incl. cross border) reduces 
costs of procurements 
Effort/cost of participation 
drops for tenderers 

Increased confidence in 
eProcurement 
SMEs can realize more of 
the gains of PP 

Goal-oriented policies 
improve accountability 

Standardisation work may 
trickle through to private 
initiatives (including private 
procurement, eInvoicing); 
eInvoicing will be taken up 
more outside of PP 

SME awareness of business 
opportunities may increase 

Improve cross border 
access to public 
procurement markets, thus 
supporting the Internal 
Market 

Reduce costs for the public 
sector by improving 
efficiency and stimulating 
competition in the Internal 
Market 

Advance European 
competitiveness through the 
uptake of e-business tools 

Context: 
• General goal: public proc must be non-discriminatory, generally available and 

Member State Action: 
• MS are expected to adopt action plans and collect statistical data, leading 

interoperable  

• Linked legislation includes specifically the eSignatures Directive, the VAT 
Directive (with respect to eInvoicing) and Services Directive 

to the professionalization of public proc policy. 

• Administrative practices (especially with respect to eCertificates) must be 

modernized and streamlined 

External factors: 

•The Services Directive( eDocuments concerns (IMI system))  
•Large scale pilots provide key building blocks 
•Greater call for simplification, also from a political perspective, see e.g. Stoiber 

Group and ongoing review of eInvoicing rules 

EN 

133 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Third objective - Work towards an international framework for electronic public procurement 

Source: Siemens-time.lex study 

Expected results linked to this objective 
(expected reaction to the measure) 

Impacts 

Overall impacts 
(overall objective of the AP) 

Aim(s) of the Action Plan for this 
objective 
(proposed measure) 

Commission  will  conduct  negotiations  on  the  review  of  the  
Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) 

Initiatives  in  the  GPA  to  progress  towards  utilisation  of  a  single 
common nomenclature for the classification of goods and services 

Commission    liaises  with  international  standardisation  bodies  and 
fora to avoid international technological interoperability barriers  

Commission  cooperates  with  the  Multilateral  Development  Banks 
(MDBs) network in view of co-ordinating technical assistance to 3rd 
countries with respect to their PP regimes 

Commission  will  consider  any  necessary  adjustments  +  feasibility 
of eProcurement in the context of EU external aid instruments 

Commission  will  monitor  overall  progress;  by end of 2007,  review 
the situation and report on the results achieved. 

Legal and technical barriers for international 
eProcurement are reduced or eliminated 
Dissemination of good practices at the 
international level 

Compliance of EU rules with international obligations
Improved governance of EU eProcurement policy 

Context: 

Member State Action: 

• General goal: public proc must be non-discriminatory, generally 

available and interoperable and by no means restrict economic 
operators’ access to the tendering procedure  

• Linked legislation includes specifically the eSignatures Directive , 
the VAT Directive (with respect to eInvoicing) and Services 
Directive (addresses similar issues) 

• Overall policy context: i2010 objectives 

Source: Siemens-time.lex  

• MS are expected to support European policy actions in this field; 
however, the initiative appears to lie mainly at the European 
level 

Improve cross border 
access to public 
procurement markets, thus 
supporting the Internal 
Market 

Reduce costs for the public 
sector by improving 
efficiency and stimulating 
competition in the Internal 
Market 

Advance European 
competitiveness through the 
uptake of e-business tools 

Direct 
(desired effect) 

Indirect 
(possible other effects) 

eProcurement is facilitated 
at an international level 
Export of European 
experience, if usable 
outside of Europe 

Experiences from eProc 
initiatives will trickle through 
to other eGov domains 

Effective eProcurement 
policy optimizes return on 
investment 
Competition improves 
further, thus costs of 
procurements decrease for 
the public sector 

An international approach 
can stimulate ICT 
investments in general 

Technical and legal 
requirements may favour 
technologically advanced 
countries over less 
developed nations 

• 

• 

• 

External factors: 
The Services Directive could have a strong impact, especially 
through the eSignatures work (CROBIES), and due to 
eDocuments concerns (IMI system)  
Large scale pilots provide key building blocks; notably PEPPOL, 
but also STORK and SPOCS 
Greater call for simplification, also from a political perspective, 
see e.g. Stoiber Group and ongoing review of eInvoicing rules 

EN 

134 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country and website 

Austria 

ANNEX VII – List of portals reviewed 

Type 

Additional 
languages 

Access 

Coverage 
for 
languages 

add. 

Federal Procurement Agency http://www.bbg.gv.at/ 

CPB 

EN 

Low 

High 

Austrian Register of Tenderers/Contractors – ANKÖ http://www.ankoe.at/ 

Pep-online http://www.pep-online.at/ 

Austrian Federal Railways and ASFINAG (Highway Company) http://www.ava-online.at/ 

Vemap procurement platform – www.vemap.com. Implemented i.a. by:  

–  Procurement Portal of St Pölten city http://stpoelten.vemap.com/ 

–  Federal State of Lower Austria (Land Niederösterreich) http://noe.vemap.com/ 

–  Holding of companies of the city of Vienna (Wiener Stadtwerke) http://wstw.vemap.com/ 

Belgium 

Portal 

Portal 

Portal 

- 

- 

- 

Platform 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Medium 

Medium79 

Medium 

Medium 

Belgian federal public procurement portal http://www.publicprocurement.be/ 

Portal 

EN 

High 

Low 

79

Requires payment to receive tender information 

EN 

135 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
 
Country and website 

Type 

Additional 
languages 

Access 

Coverage 
for 
languages 

add. 

Federal  Procurement  Central”  (Centrale  de  Marchés  de  l'Administration  fédérale  -  Federale 
Opdrachtencentrale)  http://www.publicprocurement.be/portal/page/portal/pubproc/ambtenaren/for%20-
%20federale%20opdrachtencentrale  

CPB 

EN 

High 

Low 

Walloon public procurement portal http://marchespublics.wallonie.be/ 

Flemish public procurement portal http://www.kanoo.be/ 

Portal 

Portal 

- 

- 

- 

- 

High 

Low 

Bulgaria 

Public Procurement Portal http://www.aop.bg 

Portal 

EN 

High 

High 

Electronic market for small public procurement http://smallsrv.minfin.bg/ 

Portal 

- 

- 

Medium 

Croatia 

Portal of Public Procurement http://www.javnanabava.hr/ 

Portal 

EN 

Medium 

- 

Electronic procurement search ads http://ponuda-jn.nn.hr/ 

Portal 

- 

- 

Low80 

Cyprus 

Cyprus e-Procurement System (CyePS) http://www.e-Procurement.gov.cy 

Portal 

EN 

High 

Medium 

80 

Requires payment to receive tender information 

EN 

136 

EN 

 
  
 
                                                 
Country and website 

Czech Republic 

Type 

Additional 
languages 

Access 

Coverage 
for 
languages 

add. 

Official website of public contracts http://www.isvzus.cz/ 

Portal 

EN 

Public procurement of the Ministry for Regional Development http://ezak.mmr.cz/ 

Portal 

- 

Public Procurement and Concessions Portal http://www.portal-vz.cz/ 

Czech Post Auction http://www.centralniadresa.cz/cadr 

Portal 

EN 

Platform82  EN 

High 

- 

High 

High 

High 

High 

-81 

High 

Denmark 

Public procurement portal – SKI www.ski.dk 

CPB 

EN 

Low 

Medium 

Public procurement portal – DOIP – DOIPEI www.doip.dk 

Portal 

EN, SV, NO Medium 

Medium 

SKI electronic catalogue www.netindkob.dk 

SKI electronic catalogue www.netkatalog.dk 

Mercell www.mercell.dk 

Udbudsavisen.dk www.udbudsavisen.dk 

Portal 

Portal 

Platform 

Portal 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Medium 

Medium 

Medium 

Medium 

81 
82 

Forward to http://ezak.mmr.cz/ 
Used for any auction, including private auctions (non-public procurement) 

EN 

137 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
Country and website 

Amgros www.amgros.dk 

Estonia 

Type 

Additional 
languages 

Access 

Coverage 
for 
languages 

add. 

Portal 

EN 

Low 

High 

State Procurement Register https://riigihanked.riik.ee/ 

Portal 

EN 

Low 

Medium 

Mercell http://www.mercell.ee/ 

Finland 

HILMA http://www.hankintailmoitukset.fi/ 

Hansel Ltd http://www.hansel.fi/ 

KL-Kuntahankinnat Oy http://www.kuntahankinnat.fi 

France 

Platform 

- 

Portal 

- 

- 

- 

Medium 

High 

CPB 

CPB 

EN 

Low 

Medium 

EN, (SV83) 

Low 

High 

Place de marché interministérielle www.marches-publics.gouv.fr 

CPB 

EN, ES 

High 

Medium 

Bulletin officiel des annonces de machés public www.boamp.fr 

Les Chambres de Commerce et d'Industrie www.marches.cci.fr 

Portal 

Portal 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Medium 

Medium 

83 

EN 

Swedish is also an official language in Finland; therefore it should not be considered an additional language for the purposes of this table.  

138 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
Country and website 

Type 

Additional 
languages 

Access 

Coverage 
for 
languages 

add. 

e-Procurement  sites  based  on  the  LT-MPE-platform  http://www.atexo.com/LT-MPE.htm;  some 
examples include : 

–  Marchés publics e-Bourgogne marches.e-bourgogne.fr 

–  E-megalis set up by the region of Brittany. http://www.e-megalisbretagne.org/  

–  Marchés publics Ile-de-France e-marchespublics.iledefrance.fr 

–  Marchés publics de Nantes Métropole marchespublics.nantesmetropole.fr 

–  Marchés publics de La Région Alsace http://marchespublics.region-alsace.eu  

–  Marchés publics Pas-de-Calais www2.local-trust.com/cg62 

Platform 

- 

- 

Medium 

e-Procurement  sites  based  on  the  SIS-ePP-platform  http://www.sis-france.com/5.aspx;  some 
examples include :  

–  Conseil Régional Midi-Pyrénées https://marchespublics.midipyrenees.fr/marchespublics2/ 

Platform 

- 

–  Marchés publics d'OPAC VOSGES http://marchespublics.opacvosges.fr/asp-opac88/index.jsp  

–  Marchés publics La Carène http://www.carene-epp.cce.bull.fr/CARENE/index.jsp  

Réseau des acheteurs hospitaliers d’Ile de France www.resah-idf.com 

e-Marchespublics.com www.e-marchespublics.com 

Portal 

Portal 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Medium 

Medium 

Medium 

EN 

139 

EN 

 
  
Country and website 

Mairie de Lyon www.marches.lyon.fr 

Marchés publics du Grand Ouest www.ouestmarches.com 

Germany 

Vergabeplattform des Bundes www.evergabe-online.de 

Beschaffungsamtes des Bundesministeriums des Innern www.bescha.bund.de 

Kaufhaus des Bundes www.kdb.bund.de 

Land Nordrhein-Westfalen www.evergabe.nrw.de/VMPCenter 

Mercell www.mercell.de 

Type 

Additional 
languages 

Access 

Coverage 
for 
languages 

add. 

Portal 

Portal 

Portal 

CPB 

Portal 

Portal 

Platform 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Medium 

High 

Low 

High 

High 

Medium 

Low 

Low 

Sites  based  on 
vergabe/e-vergabe.html); including www.vergabe.stuttgart.de  

the  Arriba  platform  (http://www.rib-software.com/de/loesungen/e-business-e-

Platform 

EN 

140 

EN 

 
  
Country and website 

Type 

Additional 
languages 

Access 

Coverage 
for 
languages 

add. 

Sites based on the Administration Intelligence AG platform (http://www.ai-ag.de/); including:  

–  www.vergabe.stadt-frankfurt.de 

–  Deutsche Rentenversicherung www.deutsche-rentenversicherung-bund.de 

Platform 

- 

- 

Low 

–  www.vergabe.bremen.de  

–  www.vergabe.hessen.de  

–  Landschaftsverband Rheinland http://www.lvr.de/  

Greece 

None identified 

Hungary 

Public Procurement Council (Központi Szolgáltatási Főigazgatóság)http://www.kozbeszerzes.hu/ 

CPB 

EN 

Medium 

High 

KSZF http://kszfweb.econet.hu/ 

Electool Hungary Ltd http://www.e-eljaras.hu  

Iceland 

Portal 

Platform 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Medium 

High 

State Trading Center www.rikiskaup.is/utbod 

Portal 

EN 

Low 

High 

EN 

141 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
Country and website 

Ireland 

Type 

Additional 
languages 

Access 

Coverage 
for 
languages 

add. 

eTenders Public Procurement www.etenders.gov.ie 

Portal 

National Public Procurement Policy Unit http://www.etenders.gov.ie/aboutus/AboutUs_NPPPU.aspx   CPB 

Italy 

Acquisti in Rete http://www.acquistinretepa.it/ 

CONSIP http://www.consip.it/on-line/Home.html  

Friuli Venezia Giulia http://www.acquisti.regione.fvg.it/ 

Piedmont http://portal.sistemapiemonte.it 

Municipality of Florence Marketplace http://www.comune.fi.it 

Region Marche http://www.emarche.it/ 

Autonomous Province Bolzano http://www.provincia.bz.it/ 

IntercentER http://www.regione.emilia-romagna.it/ 

Portal 

CPB 

Portal 

Portal 

CPB 

CPB 

CPB 

CPB 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

(DE84) 

High85 

- 

- 

High 

High 

Medium 

High 

High 

High 

Medium 

Medium 

Medium 

Medium 

84 

85 

EN 

Some sections of the website are also available in English, but not those pertaining to e-Procurement opportunities. In the autonomous province of Bolzano, German and 
Italian are both official languages.  
Including also the call for tenders' text 

142 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
Country and website 

Type 

Additional 
languages 

Access 

Coverage 
for 
languages 

add. 

Umbria region http://88.61.35.136/regione/interfaccia/ 

EmPULIA - Shopping Center For Public Service http://www.empulia.it/ 

Campania region www.sitar-campania.it 

Latvia 

Procurement Monitoring Office (IUB) www.iub.gov.lv 

Latvian public procurement www.eiepirkumi.gov.lv 

Mercell www.mercell.lv 

Lithuania 

Central Public Procurement Information System pirkimai.eviesiejipirkimai.lt 

Central Public Procurement Portal www.cvpp.lt 

Central project management agency http://www.cpva.lt/ and www.cpo.lt 

Mercell http://www.mercell.lt/ 

Luxembourg 

Portal 

Portal 

Portal 

CPB 

Portal 

Platform 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Portal 

EN 

Portal 

- 

CPB 

EN 

Platform 

- 

Public e-Procurement portal http://www.marches.public.lu/ 

Portal 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Low 

- 

Low 

- 

- 

High 

Medium 

High 

High 

High 

Low 

Medium 

Medium 

Medium 

Low 

High 

EN 

143 

EN 

 
  
Country and website 

Malta 

Department of Contracts http://www.contracts.gov.mt/ 

Government e-Procurement System http://www.e-Procurement.gov.mt/ 

Department of Information http://www.doi.gov.mt/ 

Enemalta http://www.emcservices.gov.mt/ 

Netherlands 

TenderNed http://www.tenderned.nl/ 

Aanbestedings kalender http://www.aanbestedingskalender.nl/ 

Aanbestedingenonline.nl http://www.aanbestedingenonline.nl 

Ik ben Brig id http://www.brigid.nl 

Tenders for architects and design contest http://www.ontwerpwedstrijden.nl 

City of Nijmegen http://www.nijmegenonderneemtmeer.nl 

ProRail (public transportation) http://www.aanbesteden.prorail.nl 

Type 

Additional 
languages 

Access 

Coverage 
for 
languages 

add. 

CPB 

Portal 

Portal 

Portal 

Portal 

Portal 

Portal 

Portal 

Portal 

Portal 

Portal 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Medium 

Medium 

High 

High 

- 

High 

Medium 

Medium 

High 

Medium 

Medium 

EN 

144 

EN 

 
  
 
Country and website 

Norway 

Type 

Additional 
languages 

Access 

Coverage 
for 
languages 

add. 

Database  for  public  procurement  notifications  Doffin.no  (Software  as  a  service  provided  by 
Millstream Ltd) www.doffin.no 

Portal 

EN 

High 

High 

Electronic Public Procurement Portal Ehandel.no www.ehandel.no 

Portal 

EN 

High 

High 

Ehandel.no  eTendering  solution  (Software  as  a  service  solution  provided  by  two  suppliers: 
Mercell and VismaUnique www.ehandel.no/kgv 

Portal 

Ehandel.no  e-Ordering  solution  (Software  as  a  service  solution  provided  by  IBX) 
www.ehandel.no/ehp 

Portal 

EN 

EN 

Medium 

High 

Medium 

High 

Mercell www.mercell.no 

Poland 

Platform 

- 

Public  Procurement  Office  –  Electronic  Auctions  Platform  https://aukcje.uzp.gov.pl/  or 
https://licytacje.uzp.gov.pl  

Portal 

- 

- 

- 

Low 

Medium 

Medium 

- 

- 

Platform 

Platform 

EN 

Medium 

Medium 

e-Przetarg.pl http://www.e-przetarg.pl/ 

Market Planet http://www.marketplanet.pl/ 

Polish Procurement Platform PWPW http://www.ppp.pwpw.pl/ 

Platform 

EN 

High 

Low 

XTRADE http://www.xtrade.com.pl/ 

Platform 

- 

- 

Medium 

EN 

145 

EN 

 
  
Country and website 

Type 

Additional 
languages 

Access 

Coverage 
for 
languages 

add. 

eTender - Electronic Procurements http://www.etender.pl/ 

Platform 

EN 

Medium 

Medium 

Portugal 

ANCP  –  Agência  Nacional  de  Compras  Públicas,  E.P.E.  www.ancp.gov.pt  and 
http://ancpconcursos.ancp.gov.pt/ 

CPB 

Portal Base www.base.gov.pt  

VortalGOV http://www.vortal-info.biz/ 

bizGov http://www.bizgov.pt/ 

Infosistemas DL - Compras AP https://www.compraspt.com/compraspt/ 

Plataforma de Compras Públicas https://www.compraspublicas.com/ 

anoGov http://www.anogov.com/plataforma/ 

acinGov http://www.acingov.pt 

Romania 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Medium 

High 

Portal 

Platform 

EN, ES 

Medium 

High 

Platform 

EN 

High 

High 

Portal 

Portal 

Portal 

Portal 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Medium 

Low 

Medium 

Low 

High 

High 

Sistemul Electronic de Achizitii Publice (SEAP) www.e-licitatie.ro 

Platform 

EN 

High 

National  Authority 
http://www.cnmsi.ro/  

for  Regulating  and  Monitoring  Public  Procurement 

(NARMPP) 

CPB 

- 

- 

EN 

146 

EN 

 
  
Country and website 

Slovakia 

Electronic procurement (EVO) www.evo.gov.sk 

National Journal of Public Procurement www.e-vestnik.sk 

Office of Public Procurement www.uvo.gov.sk/zovo 

Slovenia 

Ministry of Finances www.enarocanje.si 

Spain 

Plataforma de contratación del estado http://contrataciondelestado.es / 

Conecta-patrimonio http://catalogopatrimonio.meh.es 

Type 

Additional 
languages 

Access 

Coverage 
for 
languages 

add. 

Portal 

Portal 

CPB 

Portal 

Portal 

Portal 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

High 

High 

Low 

High 

Medium 

(Catalan, 
Basque, 
Galician)86 
 EN, FR 

Low 

High 

86

Recognised regional official languages  

EN 

147 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
 
Country and website 

Red.es http://www.red.es/index.action  

Electronic Contracting Platform of Public Administration for some local authorities in the region 
of Catalonia http://www.pecap.org/ 

Portal 

CPB 

Spanish 
http://www.agemed.es/actividad/licitacionPublica/ 

Agency 

of 

Medicines 

and 

Health 

Products 

Portal 

Type 

Additional 
languages 

Access 

Coverage 
for 
languages 

add. 

(Catalan, 
Basque, 
Galician) 
EN 

(Catalan) 
EN 

(Catalan, 
Basque, 
Galician) 
EN, FR 

87 

88 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

89 

High 

Spanish 
http://www.aesan.msc.es/AESAN/web/licitaciones_publicas/licitaciones_publicas.shtml/ 

Security 

Agency 

Food 

and 

for 

Nutrition 

Portal 

- 

- 

High 

National Institute of Health Management http://www.ingesa.msc.es/ciudadanos/licitaciones/index.jsp/ 

Portal 

(Catalan, 
Basque, 
Galician) 
EN, FR 

Low 

90 

Medium91 

87

88

89

90

91

Recognised regional official languages  
Recognised regional official languages  
Recognised regional official languages  
Recognised regional official languages  
Restricted to people with a NIF/CIF code 

EN 

148 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
Country and website 

National Drug Plan http://www.pnsd.msc.es/Categoria4/licitaciones/licitacion.htm/ 

Sweden 

Avropa http://www.avropa.se/ 

Opic http://www.opic.se/ 

Mercell http://www.mercell.se/ 

Eniro procurement http://www.eniroupphandling.se/ 

Liechtenstein 

None identified 

Turkey 

Type 

Additional 
languages 

Access 

Coverage 
for 
languages 

add. 

Portal 

(Catalan, 
Basque, 
Galician) 
EN, FR 

Low 

92 

High 

Portal 

EN 

Low 

Medium 

Portal 

EN, LT 

Medium 

Medium 

Platform 

Portal 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Low 

Low 

Medium 

Public Procurement Platform Citizen Transactions http://vatandas.ihale.gov.tr/ 

Portal 

- 

United Kingdom93 

92

93

Recognised regional official languages  
Only a subset of the large list of the UK portals and platforms 

EN 

149 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
Country and website 

Type 

Additional 
languages 

Access 

Coverage 
for 
languages 

add. 

The public sector’s national procurement portal http://www.buyingsolutions.gov.uk/ 

CPB 

- 

Sites based on the BraveSolution platform (https://www.bravosolution.com/), such as: 

National Policing Improvement Agency https://npia.bravosolution.co.uk/ 

Department for Communities and Local Government https://communities.bravosolution.co.uk/ 

Platform 

- 

Ministry of Justice https://justice.bravosolution.co.uk/ 

IDeA: 
Development 
http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=1002 

Improvement 

and 

Agency 

for 

local 

government 

Portal 

The Scottish Government e-Procurement http://www.e-Procurementscotland.com/ 

Wales e-Procurement http://www.xchangewales.co.uk/ 

Home Office eSourcing Portal https://sourcing.homeoffice.gov.uk/ 

Portal 

Portal 

Portal 

Delta Electronic Tendering Service (https://www.delta-ets.com/) used by: Department for Culture 
procurement portal http://dcms.g2b.info/ 

Platform 

Department of Health Procurement & Proposals http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Procurementandproposals 

Portal 

Ministry of Defence http://www.contracts.mod.uk/ 

Portal 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 

ES,  PT,  FR, 
DE,  IT,  JA, 
ZH, RU 

Low 

Medium 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Medium 

High 

Medium 

EN 

150 

EN 

 
  
Country and website 

Type 

Additional 
languages 

Access 

Coverage 
for 
languages 

add. 

EGS e-Procurement http://www.egsgroup.com/ 

Platform 

- 

- 

High 

Source: Siemens-time.lex

EN 

151 

EN 

 
  
ANNEX VIII – Costs for e-Procurement 

COSTS for CAs 

BENEFITS for CAs 

Implementation costs 

Annual 
costs 

Savings 

Estimate benefits 

Other statistics 

Country 

Platform name 

AT 

ANKÖ 
Vergabeportal 

ECONOMIC OPERATORS 

Fee (EO) 

Benefits 
(EO) 

  Enterprises  pay 
an  annual  fee 
for  the  use  of 
the platform  

AT 

e-shop (BBG ) 

  €1-49,000 

AT 

FPC 

€1-5 million 

 €500-
999,000 

Approximately 
€63/order  ;  €3.5 
Million/year  

2008: 
procurements of € 
830  Million  and 
savings  of  17.64 
%  (178  Million 
Euro). 

BE 

e-Procurement 
Flanders 
(Kanoo.be) 

€1-5 million 

€49-299,000 

  A  growth  rate  of  volume  and  number  of 

orders of about 25 percent per year 

low  fee  - 
to 

 A 
contributing 
the 
maintenance 

EN 

152 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COSTS for CAs 

BENEFITS for CAs 

Country 

Platform name 

Implementation costs 

CY 

Cyprus 
Procurement 
System  

e-

€1-5 million 

Annual 
costs 

€300-
499,000  

Savings 

Estimate benefits 

Other statistics 

  60 

to 

to 

for 

with 

70% 

operation 

savings 
e-
associated 
Notification;  80%  for  e-
Access  to  e-Submission, 
40 
e-
70% 
Awarding;  over  90%  for 
the 
the 
electronic  marketplace.  e-
Auctions: 
cost 
saving  of  5%  on  prices 
(increased 
competitiveness).  The  use 
and 
of 
catalogue 
framework 
agreement: 
10% savings in prices. 

further 

of 

ECONOMIC OPERATORS 

Fee (EO) 

Benefits 
(EO) 

  Estimate 

of 
20%  T-costs 
savings 
for 
EOs  for  the 
operation  of 
the  electronic 
marketplace 

DE 

DE 

 www.tek-
service.de 
administration 
the 
Ostalbkreis) 

(The 
of 
Landratsamt 

e-Catalogues and e- 
Ordering, 
developed 
Procurement 
Agency 
the 
of 
Federal  Ministry  of 
the Interior  

by 

€49-299,000 

€1-49,000 

  €100,000 year 

  Each 

electronically 
executed  order  saves  at 
to 
least  6hrs  (equating 
€195  in  personnel  cost) 
compared  to  the  simplest 
form  of  a  single  tender 
action. 

EN 

153 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

Platform name 

Implementation costs 

Annual 
costs 

Savings 

Estimate benefits 

Other statistics 

COSTS for CAs 

BENEFITS for CAs 

ECONOMIC OPERATORS 

Fee (EO) 

Benefits 
(EO) 

ES 

Municipality 
Burgos 

of 

€300-499,000 

€49-299,000   Economic  effect: 

FR 

e-Bourgogne 

€5-10 million 

IE 

National Platform 

€500-999,000 

€49-299,000 

€1-5 million 

€500-999,000. 
Price  reduction  of 
5-10  %  of  prices 
reduction  ;  25-40 
in 
reduction 
% 
administrative 
burden 

€5-10 million  €3-4 

million 
by 
savings 
mutualising 
the 
development  and 
exploitation of the 
platform. 
Economic  effects: 
Larger  than  €10 
million 

  25-40 

% 
reduction  of 
administrativ
e 
(administrati
on 
providers) 

burdens 

and 

  Over 950 public entities are users. Average 
number  of  notices  online:  500.  Over  17 
000  registered  economic  operators.  315 
000 downloads between 2005 and 2009 

tender 

even 
authority 
"One 
managed to halve its costs 
per 
from  over 
£1,000 
to  below  £500. 
This  particular  authority 
issues  about  40  notices  a 
year" 

100,000  visitors  a  month  on  the  website- 
more than double the number compared to 
the  old  website.  The  number  of  suppliers 
registered  has  also  doubled  from  around 
15,000 
to  over  30,000.This  website 
publishes  over  95%  of  Ireland's  OJEU 
notices. 

EN 

154 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

Platform name 

Implementation costs 

Annual 
costs 

Savings 

Estimate benefits 

Other statistics 

COSTS for CAs 

BENEFITS for CAs 

ECONOMIC OPERATORS 

Fee (EO) 

Benefits 
(EO) 

IT 

Albofornitori 

€1-5 million 

€1-5 million 

Economic  effects: 
than  €10 
larger 
million 

two 

regional 

  7.000  suppliers;  more  than  40  awarding 
centralized 
authorities; 
awarding  authorities;  one  association  of 
500  local  authorities;  3.000  tenders;  more 
than  1  billion  euro  transaction  over  the 
totally  paperless 
European 
procedure;  only  90  days  between  the 
official  notice  and 
(on 
average); best results for the most complex 
tender:  64  days  for  €290  million,  100 
suppliers, 900 items. 

the  contract 

threshold; 

IT 

IntercentER -Emilia 
Romagna 

€1-5 million 

€1-5 million 

Efficiency 
benefits  of  €  67.5 
million  in  2008, 
and  45  man-years 
savings. 
(+102.7% 
2007).  

from 

  Reference  point  for  539  administrations 
(90% of local agencies), transactions for € 
419 million in 2008, with a 122% increase 
on 2007. 

LT 

  The  allocated  budget 
to 
€3.7 

amounted 
approximately 
million 

  Expected 

time 

to  provide  e-
Notices integration with e-
Access,  e-Submission  and 
e-Evaluation, 
e-
e-Auctions, 
Catalogues, 
stamping 
external 
and  PKI 
infrastructure, 
improved  security,  better 
technical 
internet 
and 
infrastructure,  better  and 
more 
friendly 
interface,  free  access  and 
multilingual  services  (LT, 
EN) 

user 

EN 

155 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

Platform name 

LV 

NO 

Ehandel.no 

PT 

all platforms 

COSTS for CAs 

BENEFITS for CAs 

Implementation costs 

Annual 
costs 

Savings 

Estimate benefits 

Other statistics 

ECONOMIC OPERATORS 

Fee (EO) 

Benefits 
(EO) 

 The  Government  will 
save  €1  million  per  year 
after  2009  by  automating 
procurement procedures in 
the public sector  

  Experiences  from 
Norwegian  public 
entities 
sector 
indicate 
a 
potential  for  20-
time 
40 
% 
on 
reductions 
of 
handling 
goods 
orders, 
and 
receipt 
invoices, 
and 
between  2-10  % 
price reductions in 
operations  related 
procurement 
expenditures. 

  €28  million/year 
in  administrative 
costs (Deloitte) 

  10,218 e-tenders in 2008. 60 Public entities 
on e-procurement. 453 Active suppliers on 
e-procurement.  Aggregated  e-Order  value 
(last  12  months):  $  536,250,000.  Number 
of  e-Orders  (last  12  months):  255,000. 
Around 60 % of hospitals are operative (or 
about  to  be).  30  of  435  municipalities  are 
operative.  None  of 
the  many  small 
municipalities  are  operative.  During  2009, 
80  public  enterprises  in  Norway  made  use 
of  the  platform  and  the  total  procurement 
volume  for  2009  has  exceeded  $3  billion. 
With the new solution, the goal is that total 
volume  will  increase  to  $16  billion  by 
2013 

  From  August  2009  to  April  2010,  32  301 
offers  were  submitted  through  the  two 
leading  electronic  platforms, 
involving 
more  than  12  400  suppliers  and  almost 
2000  different  contracting  authorities.  The 
average number of electronic proposals per 
procedure is 3.4. Time of open procedures 
reduced from 88 to 39 days (from Vortal's 
brochure) 

EN 

156 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COSTS for CAs 

BENEFITS for CAs 

Implementation costs 

Annual 
costs 

Savings 

Estimate benefits 

Other statistics 

ECONOMIC OPERATORS 

Fee (EO) 

Benefits 
(EO) 

Country 

Platform name 

PT 

Ministry  of  justice, 
e-
using 
Procurement 
platform (Vortal) 

RO 

SEAP portal 

€1-5 million 

€300-
499,000 

greatly 
and 

 e-Tendering 
process 
simplified 
fully 
dematerialised, 
giving  a  53  % 
process 
costs 
reduction  

of 

Savings 
22%.(official 
figures released in 
2003)  Economic 
effects: 
Larger 
than €10 million 

  Mid-January  2010:  Registered  Contracting 
11,577/22,261; 
Authorities/Suppliers: 
Published  Notices/Request  For  Quotation 
Invitations: 145,130/239,397 ; Notices Sent 
To  OJEU:  34,816  ;  Published  Catalogue 
Products:  185,182  ;  Published  Requests 
Acquisitions: 
For 
48,717/674,836  ;  Awarded  Acquisitions 
Total:  19,736,511,785.18  RON  (approx. 
4.7  billion  EUR,  presumably  referring  to 
the 
the  platform’s 
inception in 2002) 

total  amount  since 

Quotation/Direct 

SE 

platform OPICTen 

€500-999,000 

 €49-299,000 

€1-5 million 

UK 

Public 
Scotland 

contracts 

€49-299,000  

€49-299,000   Larger 

than 

€10,000,000 

  28,000  economic  operators 

registered, 
(82%  SMEs).  Over  780,000  e-mail  alerts 
have  been  sent  to  economic  operators 
during  the  first  8  months  of  the  service, 
alerting 
to  over  3,700  potential 
business opportunities. This has resulted in 
over  16,000  notes  of  interest  on  contracts 
since the service started, of which 81% are 
from SMEs.  

them 

EN 

157 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

Platform name 

Implementation costs 

Annual 
costs 

Savings 

Estimate benefits 

Other statistics 

COSTS for CAs 

BENEFITS for CAs 

ECONOMIC OPERATORS 

Fee (EO) 

Benefits 
(EO) 

UK 

Supplier 
Contract 
Management 
System 

and 

 €500-999,000 

€49-299,000  

€1,000,000-
5,000,000 

UK 

Welsh platform 

€500-999,000 

€49-299,000 

Source: DG MARKT based on ePractice website and Siemens-time.lex report 

  The SCMS used by over 2,600 buyers and 
procurement  professionals  throughout  the 
region.  Over  29,000  registered  suppliers 
and  over  4,600  active  contracts  with  a 
value of over £2.5 billion, and about 2,000 
tendering opportunities per year 

  Public  sector  spending  about  £5  billion, 
over  50%  advertised  on  the  portal;  43,000 
registered  suppliers,  (24,229  based  within 
Wales = 20% of the active Welsh supplier 
community,  many  of  them  are  SMEs); 
2,500  procurement  users  from  200  Welsh 
CAs,  6,500  notices  (total  £8.3  billion)  of 
which  in  2009,  £183  million  consisted  of 
'non  OJEU'  opportunities  favourable  to 
SMEs. 

EN 

158 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX IX– Phases or tools made mandatory in certain Member States 

Country 

Mandatory phase 

Mandatory 
tool 

e-Procurement mandatory for 
certain type of purchase/contracting 
authorities 

EU 

Usage  of  the  standardised  forms  is  mandatory 
above the EU thresholds; publication in the OJ 
is mandatory above the EU threshold. 

is 
 CPV 
already 
the 
mandatory tool 
within 
e-
Notifications 
in Europe 

Austria 

E-Submission 
of 
procurements  (Framework  agreement,  federal 
authorities) 

certain 

types 

for 

Mandatory  e-
Signature; 
mandatory 
framework 
contracts  for 
federal 
authorities 

Usage  of 
framework 
the  central 
contracts  offered  via  the  portal  of  the 
Federal  Procurement  Company 
is 
mandatory  for  federal  agencies  for 
specific  goods  and  services  (See 
Ordinance  of  the  Minister  of  Finance 
BGBl II 2001/2008) 

Belgium 

E-Notification  will  be  mandatory  on 
national platform in 2011. 

the 

Mandatory  e-
Signature  

  Mandatory  e-
Signature  

Mandatory  National  platform  approach.  It  is 
mandatory  to  publish  tenders  on  a  single 
National  Portal.  Obligations  can  be  bound  to 
certain  criteria:  European  tenders,  or  tenders 
above  a  national  threshold,  or  tenders  within  a 
specific sector  

It  seems  that  since  November  2009,  usage  of 
the  CyePS  portal 
submit  electronic 
to 
notifications has become mandatory in Cyprus 

Mandatory  National  platform  approach:  it  is 
mandatory  to  publish  tenders  on  a  single 
National  Portal.  Obligation  can  be  bound  to 
certain  criteria:  European  tenders,  or  tenders 
above  a  national  threshold,  or  tenders  within  a 
specific sector  

Mandatory  e-
Signature  

The  obligation  to  publish  tenders  on 
the  National  Portal  can  be  bound  to 
certain  criteria:  European  tenders,  or 
tenders  above  a  national  threshold,  or 
tenders within a specific sector such as 
ICT 

Mandatory  e-
Signature  

As of 1 February 2005, all public institutions in 
Denmark  may  only  accept  invoices  from 
suppliers  in  electronic  format.  Thus,  all 
public-sector  entities  have  been  required  to 
convert 
administrative 
processes  from  physical  to  digital  handling  of 
invoices, credit notes and other transactions 

systems 

and 

all 

National e-Procurement platform is mandatory, 
for  the  publication  of  contract  notices  and 
contract award notices 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech 
Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

EN 

159 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

Mandatory phase 

Mandatory 
tool 

e-Procurement mandatory for 
certain type of purchase/contracting 
authorities 

France 

 E-Submission:  Article  56  of 
the  Public 
Procurement  Code  made  the  use  of  electronic 
procedures  mandatory 
informatics 
purchases above EUR 90,000.  

for 

Mandatory  e-
Signature  

The  use  of  the  National  Platform  is 
mandatory  for  National  contracting 
authorities.  Article  56  of  the  Public 
Procurement  Code  made  the  use  of 
electronic procedures mandatory for 
informatics  purchases  above  EUR 
90,000. 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lichtenstein 

Lithuania 

Mandatory  e-
Signature  

The  National  e-Procurement  Platform 
is  mandatory  for  Federal  Government 
Contracting authorities. 

  Mandatory  e-
Signature  

  Mandatory  e-
Signature  

for 

the  year  2007 
The  Financial  Bill 
introduced  a  compulsory  use,  on  behalf  of 
state 
the 
framework  contracts  and  the  e-marketplace 
(MEPA) handled by MEF and Consip. 

administrations, 

central 

of 

Mandatory  e-
Signature  

The  use  of  the  National  Platform  is 
mandatory  for  National  contracting 
authorities. 

Mandatory  e-
Signature  

  Mandatory  e-
Signature  

  Mandatory  e-
Signature  

Luxembourg  Mandatory  National 

approach: 
Publication  of  contract  notices  on  the  national 
portal  is  mandatory  for  contract  notices  above 
and below thresholds 

platform 

Mandatory  e-
Signature  

Malta 

The  Department  of  Contracts  acts  also  as 
central purchasing body, since it publishes calls 
for  tenders  estimated  over  €47,000  excluding 
VAT on behalf of most Government Ministries, 
Departments  and  Entities.  The  use  of  the 
services  provided  by  the  Department  of 
Contracts  is  mandatory  and  only  particular 
government entities can carry out their own 
procurement  outside  the  Department  of 
Contracts  (Central  Bank  of  Malta,  the  Malta 
Stock  Exchange,  the  Malta  Tourism  Authority 
and Local Councils).  

Netherlands  Usage of the portal is not mandatory, except for 
e-Notification,  where  usage  will  be  mandatory 
under planned new legislation. 

  The  National  e-Procurement  Platform 
is  mandatory  for  Central  Government 
Contracting authorities 

Norway 

EN 

 Mandatory  national  platform 
notifications above EU thresholds (Doffin). 

for 

tender 

160 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

Mandatory phase 

Poland 

Mandatory 
tool 

e-Procurement mandatory for 
certain type of purchase/contracting 
authorities 

  Mandatory  e-
Signature  

The  National  e-Procurement  Platform 
is  mandatory  for  Central  Government 
Contracting authorities 

Portugal 

e-Proc mandatory for all contracting authorities  Mandatory  e-

Signature  

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

United 
Kingdom 

Romania is running the “Mandatory National e-
Procurement  Portal”  model:  it  is  mandatory  to 
publish tenders on a single National Portal. 

  Mandatory  e-
Signature  

The  use  of  the National  Platform  is  mandatory 
for  all  contracting  authorities.  The  National 
Platform  only  includes  e-Notification  and  e-
Access at the moment 

Mandatory  e-
Signature  

E-Invoicing.  The  Swedish  National  Financial 
Management Authority was also responsible for 
the  introduction  of  electronic  invoicing  for 
public  authorities  under 
the  government 
(mandatory as of 1st of July 2008)  

Mandatory  e-
Signature  

 The  National  e-Procurement  Platform 
is  mandatory  for  Central  Government 
Contracting authorities 

  The  National  e-Procurement  Platform 
is  mandatory  for  Central  Government 
Contracting authorities 

Source: DG MARKT based on Siemens-time.lex report 

EN 

161 

   EN