Bordalo Faustino, P (2017) Public procurement award criteria in the EU member states: a comparative study of the discretionary powers of contracting authorities. PhD thesis, University of Nottingham, UK.
Abstract
When choosing and applying the award criteria in the context of public procurement procedures, contracting authorities exercise their discretionary powers with a view to selecting the most economically advantageous tender. The importance of the use that contracting authorities make of their margin of discretion is directly related to the result of any public procurement procedure: the level of satisfaction of the contracting authorities' needs provided by the works/supply/service contract concluded with the winning tenderer. Despite the tendency for public procurement regulation to focus on procedural rules (‘how to buy'), rather than the actual outcome of the procurement activity itself (‘what to buy'), there are substantive requirements derived from legislative sources, as well as soft law and jurisprudence, that somehow structure the contracting authorities' decision making freedom. Although there is no standard unit that allows for the measurement of contracting authorities' margin of discretion and its variation, this thesis aims to identify factors which contribute either to increase or to reduce the said margin. In other words, it is proposed to highlight the elements which determine the expansion or the limitation of the referred discretionary powers. The thesis concludes that despite the different national regulatory approaches to this topic under the common EU legal framework, the practice in the Member States covered by this thesis seems to indicate that contracting authorities exercise their discretionary powers in a (unknowingly) similar way.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contracting; decision making; measurement; procurement; regulation |
| Index terms: | decision-making, exercise, satisfaction, EU legal framework, variation, regulation, comparative study |
| Subjects: | contractual condition, political science, project delivery, research design and methodology, statutes, decision analysis, health behaviours and lifestyles |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Project Management, Risk Management, Legal Issues, Health and Safety, Governance, Contract Administration |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here