EU consultation submission: redesigning electronic procurement

The third entry into the series on my response to the procurement Directives revision consultation is on electronic procurement and how and why it needs to be redesigned

15. The current electronic procurement framework requires fundamental reform because it merely digitises analogue processes rather than reimagining procurement for the digital age. This is due to the reliance on the paradigm of a notice-based system which made sense for 19th century procurement when contract information was to be publicly affixed outside city hall. Yet we still use procurement procedures underpinned by conceptual model that data is (menially) included in notices for publicity purposes first and data capture second.
16. The 2014 Directives have set the development of electronic procurement back one decade due to lack of ambition. Even the two landmark changes introduced then - ESPD and eCertis - simply do not work properly. The first was originally designed as a paper process - again - and the second is hamstrung by its nature as a reference tool, one that cannot be relied upon in case data contained in the repository is incorrect. Despite challenges it is fair to say that the electronic solutions adopted on the e-Invoicing Directive (Directive 2014/55/EU) seem to have aged better.
17. The ESPD as a solution can only work if and when public procurement is treated as part of the wider public administration and not an isolated island. This means the EU regulatory framework for procurement must consider its integration in the broader public administration digital infrastructure. It is but a function along many cross-cutting ones, not an isolated activity. The European Procurement Passport from the 2011 proposal understood this. A successor to the ESPD should go back to that European Procurement Passport idea and have its data automatically filled for those fields pertaining to information held by public bodies. It is worth noting that while participation in procurement procedures is supposed to be free, the reality is that at least some member States still charge for the certificates needed to take part in public procurement. This is yet another barrier to the participation of SMEs and startups in public procurement.
18. It is unsurprising that thus far data quality in public procurement is lacking, even after improvement attempts such as eForms and the Public Procurement Data Space. Compliance with contract award and contract modification notices is low and without any evidence of improvement over the last decade.
19. A significant part of the problem lies with the issue mentioned above that procurement within the EU is treated as a notice-based process instead of a transaction-based one. The data that should be captured is not the data in notices but instead the data of underlying transactions. This is the 'ground truth' for procurement data upon which analysis can be built up.
20. It makes no sense to insist in notices (or forms) to be menially filled by procurement officers when the underlying data is already sitting in a database. In this case, it is sitting in the databases of the electronic platforms where procurement procedures are run. This is where the procurement data needs to come from and not from forms that need to filled in manually outside the platforms. It is not as if this problem has not been solved elsewhere: Paraguay, Ukraine and North Macedonia already have electronic systems capturing data automatically.
21. Leaving member States to decide on how procurement platforms are to be run was another of the mistakes from 2014. They should be regulated at EU level to ensure a degree of commonality, data interoperability and data access that is identical across the Union. Not doing so will allow for them to keep on working as yet another non-tariff trade barrier for economic operators based on other member States. It is time to fully implement the Interoperable Europe Act in connection to public procurement.