Benchmarking

and best practices

EXPP/2011/07 EN
point 6 of the Agenda


Meeting of the Commission Government
Experts Group on Public Procurement
07 December 2011
Best practice benchmarking
Evaluation of processes and performance in
relation to best practice organisations processes
and performance, usually within a peer group
defined for the purposes of comparison
allows organizations to
develop plans on how to make improvements
adapt specific best practices, usually with the aim of increasing
some aspect of performance
May be a one-off event, but often treated as a
continuous process in which organizations
continually seek to improve their practices
Best practice benchmarking
Dimensions typically measured
time
cost
quality
The participants can
identify the performance metrics and targets
learn from the best performers
and, more importantly, understand why the best
performers are successful
Benchmarking in the evaluation
Exemplary aspects/dimensions where
comparisons across Member States can be made
Level of cross-border procurement*
Duration of procedures*
Costs of procedures (time spent in person-days)**
Quality of data in notices published*
Based on: *OJ/TED data; **survey based on OJ/TED data

PROPOSED DIMENSION

Duration of procedures
Duration of procedures
241
230
161 161
145
140 140 140
138
133
124 123
120
117 116 115
108 108
105
102 102 102
99
84 84
81
78 77
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
M
a
lt
a

G
r
e
e
c
e
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
U
K
C
y
p
r
u
s
B
e
lg
i
u
m
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
F
i
n
la
n
d
I
t
a
l
y
I
r
e
l
a
n
d

A
u
s
t
r
i
a
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
B
u
lg
a
r
ia
S
p
a
i
n
C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
.
F
r
a
n
c
e
E
E
A
-
3
0
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
E
s
t
o
n
ia
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
S
l
o
v
a
k

R
e
p
.
S
w
e
d
e
n
L
it
h
u
a
n
i
a
R
o
m
a
n
ia
S
l
o
v
e
n
ia
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
P
o
la
n
d
L
a
t
v
ia
Fig. 1): Time for the entire procurement process (from the day of dispatching of the CN to the
date of award) median number of days
Source: PwC, Ecorys, London Economics
Duration of procedures
Potentially influenced by
Structure of procedures used
e.g. in the UK the restricted procedure is used more
frequently (++ duration)
More procurement in sectors where purchasing
tends to takes longer
Business services, construction (++ duration)
Commodities and food (-- duration)
Duration country effects


M
a
l
t
a

,

1
4
4
G
r
e
e
c
e
,

1
4
2
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
,

4
5
B
u
l
g
a
r
i
a
,

3
5
I
t
a
l
y
,

3
2
C
y
p
r
u
s
,

2
4
I
r
e
l
a
n
d

,

2
3
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
,

1
6
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
,

1
6
U
K
,

1
3
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
,

4
C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
.
,

-
3
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
,

-
4
F
r
a
n
c
e
,

-
6
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
,

-
1
2
S
p
a
i
n
,

-
1
3
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
,

-
1
9
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
,

-
2
0
E
s
t
o
n
i
a
,

-
2
1
S
l
o
v
a
k

R
e
p
.
,

-
2
1
S
w
e
d
e
n
,

-
2
3
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
,

-
2
7
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
,

-
2
8
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
,

-
2
9
P
o
l
a
n
d
,

-
3
4
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
,

-
4
3
L
a
t
v
i
a
,

-
4
3
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
Fig. 2): Number of days relative to the average
Source: PwC, Ecorys, London Economics

PROPOSED DIMENSION

Costs of procedures
(time spent in person-days)
Costs of procedures (person-days)
Costs (person-days)
Quickest Slowest Difference
Authorities 11 68 57
Firms 10 34 24
Duration of procedure
(authorities + firms)
22 93 71
Significant discrepancies in efficiency amongst Member States
importance of enhancing correct and smart application of the rules
Costs of procedures - CAEs
11
12
15
16 16 16
17
18 18
19 19
20
21 21
22
23
25
26 26
27 27
31
35
38
40
43
44
68
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
M
a
l
t
a

C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
.
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
r
a
n
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d

F
i
n
l
a
n
d
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
P
o
l
a
n
d
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
E
s
t
o
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
S
w
e
d
e
n
E
E
A
-
3
0
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
S
p
a
i
n
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
U
K
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
S
l
o
v
a
k

R
e
p
.
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
t
a
ly
C
y
p
r
u
s
B
u
l
g
a
r
i
a
Fig. 3): Cost of procedures in man-days contracting authorities and entities
Source: PwC, Ecorys, London Economics
Costs of procedures - firms
10 10
11 11
12
13 13
14 14 14
15 15 15 15
16 16 16
17 17 17
18
20 20
25 25
29
30
34
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
F
r
a
n
c
e
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
P
o
l
a
n
d
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
S
p
a
i
n
L
a
t
v
i
a
C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
.
I
r
e
l
a
n
d

H
u
n
g
a
r
y
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
E
s
t
o
n
i
a
E
E
A
-
3
0
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
K
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
I
t
a
ly
G
r
e
e
c
e
B
u
l
g
a
r
i
a
C
y
p
r
u
s
S
l
o
v
a
k

R
e
p
.
M
a
l
t
a

Fig. 4): Cost of procedures in man-days firms
Source: PwC, Ecorys, London Economics
Costs of procedures - combined
11
16
17 18
15 16 16
20
21
18
19
21
23
19
25
27 27 26 26
12
31
35
43
40
38
44
68
11
10
10
11
15
14 15
12
13
17
16
17
16 15
20
14
13 14
17 18
34
15
16
20 25 30
29
25
22
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
F
r
a
n
c
e
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
P
o
l
a
n
d
C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
.
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
I
r
e
l
a
n
d

S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
E
s
t
o
n
i
a
S
w
e
d
e
n
E
E
A
-
3
0
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
a
t
v
i
a
U
K
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
M
a
l
t
a

R
o
m
a
n
i
a
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
I
t
a
l
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
S
l
o
v
a
k

R
e
p
.
C
y
p
r
u
s
B
u
l
g
a
r
i
a
Firms
Authorities
Fig. 5): Cost of procedures in man-days combined
Source: PwC, Ecorys, London Economics

PROPOSED DIMENSION

Quality of data in notices published
Quality of notices
3
5
%
3
6
%
4
6
%
6
3
%
6
5
%
6
8
%
7
0
%
7
1
%
7
3
%
7
4
%
7
8
%
8
8
%
8
9
%
8
9
%
9
1
%
9
4
%
9
6
%
9
6
%
9
7
%
9
7
%
9
7
%
9
8
%
9
8
%
9
8
%
9
9
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
S
w
e
d
e
n
I
r
e
l
a
n
d

D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
r
a
n
c
e
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
U
K
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
E
E
A
-
3
0
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
I
t
a
l
y
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
B
u
l
g
a
r
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
C
y
p
r
u
s
C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
.
L
a
t
v
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k

R
e
p
.
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
M
a
l
t
a

G
r
e
e
c
e
P
o
l
a
n
d
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
E
s
t
o
n
i
a
Fig. 6): Percentage of CANs with data provided in value field (2010)
Source: DG MARKT
Discussion - questions
Are these indicators appropriate?
Proposals for other indicators / dimensions that
should be taken into account
Can Member States that rank high share
their expertise with the others?
What makes them successful (methods,
instruments introduced)?