City of Utrecht and Sustainability Hier komt tekst The goal versus the law Hier komt ook tekst Thomas van Doorn
This afternoon The change of public procurement Sustainability as goal Four ways to do so The struggle to gain that goal
The City of Utrecht Percentage sustainablity of total spend Circular and recycling
The City of Utrecht Difference between recycling and circular?
A brief history... First public procument law: 1815 Public procument is older
A brief history... Political focus on public procurement is relatively new Main goals: freedom of goods and people Transparancy, equality, non discrimination, proportionality Focus: compliancy with the EU Laws Lawfulness, lawfulness, lawfulness
Politics discover procurement (1) Procurement becomes a policy tool In 2012 by national law Small companies are hot! Introducing Gids Proportionaliteit Then comes climat changes and economic crisis
Politics discover procurement (2) The EU laws change in 2016 Innovation and sustainability EU 2020 Directive 2014/24/EU A new vision on public procurement
The struggle begins (1) The original principles are still there Freedom of goods and people Transparancy, equality, non discrimination, proportionality But the main goals has changed
The struggle begins (2) A boat over land Utrecht has policy goals Innovation Social entrepreneurship Sustainability It s hard to move a boat over land
Sustainability in a tender Four ways to move the boat: 1. Selection criteria 2. Technical specifications 3. Contract award criteria 4. Competitive dialoque
Selection criteria What does EU law say? Environmental management standards Check by independent bodies Only use European standards Related to the subject of the contract
Selection criteria (2) So what is the problem? We want to change the attitude of the company Not related to the contract! Lots of national standards Forbidden to use them
Selection criteria (3) For example the milieubarometer Dutch initiative Measures the environmental performance Creates awareness en sets business targets Utrecht can not use it as selection method
Selection criteria (4) It is not based on EU standards And is it not related to the contract Outdated principles But understandable in 2004
Contract award criteria (1) Environmental aspects explicitly stated No unrestricted freedom of choice The criteria must be clear and precise A big struggle for Utrecht Because the proof is in the pudding
Contract award criteria (2) Sustainability by innovation The business in the lead Utrecht does not give the solution The business is always three steps ahead But how the compare?
Contract award criteria (3) Utrecht: the one that fits our ambitions the best will win But is this clear and precise? Is this unrestricted freedom for Utrecht?
Contract award criteria (4) Example: the Utrecht cleaning service Business 1: only use bio cleaning solution Business 2: the employees wil drive electric cars vs.
Contract award criteria (5) Example: the building of parking spaces Business 1: all machinery run on bio diesel Business 2: we will give a donation to the WWF vs.
Contract award criteria (6) Other solution: make it more specific No innovation by the business But it is clear and precise
Contract award criteria (7) The purchase of playsets PEFC wood: Recycled wood: 5 points 7 points Utrecht sets the tone One business said: I want to use bamboo!
Technical specifications (1) You can ask for a specific label Related tot the subject of the contract The use is limited Most labels refer to business themselves For example FSC wood The organization shall comply with all applicable laws
Technical specifications (2) There is a solution Prescibe the underlying criteria Mention a specific label as proof Also accept other equivalent label
Technical specifications (3) Technical specifications most save They are clear and precise But it is only a minimal No room for innovation
The competitive dialogue On of the set procedures Answer to the specific and clear problem The outcome of the dialoque is sustainable Then a bidding on the outcome (lowest price) Expensive procedure
Conclusions Utrecht uses all of the three options Takes a legal risk on contract award criteria The EU directive needs an update The competitive dialogue is an (expensive) solution