The respondents share the feeling that a PPP tendered using competitive dialogue takes longer to procure than under alternative procedures.
A number of possible reasons for this longer timeline have been given, in particular:
■ Competitive dialogue normally involves more detailed discussions with a greater number of participants and in several successive stages;
■ Competitive dialogue being a very prescriptive procedure, it requires additional care and diligence from all participants to ensure compliance with all procedural requirements along the way.
A logical response to this problem would appear to be the reduction in the number of bidders as early as possible in the process. This would ensure that the process is leaner and more focused as the dialogue progresses. This could be achieved with a limited loss to competition, as the less responsive bids would be eliminated first.
Such possibility is specifically mentioned in Article 29 of the Procurement Directive22. It can therefore be considered as part of the rationale of the concept of competitive dialogue. So far, however, it is only used by half of the respondents23.
One of the benefits of the procedure (with potentially significant cost and length implications) appears to be underestimated. If non responsive bidders are kept in the competition up until late stages of the procedure, this is likely to lead to inefficiencies in the procurement process. In addition, the knowledge that bidders will have a chance to make further submissions later in the process can act as a disincentive for them to table competitive proposals early in the dialogue process24.
___________________________________________________________________________
22 Please also refer to the opening paragraphs of the Procurement Directive (Recital 41) which specifically refer to this option as a means to tackle increased procurement costs: "In the competitive dialogue <>, in view of the flexibility which may be required and the high level of costs associated with such methods of procurement, contracting authorities should be entitled to make provision for the procedure to be conducted in successive stages in order gradually to reduce, on the basis of previously indicated contract award criteria, the number of tenders which they will go on to discuss <>".
23 The relevant break-down of the responses was 55% to 45%. Most respondents confirmed that they normally expect to see 2-3 bidders proceed to the final offer stage.
24 There are several possible explanations for this failure to exploit the opportunity provided under the Procurement Directive: (i) in order to eliminate bidders contracting authorities need to carry out a more thorough evaluation and ranking process at each stage, which may be perceived as adding complexity and lengthening the process; (ii) the selection criteria set forth in the tender notice may not be appropriate at all stages of the dialogue; (iii) if, following a down scaling, the contracting authority decides to modify any substantial conditions in its procurement programme, it may open itself to challenges by the eliminated bidders on the ground of inequality of treatment, including possible failures by the contracting authority to secure equal access to the review procedures available under the new Remedies Directive (Directive 2007/66/EC) and relevant national law.