Labels and Tags

Accountability (71) Adequate documentation (7) ADR in procurement (4) Allocation of risks (6) Best interest of government (11) Best practices (19) Best value (15) Bidder prejudice (11) Blanket purchase agreement (1) Bridge contract (2) Bundling (6) Cancellation and rejection (2) Centralized procurement structure (12) Changes during bid process (14) Clarifications vs Discussions (1) Competence (9) Competition vs Efficiency (29) Competitive position (3) Compliance (35) Conflict of interest (32) Contract administration (26) Contract disputes (4) Contract extension or modification (9) Contract formation (1) Contract interpretation (1) Contract terms (3) Contract types (6) Contract vs solicitation dispute (2) Contractor responsibility (20) Conviction (4) Cooperative purchasing (3) Corrective action (1) Cost and pricing (13) Debarment (4) Determinations (8) Determining responsibility (37) Disclosure requirements (7) Discussions during solicitation (10) Disposal of surplus property (3) Effective enforcement requirement (35) Effective procurement management (5) Effective specifications (36) Emergency procurement (14) eProcurement (5) Equitable tolling (2) Evaluation of submissions (22) Fair and equitable treatment (14) Fair and reasonable value (23) Fiscal effect of procurement (14) Frivolous protest (1) Good governance (12) Governmental functions (27) Guam (14) Guam procurement law (12) Improper influence (11) Incumbency (13) Integrity of system (31) Interested party (7) Jurisdiction (1) Justification (1) Life-cycle cost (1) Limits of government contracting (5) Lore vs Law (4) market research (7) Materiality (3) Methods of source selection (33) Mistakes (4) Models of Procurement (1) Needs assessment (11) No harm no foul? (8) Offer & acceptance (1) Other procurement links (14) Outsourcing (34) Past performance (12) Planning policy (34) Politics of procurement (52) PPPs (6) Prequalification (1) Principle of competition (95) Principles of procurement (25) Private vs public contract (17) Procurement authority (5) Procurement controversies series (79) Procurement ethics (19) Procurement fraud (31) Procurement lifecycle (9) Procurement philosophy (17) Procurement procedures (30) Procurement reform (63) Procurement theory (11) Procurement workforce (2) Procurment philosophy (6) Professionalism (17) Protest - formality (2) Protest - timing (12) Protests - general (37) Purposes and policies of procurement (11) Recusal (1) Remedies (17) Requirement for new procurement (4) Resolution of protests (4) Responsiveness (14) Restrictive specifications (5) Review procedures (13) RFQ vs RFP (1) Scope of contract (16) Settlement (2) Social preference provisions (60) Sole source (48) Sovereign immunity (3) Staffing (8) Standard commercial products (3) Standards of review (2) Standing (6) Stays and injunctions (6) Structure of procurement (1) Substantiation (9) Surety (1) Suspension (6) The procurement record (1) The role of price (10) The subject matter of procurement (23) Trade agreements vs procurement (1) Training (33) Transparency (63) Uniformity (6) Unsolicited proposals (3)

Sunday, August 8, 2010

Procurement reform -- Ukraine

Law on Public Procurement extends Anti-monopoly Committee's remit by lawyer Oleh Malskyy, published by the International Law Office
On July 30 2010 the Law on Public Procurement came into force, introducing new rules to make public procurement procedures non-discriminatory and more transparent. The thresholds for applying the public procurement mechanism remain at the previous levels of UAH100,000 (approximately US$12,500) for goods and services and UAH300,000 for works.

The law sets out new duties for the Anti-monopoly Committee, which is now authorised to review disputes arising out of public procurement procedures - previously, tender participants addressed their appeals to the Ministry of the Economy or to the tender organiser directly. The committee is required to create a new department that will specialise in dispute resolution and has been authorised to recruit up to 35 new staff. Ten new employees have already been delegated from the ministry.

All natural and legal persons can approach the committee if they consider that their rights or interests were violated during a public procurement process. The committee predicts an increase in the number of such disputes in light of the wide range of interested parties with such a right. Within three days of receiving the appeal, the committee must notify the state entity of the time and place of the hearing. The period for considering an appeal has been extended from 20 to 30 business days.

COMMENTARY: I was intrigued that the legislation gave jurisdiction over the procurement review process to an Anti-monopoly office. But it is not quite as curious as it might first appear when it is considered that bid-rigging is, under US antitrust law, a criminal violation, enforceable by the US Department of Justice.

No comments: