■

Krüger, K. (2004). 'Ban-on-negotiations in tender procedures: Undermining best value for money?'. Journal of Public Procurement 4(3): 397.
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=738309081&Fmt=7&clientId=44986&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Markets for public contracting are in the process of transition. Various public/private partnership arrangements replace conventional purchasing, especially within the local and regional government area. Municipal entities may not be in a position to define their needs up-front because they would not have the overview of what the market may have to offer. So one should ask: Is the traditional ban-on-negotiations in mandatory tender procedures (sealed bidding) - such as it is in EU public procurement law - counter-effective to genuine best value for public money? The article displays significant differences between European Union (EU) law, US law and other regimes such as United Nations Model law, The World Trade Organisation's Government Procurement Agreement (WTO/GPA), The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), and the NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). New avenues for public/private demand a new agenda and the recent EU 2004 directive scheme attempts to respond to the market challenges. The author accepts that the new directive on public contracting facilitates a more smooth approach than in current EU law with regard to high-tech complicated contract awards, but questions whether the "competitive dialogue" really can afford tailor-made solutions to cope with long-term public/private partnership arrangements of the kind now spreading all over Europe.