Competitive dialogue procedure for sustainable public procurementJournal of Cleaner Production


Kedar Uttam, Caroline Le Lann Roos
Strategy and Management / Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering / Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment / Environmental Science (all)


Competition and Prices in USDA Commodity Procurement

James M. MacDonald, Charles R. Handy, Gerald E. Plato

Sustainability and Competitiveness of Tourism

Tanja Angelkova, Cane Koteski, Zlatko Jakovlev, Elizabeta Mitrevska

Sustained Dialogue for Ground Water and Energy Resources in Chile

Suzanne A. Pierce, Reed A. Malin, Eugenio Figueroa


ta viro 12 August 2014

Accepted 12 August 2014

Available online xxx


Sustainable public procurement

Competitive dialogue procedure

Construction sector vation in GPP, a Nordic study has indicated that national-level s with shortlisted nts before the au2004). The public ialogue procedure or may request to ity conducts a dialogue with the candidate admitted to that procedure, with the aim of developing one or more suitable alternatives capable of meeting its requirements, and on the basis of which the candidates chosen are invited to tender” (OJEU, 2004). As indicated in the public procurement directive,1 the contracting authority should assess the

List of acronyms: AHP, analytic hierarchy process; CDP, competitive dialogue procedure; CJEU, Court of Justice of the European Union; EIA, environmental impact assessment; EPC, energy performance contracting; GPP, green public procurement;

LCA, life cycle assessment; MEAT, most economically advantageous tender; PPS, provisionally preferred solution; SPP, sustainable public procurement. * Corresponding author. Division of Land and Water Resources Engineering,

Brinellv€agen 28, 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden. Tel.: þ46 87907328. 1 It must be noted that this study was conducted prior to the introduction of the revised public procurement directive or the Directive 2014/24/EU on public procurement.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production journal homepage: www.els

Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e14E-mail addresses: (K. Uttam), (C. Le Lann Roos).struments such as green public procurement (GPP). GPP is defined by the European Commission as “a process whereby public authorities seek to procure goods, services and works with a reduced environmental impact throughout their life cycle when compared to goods, services and works with the same primary function that would otherwise be procured” (CEC, 2008). In terms of stimulating innoprocedure allows authorities to hold discussion candidates regarding the authority's requireme thority invites final written tenders (Brown, procurement directive defines the competitive d as “a procedure in which any economic operat participate and whereby the contracting authorThe construction sector is in crucial need of better environmental performance and has therefore adopted several policy inwork. Such models include a “competitive dialogue procedure (CDP)” (Nordic Council of Ministers (2010)). This relatively new1. Introduction 0959-6526/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Uttam, K.

Cleaner Production (2014), http://dx.doi.orgextended to sustainable public procurement, which involves the incorporation of both environmental and social considerations in the procurement of goods and services. Previous studies have suggested the relevance of contractor engagement strategies and the need for appropriate models to promote dialogue in sustainable public procurement. This paper illustrates one such model called the competitive dialogue procedure. This newly introduced procurement procedure allows the contracting authority to hold discussions with shortlisted contractors regarding the authority's requirements. The paper uses the practical case of the Kvarnholmen link project in Sweden. The Kvarnholmen link is an infrastructure project that includes the construction of a bridge, tunnel, underpass and pedestrian and bike path. Action research was conducted to examine the competitive dialogue procedure. This paper has strengthened the conceptualisation that the procedure can facilitate sustainable public procurement with the aid of its key elements, such as provisionally preferred solution and dialogue sessions. In addition, the paper analyses the consequences of the weight used for environmental considerations in the bid evaluation process. This paper recommends that contracting authorities implementing competitive dialogue procedure must use provisionally preferred solution to identify sustainable public procurement preferences. Dialogue sessions with contractors should involve discussions regarding sustainable public procurement to ensure consistency between the weight for environmental considerations and respective preferences. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. institutions should identify appropriate models for promoting more dialogue in tender processes and especially in constructionReceived 22 March 2014

Received in revised form and products that meet environmental requirements. In recent years, green public procurement hasArticle history: The construction sector has adopted green public procurement to improve its environmental performance. Green public procurement is a process whereby contracting authorities aim to procure servicesCompetitive dialogue procedure for sus

Kedar Uttam*, Caroline Le Lann Roos

KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Division of Land and Water Resources Engineering, En

Stockholm, Sweden a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t, Le Lann Roos, C., Competitiv /10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.031inable public procurement nmental Management and Assessment (EMA) Research Group, evier .com/locate/ jc leproe dialogue procedure for sustainable public procurement, Journal of of Creceived tenders on the basis of the award criteria specified in the contract notice and select the most economically advantageous tender (MEAT). MEAT is the weighted sum of different aspects of a product or service that provides value to the procurer in terms of economy, quality, environmental considerations and social aspects.

Hence, MEAT implies that other award criteria will be considered in addition to price. However, because there is no specific guidance in the aforementioned directive for formulatingMEAT, the weightings for different aspects may not reflect the impacts related to such aspects (Parikka-Alhola and Nissinen, 2012). For instance, the linkage between project action, environmental aspects and environmental impacts is discussed by Sanchez and Hacking (2002).