The use of Competitive Dialogue for major projects in the UK PhD findings 19 October 2011 Susie Smith, Bevan Brittan LLP Richard Craven, University of Nottingham

2 Setting the scene Aims of the PhD Approach used Legal analysis 58 interviews (January 2010 – March 2011) 14 Procurement officers and in-house lawyers 41 External legal advisors 3 Policymakers Structure of the PhD – follows the planning and procurement process Publication date

Five areas of interest Choosing CD Confidentiality and the dialogue phase Phased dialogue and the use of award criteria How final are final tenders? Perceptions of risk of challenge and impact on decision making 3

Choosing CD Grounds for use of CD Is this considered Views on the conditions to be satisfied Is CD a standard procedure? Commoditised procurements Other factors influencing choice of CD or choice not to use CD 4

Confidentiality and the dialogue process High level of concern pre 2006 and general finding Single solution or multiple solutions Respect for confidential information Amicable resolution of concerns 5

Phased dialogue and the use of award criteria Reduction of solutions or bidders? Is a formal bidding process required? Same criteria for all stages or different criteria? Particular issue with pricing at early stages Scope for variation of award criteria or weightings during the CD process Uncertainty as to use of award criteria is a major concern 6

How final are final tenders? Theory and practice 7

Perceptions of risk of challenge and impact on decision making Legal risk – central role in decision making Sources of challenge – Commission and the market Rise in bidder queries Impact on behaviour 8

Next steps…… 9

10 Contact details Susie Smith Richard Craven For BB procurement updates and alerts go to: For further information on the Public Procurement Research Group at the University of Nottingham go to: