In December 2007, the EU amended its procurement remedies frameswork Essay

In December 2007, the EU amended its procurement remedies frameswork with a view to improving the effecctiveness of the review p - Essay Example Before the 2007 remedy amendments, there existed two directives that concerned the public procurement; 89/665/EEC meant for the sector of public as well as the 92/13/EEC meant for the sector of utilities. These policy directives applied to the only procurements that were under public and the partial contracts on ‘non-priority services’. Public remedies as should be are meant to avail to tenderers means to redress, build the confidence of the general public as well as the corporate world of the fairness that is entailed within the public procurement systems as well as provide frameworks that would protect the public procurement from corrupt activities through breaching of rules. Among other challenges that were noted before the amendment and which necessitated the amendments was the illegal awarding of public contracts for procurement through improper procedures of tendering as well as the problem of corruption as noted by the EIPASCOPE commission 20061. It was noted that though the member countries had successfully adopted and implemented the 2004 public contract awarding regulations, infringement through malpractices were persistent and thus needed redress. Such bodies as the EIPASCOPE were very instrumental in the fight for and demand of the amendments through having clear amendment proposals for the purpose of effecting competency and effectiveness within the public domain in matters of public procurement and the awarding of contracts. Effective public procurement system in EU was required to ascertain that public contracts were advertised and through competitive bidding be awarded to the rightful winner of the bid. However, this has been a major challenge that necessitated the 2007 amendments to the procurement directives. The courts however had the sole privilege to interpret and allow the exceptional cases that would be allowed to have the awarding of contracts done otherwise, other than through this stipulated competitive way. These exceptio nal circumstances included the instances when there was extreme urgency to award the contract and in the event that only one bidder meets the requirements as required. However, despite the legal frameworks developed in order to ensure the effective of the public procurement laws, there existed a main challenge in the implementation as the breach happened in secrecy; the illegal awarding of the contracts were often negotiated behind the scenes and awarded. Another major concern that necessitated the amendment was the lack of enough time within the countries member states for correction of the contracts awarded erroneously; the main problem noted as the ‘race to signature’. The remedies to such an infringements or breach of the directives required amendment of the directive to create time after the signing of contracts through which the malpractices would be corrected. The commission therefore recommended a minimum standstill period that should be mandatory and imposed be tween the conclusion of the dialogues and the official signing of the contracts to create time for these evaluations and the necessary adjustments. The commission recommended that at least the standstill period be prolonged to at least ten calendar days with the member states having the provision to decide on their stand still periods. EU principal rules that govern the