The Benchmarking Public Procurement indicators are based on primary data collected using surveys completed by more than 1,900 local practitioners who have a wealth of knowledge about the public procurement system of a particular economy. The information for this year's data collection was conducted between March 1, 2016 and June 1, 2016 in 180 economies. Amendments to the legal framework after this date were not considered for this data cycle.
Contributors primarily include a pool of professionals and entities such as law firms, professional services providers (mainly accounting and consulting firms), chambers of commerce, bar associations, private firms, public officials dealing with government procurement (national procurement agencies, ministries of finance, ministries of sustainable development and infrastructure, directorates of public function, ministries of public works and transportation, and the like), legal experts in academia, and other expert contributors. The involvement of a diverse set of public procurement experts and practitioners increases the accuracy of the data and balances out any potential biases that stakeholders may have. Also, including both the private and the public sector helps yield a comparative view and provides insights of all stakeholders in the public procurement system. Information from contributors was verified directly against the actual text of the law. The legal and regulatory framework measured encompasses all public procurement regulations, other legal texts of general application, judicial decisions, and administrative rulings that set precedents in connection with national public procurement procedures.
Benchmarking Public Procurement 2017 indicators are based on a set of case study assumptions about the procurement of works. The case study assumptions pertain to the context of the procurement, the contracting firm’s willingness to submit a bid, the size of the firm, and the size of the procurement contract.
Because of resource considerations, the study has examined situations in which the procuring authority operates at the national or federal level, and the tender is governed by the national legal framework of the economy—despite the fact that public procurement is usually carried out by different levels of government within each economy and along different sectoral lines. Following the Doing Business methodology, the value of the tender provided for each economy in the standardized case study assumption ensures applicability across economies of different income groups. The tender is assigned a value that is not too high (so as to remain relevant in developing economies) or too low (so as to remain relevant to the type of service being procured—in this case, the resurfacing of a road).
Benchmarking Public Procurement 2017 data is organized in two indicators, which assess the following:
(1) The Procurement Life Cycle, which includes:
- Needs assessment, call for tender and bid preparation
- Bid submission
- Bid opening, evaluation and award
- Content and management of the procurement contract
- Performance guarantee
- Payment of suppliers
- Incentives for particular group
(2) Filing a Complaint, which includes:
- Pre-award complaints before the first-tier review body
- Pre-award complaints before the second-tier review body
- Post-award complaints
The data provided in the Procurement Life Cycle indicator has been assigned scores following the scoring methodology developed by the team. For more information on scores, please refer to "How the Benchmarking Public Procurement 2017 indicators are scored (PDF)."
Some of the data included in the Procurement Life Cycle and the data presented in the Filing a Complaint indicator are not scored and are only provided for informational and contextual purposes.