Bestek - de Aanbestedingspodcast

Host Dr Marta Andhov presents an aperitif episode of the Bestek public procurement podcast, featuring clips from “Remedial Systems in Public Contracts Law vs Non-Legislative Measures”, a panel she chaired at the Public Procurement & Contracts Conference in Copenhagen (PurpLE Project, 22–23 June 2026).

The episode asks what a bidder can do when a public authority breaks its own procurement rules. It compares Commonwealth countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, whose rules follow the UK model from before the EU directives, with France and the francophone African countries that followed the French model.

Host Dr Marta Andhov presents an aperitif episode of the Bestek public procurement podcast, featuring excerpts from the “Sustainability in Performance of Public Contracts” panel, moderated by Dr Ezgi Uysal (PurpLE postdoctoral researcher, University of Copenhagen), at the Public Procurement & Contracts Conference hosted by the PurpLE Project in Copenhagen (22–23 June 2026).

The episode asks what happens after sustainability is written into a public contract, whether as environmental criteria, social clauses or ESG language: at the performance stage, does anyone enforce, audit or check it? Marta’s answer is “not yet”, but the panel sets out what checking would take.

Panellists Professor Sope Williams (Stellenbosch University; George Washington University), Professor Gustavo Piga (University of Rome Tor Vergata), Associate Professor Helen Yu (Swansea University), and Assistant Professor Désirée Klingler (University of St. Gallen) discuss why a sustainability clause binds once it is in the contract, whether voluntary or mandatory; South Africa’s Medupi and Kusile power stations and why vague “best efforts” wording cannot be enforced; the trade-offs behind Sardinia’s wind turbines; Swiss data showing how little changed after the law did; and the UK’s Procurement Act 2023 and new NHS value-based procurement guidance for medical technology, which sets a minimum weighting for social value in tender scoring.

Host Dr Marta Andhov presents an aperitif episode of the Bestek public procurement podcast, featuring the conversation that opened Day 2 of the Public Procurement & Contracts Conference (PurpLE Project, Copenhagen, 22–23 June 2026), chaired by Grith Skovgaard Ølykke (Partner, Poul Schmith/Kammeradvokaten). It is a first for the aperitif series: Bestek co-host Professor Willem Janssen (Utrecht University and University of Groningen) is on the panel.

The episode asks whether EU reform is making procurement better or simpler, or just adding more rules. Grith sums up the European Commission’s evaluation of the 2014 Public Procurement Directives: the framework “appears to be functioning, just not in the way one might have hoped”, and is only “partially equipped” to deliver.

Willem’s study for the Commission mapped 62 EU regulations and directives that now touch procurement, with 20 more in the pipeline. He argues for prioritisation, with sustainability first, and hopes the revision brings “more demanding rules, but also less rigid rules”: strict on green and social goals, flexible on procedure.

Professor Roberto Caranta (University of Turin), who also wrote a study for the Commission, says EU priorities need money the EU budget does not have, so procurement has become one stone aimed at 62 pigeons. He argues there is only so much simplification a complex subject allows, and that much of the rigidity comes from contracting authorities, not Brussels: many fear courts of auditors and oversight bodies.

The full session ranged more widely, with a lightning round of quick questions and answers. We invite listeners to continue the discussion with us on LinkedIn.

In this Bestek aperitif episode, Dr Marta Andhov continues a discussion from the PurpLE Project Conference panel “Arbitration in Public Contracts” (Copenhagen, June 2026) by focusing on whether arbitral awards in public contract disputes can actually be enforced against contracting authorities. She distinguishes between winning an arbitration and getting paid, and features panel insights from Cesar Pareira (President, Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, São Paulo), Roxana Vornicu (Senior Lecturer, King’s College London; Sîrbu and Vornicu Law, Romania), and Nicholas Jobidon (Professor of Public Law, Université du Québec).

The episode explains that arbitration’s authority stems from party agreement but its legal effect comes from state law (often like a court judgment); that courts remain essential for coercive enforcement; and that enforcement is generally recognised though subject to procedural challenges. It also highlights arbitration’s speed and international enforceability under the 1958 New York Convention, while warning arbitration can become a “trap” if governments lack political will to comply.

In this solo “aperitif” episode of Bestek, Marta Andhov shares highlights from the closing panel on arbitration in public contracts at the PurpLE Conference on Public Procurement and Contracts in Copenhagen, chaired by Peter Trepte (University of Nottingham), supported by the Dreyers Foundation and funded by the Carlsberg Foundation.

The episode focuses on the threshold question of whether public contract disputes should be allowed to go to arbitration, given its implications for cost, speed, expertise, and the tension between confidentiality and transparency.

Roxana Vornicu (King’s College London; Sîrbu and Vornicu Law, Romania) argues that arbitration fits internationalised construction supply chains and that confidentiality can align with protections already found in procurement law. Cesar Pareira (Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, São Paulo) emphasises efficiency and fairness, and later stresses that transparency in state contract arbitration is essential for public scrutiny and trust. Nicholas Jobidon (Université du Québec) warns against removing judicial review and notes that arbitration is useful but not for every case. Miguel Assis Raimundo (University of Lisbon) compares France, Spain, and Portugal and suggests that stronger institutional architecture can address many of the fears around arbitration.

Marta closes by drawing the threads together, concluding that the panel offers no flat yes or no, and that the answer comes down to conditions, not a verdict.

In deze aflevering bespreken Matanja en Willem de evaluatie van de aanbestedingsrichtlijnen en ook de impact assesment van de Europese Commissie. Uit de discussie volgt binnen welke context de hervorming van de Europese aanbestedingsregels plaatsvinden. Luister deze aflevering samen met #52 Nieuwe aanbestedingsrichtlijnen of toch verordeningen? Let op: de opname vond plaats voordat een concept van de nieuwe Aanbestedingsverordening uitlekte.

In deze aflevering bespreken Matanja en Willem het feit dat er inmiddels in meerdere verordeningen en richtlijnen aanbestedingsregels staan, en stellen zij zich de vraag hoe dat er uitziet en of dat een probleem is voor de praktijk. Deze aflevering bouwt voort op de discussie in #48 Steeds meer aanbestedingsregels: een coherent geheel? Let op: de opname vond plaats voordat een concept van de nieuwe Aanbestedingsverordening uitlekte.

Willem en Matanja hebben het over de wisselwerking tussen aanbestedingsrecht en privaatrecht. Ze spreken hierover naar aanleiding van het hoofdstuk dat zij samen schreven in het boek 'Public Procurement and Contract Law' (open access).

In deze aflevering bespreken Matanja en Willem de hervorming van de aanbestedingsrichtlijnen. De Europese Commissie lijkt eind juni te komen met een voorstel voor nieuwe aanbestedingsregels. De vraag die momenteel speelt is of dat wel richtlijnen blijven. Mogelijk worden het wel verordeningen. Waar komt deze discussie vandaan? Waarom zou er gekozen kunnen worden voor een verandering van het wetgevende instrument? Deze vragen staan centraal in deze aflevering.