The bugbear of price only contracts as an obstacle to great procurement

I've recently come across this document commissioned (I think) by the EIC Forum analysing the legal issues affecting innovation in public procurement. While it is not a final report, there was a barrier mentioned here that attracted my attention: the preference for price only contracts in procurement.

Time and time again we see price only contracts being highlighted as a problem in public procurement, stemming the achievement of whatever laudable goal is being pushed. This time it is innovation, but it could have been any complementary objectives that some want to use procurement to pursue.

This criticism of price only contracts misses the crucial point, that is, most economically advantageous tenders are really difficult to do. They require more resources to do well, raise uncertainty and a feeling of insecurity for the contracting authority so it is unsurprising that despite being the default option within the EU the majority of contracts doesn't use them. Measuring quality is hard and guaranteeing equal treatment when measuring apples and oranges is always going to be a challenge. Remember variants? Well, me neither beyond seeing them included as an option in legislation.

I keep saying - and will keep on saying - that if we cannot do the basics right, it is hard to push the system to do anything more advanced. If on aggregate, our public procurement ecosystem is unable to procure competently using MEAT, forcing it for whatever purposes will not magically make the system work better and achieve whatever goals people think it should be achieving. I would add as well that the discretion afforded by MEAT can be weaponised as well: for corruption, protectionism or other 'objectives.'

It does not help that in this particular instance the argument proposed is that avoiding 'price only' contracts would '[c]reate a more fair level playing field for higher quality EU solutions to compete with lower quality, lower cost ones from outside the EU.' This is simply not true. In a system where only around 5% of contracts are awarded to foreign bidders - the vast majority from other Member States - and with the Commission enforcing the International Procurement Instrument, the argument of economic operators being responsible for limited innovation in public procurement due to their low prices is not sustained by reality.

In conclusion I would posit the following: in a good, well functioning procurement ecosystem, there is no aggregate need for quality as an award criteria. A well resourced contracting authority able to use MEAT and assess quality will by default be as able to scope the technical specifications in a way that incorporates the knowledge that would otherwise be left to the vagaries of the market. This, however, is as much of an utopian solution as the cries for quality to be used more often as an award criterion.