Project procurement systems

As wit h programme management st ructures, a number of INTERREG programmes have also adopt ed distinct ive proj ect select ion and procurement syst em. An open calls syst em is t he most widely used approach, but it is not necessarily used exclusively. For inst ance, some programmes set aside funds for seeding proj ect s or est ablish special funds, e.g. for small proj ects. Ot hers have a syst em for short list ing proj ect s or developing st rat egic proj ects. A variat ion of t he open calls syst em can also be used, wit h calls being t hematically or geographically t arget ed

The st rengt hs and weaknesses of each of t hese procurement syst ems are brought t oget her in Table 5. The charact eristics of different syst ems are explored furt her in Table 6 wit h respect t o t he crit eria of their administrat ive efficiency, st rat egic orient ation, t ransparency and equit y, and visibilit y.

The various syst ems discussed in t he previous sect ion and summarised in t he t ables are associated wit h quit e different management obj ect ives.

• At one end of the spectrum, st rat egic proj ect s are designed to ensure that programme obj ect ives are met wit h a limit ed number of large init iatives t hat have a demonstrable impact . These are part icularly suit ed t o t errit orial cooperat ion programmes operating with ‘ complex’ geographies or where t he number, resources or applicat ion experience of t he pot ent ial beneficiaries are considered t o be inadequat e. By t heir nature, however, such proj ect s are exclusive, generally absorbing a significant amount of resources and limit ing t he availabilit y of funding t o a wider range of (smaller) beneficiaries.

• At the other end of the spectrum, the seeding of proj ect s and special f unds are oft en designed t o encourage t he part icipat ion of smaller beneficiary organisat ions. They are used t o simplify access t o the programme by reducing bureaucracy (at least in t he first st age of seeding syst ems) and promot e a wider geographical, sectoral and t hemat ic dist ribution of resources. Part icularly if associat ed wit h effective proj ect animat ion, such procurement syst ems can help smaller organisat ions ‘ break int o’ t errit orial cooperat ion act ivit y. However, such syst ems do carry an administrat ive cost and may at t ract large numbers of applicat ions which are either deemed unsuit able or do not eventually go ahead.

• Themat ic/ geographic calls and proj ect short list ing have elements of both of the above approaches. They can be used t o help meet t he st rat egic obj ectives of t he programme by t argeting programme resources in particular areas/ fields (with t hemat ic/ geographic calls) or ensuring higher-quality applicat ions (t hrough proj ect short list ing). They may also ensure a favourable spatial or t hematic dist ribut ion of resources and encourage high take-up from smaller organisations, alt hough pot ent ially at a higher administ rat ive cost and at t he expense of t he t ransparency of t he select ion syst em.

Table5: Strengths and weaknesses of project procurement systems

Thematic/geographic calls Seeding projects Shortlisting projects Special funds Strategic projects

Strengths

• helps meet the strategic programme obj ect ives • increases part icipat ion of

areas and groups • ensures a spatial or

t hemat ic spread of resources

• can give good indicat ion of t he demand for funds

• generat es bet t er qualit y proj ects

• involves a larger number of part ners from more regions

• limits the complexity of t he init ial applicat ion • less risk of applications

being excluded at a lat e st age

• higher qualit y final applicat ions

• ensures high take-up of funds

• allows screening of lower qualit y proj ect s at an early st age

• high number of final beneficiaries

• bet t er chance of ensuring good geographical and communit y spread of resources

• potentially high added value for small amount s of money

• small proj ect s could lead to more substantial or innovative future submissions

• increased ‘ visibilit y’ of funds

• increases cross-border act ivit ies

• fewer, larger proj ect s can simplify programme delivery

• great er capacit y t o address strategic programme obj ect ives • demonstrable impact • scope t o enhance cross-

border element • can increase synergies

Weaknesses

• may reduce scope for more innovative proj ects • narrows t he pot ent ial

range of end beneficiaries • long wait ing t imes of bid

assessment process • applicants can be under

great er t ime pressure t o develop their bids • spat ial select ivit y can

make it difficult t o involve part ners from all part ner areas and lead t o administrative complexity

• applicat ion procedures can be overly complex relat ive t o t he amount s of money available

• not all ‘ seeded’ proj ect s are successful in t heir final applicat ions, t herefore t here is an element of financial risk

• lack of t ransparency • longer times to develop

final proj ect applications • delays in t he short list ing/

feedback process

• reduces budget for st rat egic proj ect s • pot ent ially high

administ rative cost s of managing and

implement ing a large number of small proj ects • limit ed ‘ reach’ and

impact of small proj ects

• limit s number of beneficiaries - some groups not reached due t o t heir resource limit at ions • lack of flexibilit y in

programme • long lead-in t ime

• pot ent ial N+2 concerns, if delays or lack of proj ects. • a small number of large

proj ect s can dominat e resource allocat ion

Table 6: Administrative efficiency, strategic orientation, transparency & equity and visibility of project procurement systems

Thematic/geographic calls Seeding projects Shortlisting projects Special funds Strategic projects

Administrative

efficiency • predict able, t ime limit ed

proj ect assessment and selection period • administ rat ive burden of

assessing large number of proj ects in a short period

• t he administ rat ive resources involved can be high relat ive t o t he amount of money available

• reduces t he lengt h and complexit y of t he init ial applicat ion phase • delays in the feedback

process can be a common problem

• reduced budget for st rat egic proj ect s • simplified applicat ion

procedures

• large proj ect s are simpler t o administ er t han a high number of small proj ects

Strategic

orientation • can be used t o meet t he

st rat egic obj ect ives of the programme, address ‘ gaps’ in t he port folio of funded proj ect s and commitment concerns • can lead t o bet t er, more

innovat ive bids

• can be used to develop higher qualit y, more st rat egic proj ect s • can be used t o increase

the number of proj ect part ners

• not all seeded proj ect s are successful

• higher qualit y final applicat ions

• ensures high take up of funds

• less risk of proj ect s being excluded at an early st age

• limit ed ‘ reach’ / impact of small proj ect s

• pot ent ially high value added for small amounts of money

• high numbers of final beneficiaries

• proj ects developed in line wit h t he programme goals • good way t o commit large

amount s of funding

Transparency &

equity • cuts out support for some

areas, where demand could be higher

• supports proj ect

developers, who may not have been in a posit ion develop a full proj ect t hemselves

• difficult ies wit h lack of t ransparency in short list ing criteria • pressure to provide

det ailed feedback

• can be used to support/ encourage new beneficiaries

• can be viewed as less t ransparent and account able

• limit s opport unit ies for smaller beneficiaries

Visibility

• can increase t he profile of t he programme in under-presented areas

• increased visibilit y for t he programme amongst key groups

• high impact of larger proj ects