This chapter analyses the extent to which the e‑procurement system JUC (Justicia Compra) facilitates transparency and access to procurement information, as well as the challenges in this respect. It discusses the importance of developing a risk management strategy for public procurement in general, and e‑procurement in particular, considering risks seen in other countries such as cyberattacks and operational failures. It examines how JUC could contribute to such strategy by providing data to inform it. Finally, the chapter argues for the development of an evaluation framework for JUC that considers indicators relative to compliance, efficiency, and the achievement of strategic objectives.
E‑Procurement Review of the Judicial Council of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires
Supporting the Judicial Function and Service Delivery
Abstract
Transparency is one of the fundamental pillars of public procurement, as it can help mitigate risks of favouritism, corruption, and inefficiency by making procurement processes more open and accountable, enabling scrutiny of public procurement activities.
Data from OECD countries highlight that efforts have advanced to make public procurement documents and data publicly available, contributing to fostering transparency. In addition to collecting previously monitored information on the extent of transparency in public procurement, the 2024 Survey was expanded to include newer elements such as publication of key information on e‑procurement systems. Notably, while almost all of the 40 surveyed countries publish tender notices (100%), technical specifications (98%), and evaluation criteria (98%), fewer release summaries of market consultations and justifications for terminating a contract (43%), signed contracts (38%), satisfactory completion certificates (30%), market studies (23%), final audits (13%), and progress reports (13%). In some cases, the lower publication rates may reflect concerns about inadvertently facilitating collusion, particularly when disclosing information that could influence future bidding behaviours.
There is a considerable difference in the availability of data and/or documents online depending on the stage of the procurement. While most Respondents make the information available about the tendering stage, documents and/or data pertaining to the pre‑tendering and post-tendering stages are less available (Figure 5.1). As noted above, the lower availability of data and documents in the pre‑tendering stage may stem from concerns about facilitating collusion.
Note: Data are shown for 40 Respondents.
Source: (OECD, 2025[1]), Implementing the OECD Recommendation on Public Procurement in OECD and Partner Countries: 2020-2024 Report, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/02a46a58-en.
In line with this trend, the majority of Respondents reported having adopted transparency requirements on the tendering stage, while transparency at other stages of the procurement process remains less common. This highlights opportunities to strengthen transparency across all phases of the public procurement cycle, ensuring timely and adequate disclosure throughout. Notably, 98% (39 out of 40) of Respondents have requirements to publish tender announcements and mandate the publication of tender documents, 95% (38 out of 40) require notifications of award, and 78% (31 out of 40) disclose the awarded price. Real-time transparency has also been enhanced by the increasing adoption and integration of e‑procurement systems.
Pre‑tendering and contract execution transparency obligations remain limited among Respondents, leaving room for improvement in facilitating visibility of future opportunities and current contracts. Indeed, only 22 out of 40 Respondents reported having a requirement to publish procurement plans (55%). In the contract execution and in the post-contract phases, publication requirements are even less common, indicating an area for further progress. While contract amendments are required to be published by most Respondents (29 out of 40, or 73%), only 30% (12 out of 40) have requirements to publish contract completion certificates. As already noted in a 2019 OECD report, post-contract information also remains less frequently disclosed, with only 38% of Respondents (15 out of 40) having requirements in place to publish evaluation reports.
The CM has made significant progress in transparency. On the portal Jusbaires Abierto (https://jusbairesabierto.gob.ar), it is possible to access information about the Council’s activity, statistics from the different jurisdictions of the Judicial Branch, data on the budget, procurement, staff payroll and salary scale, as well as the Council’s annual reports, agreements, and public competitions. However, for the moment, it is fundamentally a well-organised repository of information on the activity of the CM’s various areas.
In the case of procurement, JUC has undoubtedly taken an important step forward for transparency. Nevertheless, the information currently published is limited, and the query functionalities are also restricted. The JUC system allows for individual consultation of processes opened in the last 30 days and processes opening in the next 30 days. For each of these processes, detailed information on the pre‑contractual stage is available, which includes basic process information, expenditure requests assigned to the process, detail of products or services, schedule, the set of general terms and conditions, minimum participation requirements, special clauses, technical specifications, guarantees, the contract amount and duration, the process supervisor, the evaluators who participated, related administrative acts, the pre‑award report, and an indication of whether it has sustainability requirements or recommendations. Currently, it is not possible to search for processes according to specific criteria or to perform aggregated queries (for example, by year, by process type, etc.), and the data are not in an open format. Therefore, it is not possible to “build” those queries with the data outside the system.
Querying processes that took place outside these timeframes cannot be done through JUC but must be undertaken in the CM’s document repository, a storage where the different administrative acts of the contracting processes are organised in separate folders: calls for tender, pre‑awards, awards, and price redeterminations. Within each folder, there are subfolders by year. For calls for tender, awards, and redeterminations, the resolutions approving them are published, while for pre‑awards, the minutes issued by JUC are published.
As is evident, the public query function for contracting processes is basic and provides little information. Therefore, there is a significant opportunity for improvement in this aspect. A first action that should be possible without too much difficulty is to install the functionality, which is available in BAC, to query the entire database of procurement processes according to various criteria. In a second stage, more advanced query options can be developed, including data aggregation, statistics generation, and graphical outputs for user-friendly visualisation (e.g. dashboards, KPIs, etc.). The following step should involve expanding coverage to the entire procurement cycle, from planning to the end of the contract.
While publishing data enhances transparency, its value to stakeholders highly depends on easy and centralised access. Box 5.1 illustrates a good practice example from Finland in this area.
Hansel, Finland’s central purchasing agency, worked to build a public open data portal that everyone could use to analyse government spending. The OpenProcurement.fi service, launched in 2017, provides public access to information on state and other public organisations’ procurement. Users can search for the purchases of more than 70 government buyers and around 20 000 suppliers each year from 2016 to the present. They can see details such as the procurement category, date, and price of every invoice. Bulk downloads are available in various formats through Finland’s open data directory. The service shows the parties from which products and services were procured, as well as when these purchases were made. Data from OpenProcurement.fi has led to high-profile investigations in Finnish media. The project’s goal was to increase transparency, but it has also highlighted potential savings: for example, one ministry’s stationery costs were 1 000 times more than another. Economic operators also use the service for market research. The portal allows procurement data to be analysed from three perspectives:
Buyers: Buyers are state and other organisations that purchase goods and services.
Suppliers: When the supplier is a private individual, the supplier is marked as “supplier information not public” (this process is made easier by Finland’s central supplier registry). Some state and other organisations’ purchases are classified as confidential by law and are not included in the service.
Procurement categories: Purchases can be also inspected by procurement category. From there, users can also inspect the product and service groups that the data has been divided into based on the posting of invoices.
Because Finland uses a mandatory centralised e‑invoicing system, the accuracy of the data is very high. Central government data is collected from the state invoice system and data for other organisations is based on invoice data submitted to Hansel. Thanks to the availability of the data and a strong political commitment, the initial project was kicked off in late 2016, with the launch of the online tool “Explore state spending” in September 2017.
Source: (OECD, 2025[2]). Implementing the OECD Recommendation on Public Procurement in OECD and Partner Countries: 2020-2024 Report, https://doi.org/10.1787/02a46a58-en.
Another way to facilitate access to procurement information is by adopting open data standards for JUC. The implementation of open data standards should be a gradual process and be supported by high-level determination to devote the necessary resources for the transition. In Mexico City, the e‑procurement system Tianguis Digital (Digital market) includes a module on open contracting data which allowed 240 monthly downloads on average from the datasets hosted in the platform and 5 864 visits, as of May 2024. (see Box 5.2).
Mexico City spends more than MXN 60 000 million annually in public procurement (approximately USD 3 333 million). Tianguis Digital is the e‑procurement system of Mexico City to facilitate planning, execution, and monitoring of public procurement procedures and promote the adequate use of public resources. It adopted some of the main international standards relative to open data and transparency.
The platform consists of different modules to manage the various stages of the public procurement cycle. Two modules were launched in February 2019 but, by May 2024, it already had nine modules, including the following:
Procurement visualisation: It allows consulting public procurement information in user-friendly formats such as dashboards, KPIs, and graphics to facilitate citizen oversight. It was established in August 2022, and it covered the planning and tendering stages by May 2024.
Explorer of open contracting data: It is a tool to search and download information on the city’s public procurement under the Open Contracting Data Standard. It was also set up in August 2022.
Mexico City used Ukraine’s Prozorro as inspiration, so it benefited from its experience relative to conceptualisation, development, and implementation of the system.
Tianguis Digital won two consecutive editions (2019 and 2021) in the LIFT programme of the Open Contracting Partnership (OCP) and the Latam Smart City Awards 2022 in the digital transformation category.
Finally, SAGyP could facilitate access to procurement information by adopting focused transparency (transparencia focalizada) practices through user-friendly visualisation of key information items (i.e. procurement spending, suppliers, contracts awarded, etc.), displaying them in graphical easy-to-read formats for non-expert audiences (e.g. dashboards).
Public procurement can be impacted by a wide range of risks that affect the procurement process itself, as well as broader risks to projects or service delivery. Risks do not occur only during the tendering process, but over the life of the contract or the life of the procured asset. Risk management is also a principle supported by the OECD Recommendation on Public Procurement.
The Recommendation calls Adherents to integrate risk management strategies for mapping, detection and mitigation throughout the public procurement cycle. To this end, Adherents should:
1. Develop risk assessment tools to identify and address threats to the proper function of the public procurement system. Where possible, tools should be developed to identify risks of all sorts – including potential mistakes in the performance of administrative tasks and deliberate transgressions – and bring them to the attention of relevant personnel, providing an intervention point where prevention or mitigation is possible.
2. Publicise risk management strategies, for instance, systems of red flags or whistle‑blower programmes, and raise awareness and knowledge of the procurement workforce and other stakeholders about the risk management strategies, their implementation plans and measures set up to deal with the identified risks.
Source: (OECD, 2015[4]), Recommendation of the Council on Public Procurement, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0411
Initially focusing on integrity threats, in recent years countries have paid increasing attention to other public procurement risks, including information technology (IT), financial, reputational, social and environmental risks. Many of these risks impact the fundamental purpose of procurement: ensuring that goods, services or works are delivered to the right place at the right time. It is key to identify the root cause of different risks without confusing them with their consequences. Figure 5.2provides examples of public procurement risk categories; while not comprehensive, these categories provide an indication of the breadth of the risk management challenges in public procurement.
Source: (OECD, 2023[5]), “Managing risks in the public procurement of goods, services and infrastructure”, https://doi.org/10.1787/45667d2f-en.
Source: (OECD, 2023[5]), “Managing risks in the public procurement of goods, services and infrastructure”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 33, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/45667d2f-en
Data analysis can play an important role in effective risk management, with growing opportunities to incorporate the use of data throughout the risk management cycle. Given the diversity of procurement risks, a broad range of data sources can be useful for the development of risk management strategies and the identification and monitoring of risks (see Table 5.1). While public procurement organisations are digitalising an increasing proportion of their operations by implementing and expanding e‑procurement systems, efforts to fully leverage data from these systems and other sources are often less advanced.
Despite the recognition of increasing risks to procurement activities worldwide, the elaboration of procurement risk management strategies is still an emerging trend among OECD countries. The experiences of the e‑procurement systems of Chile and Mexico call for a robust risk management strategy. In the first case, the e‑procurement system was subject to cyberattacks while Mexico’s CompraNet crashed during its transition from an outsourced provider to in-house management.
A dedicated risk management strategy helps to advance the implementation of a streamlined and coherent risk management approach and strengthen the resilience and efficiency of the procurement system. It also helps breed a risk management culture in public procurement and informing the design and implementation of other key policies such as those addressing integrity and anti-corruption. (OECD, 2025[2]).
The development of a risk management strategy requires following concrete steps: (OECD, 2023[6]).
Creating a governance framework: Identifying an entity responsible for developing and monitoring the risk management system, for example, a steering committee or task force.
Defining the context and objective of the risk management strategy: The context includes the legal, regulatory, and policy framework, the institutional context, and existing risk management strategies. The strategy should also identify clear objectives that are linked to the context, as well as to the broader political, economic and market environment.
Defining the scope of the risk management strategy: The scope should include all the activities that will ultimately affect the procurement outcomes of a product or a service, not just the procurement process itself.
Setting a timeline for the implementation of the strategy: Depending on the objectives, the scope of the strategy and the resources available, it should include a detailed implementation timeline.
Identifying potential impacts: The implementation of a risk management strategy may have impacts on public entities throughout the procurement system. While the benefits of adopting a risk management approach outweigh its potential cost, all these impacts need to be anticipated.
Identifying implementation measures: These measures can include capacity building activities, practice sharing, and the development of manuals and tools.
Monitoring: This is necessary to identify best practices or failed solutions and eventually to adapt and update the strategy.
The OECD Survey on Public Procurement 2024 found that 30% of the surveyed countries (12 out of 40) have developed a strategy tailored for public procurement risks. Eleven out of 40 Respondents (28%) have integrated public procurement into broader risk management strategies (see Figure 5.3).
Note: Data are shown for 40 Respondents.
Source: (OECD, 2025[2]), Implementing the OECD Recommendation on Public Procurement in OECD and Partner Countries: 2020-2024 Report, https://doi.org/10.1787/02a46a58-en.
Developing effective risk management plans and being successful in preventing risks require procurement staff and other stakeholders to familiarise themselves, understand, and implement such plans. However, less than two‑thirds of the surveyed countries reported using tools such as dedicated guidance (65%), training (61%), and helpdesks (26%) to communicate risk management strategies. (OECD, 2025[2]).
Likewise, risk management strategies should be supported by tailored practical tools. Out of 40 Respondents, 29 have developed at least one type of tool to manage public procurement risks (73%). The most commonly used tools are risk assessment checklists (40%) and red flags systems (35%). Less commonly used tools include risk registers (30%), risk maps, and dashboards (20% each). (see Figure 5.4). Risk registers, for example, fulfil a number of functions, including developing and maintaining a shared understanding of risks among stakeholders, ensuring the tracking and assessment of risks, recording decisions of how risks will be treated, verifying that responsibilities for risks have been assigned to the most appropriate risk owner, and providing a holistic view of risks that can be evaluated against the entity’s overall risk appetite and risk management thresholds. Using a risk register, each risk should be assigned to a single owner, clarifying accountability, while also identifying others associated with the risk and/or contributing to control measures. (OECD, 2023[6]).
Note: Data are shown for 40n Respondents.
Source: (OECD, 2025[2]), Implementing the OECD Recommendation on Public Procurement in OECD and Partner Countries: 2020-2024 Report, https://doi.org/10.1787/02a46a58-en.
In the CM, the General Directorate for Management Control and Internal Audit (Dirección General de Control de Gestión y Auditoría Interna, DGCGyAI), which reports directly to the Plenary, has the following functions, among others:
Controlling the execution of the budget approved by the Legislature of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires and analysing its deviations.
Conducting administrative, accounting, financial, and management examinations and evaluations, as well as impact measurements.
DGCGyAI submits the annual audit plan to the Plenary for approval, which always includes procurement and contracting audit. The audit is carried out on a 20‑25% sample of the procedures, proportional to the different contracting modalities, seeking diversity in the contract amounts and objects.
Digitisation allowed the control process to be improved, as it is possible to audit more processes than before. The SISTAE system, which holds all digitised files, is used for conducting audits. The JUC incorporates some audit criteria because it prevents certain tasks from being performed unless previous requirements are first met. Since the JUC was implemented, virtually no substantive observations have been recorded.
The Directorate of Audit, which reports to the DGCGyAI, co‑ordinates the follow-up of the recommendations made in audit reports, evaluating risks. Beyond these risk evaluations conducted by the DGCGyAI for monitoring the recommendations in its audit reports, no systemic procurement risk assessment is performed.
The SAGyP could leverage the experience and capacity of the DGCGyAI to develop a risk evaluation framework that allows it to maintain a procurement risk registry or map, including risks that may impact JUC operations, and develop the necessary actions to mitigate those risks.
Public procurement represents a considerable share of GDP in OECD countries, requiring not only sound management but also efficient execution. Growing pressure on public spending, coupled with the demand for greater accountability, monitoring of the achievement of strategic policy objectives, and improved risk management, highlight the urgency of enhancing measurement and evaluation. In public procurement, evaluation helps governments assess whether their systems are achieving intended objectives, while supporting them in continuously developing, implementing, and revising their policies, processes, and tools. It provides an objective basis for understanding what works, why, for whom, and under what circumstances, thus helping inform the design of more effective policies or processes. On the contrary, lack of performance measurement frameworks and indicators can hinder the analysis of the effectiveness of the public procurement systems over time. In this regard, the availability of quality data that can be easily accessed represents a prerequisite for implementing sound and comprehensive performance measurement frameworks.
Frameworks for the measurement of performance of public procurement are essential to: i) assess progress and achievements periodically and consistently; and ii) identify any gaps in progress against objectives and targets. Such frameworks enable governments, contracting authorities and other stakeholders to use the data to take action and/or to tailor specific strategies. For consistently assessing procurement processes and supporting data-based policy and decision making in public procurement, the OECD has developed a measurement framework for the performance of public procurement systems, which is flexible, customisable, and scalable. The measurement framework:
Assesses the performance of public procurement at three levels: tender, contracting authority, and national, depending on the existence of data and possibility to aggregate it.
Identifies three categories of indicators: Compliance, efficiency and achievement of strategic objectives.
Covers the whole procurement cycle (from planning to contract management).
Can be used by different stakeholders (contracting authorities, procurement authorities, central purchasing bodies, etc.).
The framework includes 259 indicators and 45 sub-indicators related to compliance, efficiency, and achievement of strategic objectives (e.g. climate change mitigation, innovation, job creation, social aspects, and development of SMEs, among others).
Source: (OECD, 2023[7]), “Public procurement performance: A framework for measuring efficiency, compliance and strategic goals”, https://doi.org/10.1787/0dde73f4-en.
Indicators can measure the performance of procurement systems in a wide range of areas, yet Respondents of the OECD Survey on Public Procurement 2024 largely focus on efficiency and strategic policy objectives. Common key performance indicators (KPI) relate to efficiency (68% or 27 out of 40 surveyed countries), aimed at assessing whether procurement processes enable the best procurement outcomes and effectiveness as well as the best value for money. They can include, for instance, savings (in monetary value and time), level of market participation in specific procedures, and duration of procurement processes (including the tender evaluation phase). Most Respondents also use strategic KPIs (75% or 30 out of 40) to assess how public procurement processes contribute to achieving strategic policy goals. Examples of such KPIs can include the share of sustainable goods and services, the share of procurement awarded to SMEs (in number and volume), or the share of procurement involving innovation features. In addition, and consistent with the findings reported in the section above, in more advanced systems, KPIs can capture the impacts of strategic procurement, such as the reduction in CO2 emissions or energy consumption.
Fewer Respondents use KPIs related to compliance (35% or 14 out of 40) for assessing whether procurement processes and outcomes are in line with the national or any other applicable legislation, including integrity and competition laws (e.g. use of appropriate procedures, transparency requirements, integrity breaches, etc.) (Figure 5.5).
Note: Data are shown for 40 Respondents.
Source: (OECD, 2025[2]), Implementing the OECD Recommendation on Public Procurement in OECD and Partner Countries: 2020-2024 Report, https://doi.org/10.1787/02a46a58-en.
There are some critical elements to consider when developing and establishing measurement frameworks: (OECD, 2023[8]).
Governance: The governance of a measurement framework entails i) setting consistent policy goals, objectives and targets; ii) assigning the responsibility for the development and implementation of the procurement measurement framework (leadership); iii) reinforcing the capacity of the procurement workforce; iv) communicating on the results of the measurement framework; v) defining a clear implementation plan; and vi) ensuring the availability of useable quality data.
Users: The framework should consider various institutional actors as potential users, each with different perspectives and potentially different focus points when measuring performance. Examples may include the following: city procurement authorities, oversight bodies, and central purchasing units.
Categories of indicators: Efficiency, compliance, and achievement of strategic policy objectives.
Procurement cycle: Performance indicators should be related to different stages of the public procurement cycle from tender preparation to the completion of the contract. Indeed, each phase and activity of the procurement cycle is related to an objective to achieve. Therefore, each activity can be associated with specific indicators. Furthermore, different procurement activities are under the responsibility of different officials and/or teams. In addition, establishing a measurement framework that covers the whole procurement cycle can provide a solid input when undertaking risk management assessments. Figure 5.6. Examples of performance indicators provides an example of some performance indicators throughout the procurement cycle that could be used to assess JUC.
Levels of measurement: Individual tender, contracting authority, and national (or, in the case of CABA, city-wide level).
Source: (OECD, 2023[8]), “Public procurement performance: A framework for measuring efficiency, compliance and strategic goals, https://doi.org/10.1787/0dde73f4-en.
To date, the CM has not developed a methodology for evaluating the performance of its procurement system, including the e‑procurement platform JUC. In order to advance the process of building an indicators framework for performance measurement, it is a necessary condition to consolidate the digital transformation process referred to in Chapter 2. In this sense, the CM should advance standardised processes, integrated databases, and interoperable systems for the public procurement function to facilitate the development of a set of reliable indicators for performance evaluation.
Working together with the necessary units, SAGyP could boost JUC’s potential to contribute to the transparency of procurement operations by:
Installing the functionality, which is available in BAC, to query the entire database of procurement processes according to various criteria. That will allow for rapid progress in giving the public access to the data that is already available in the JUC. This is a central objective of the principle of transparency.
Advancing towards the adoption of open data standards such as the OCDS (Open Contracting Data Standard, developed by the Open Contracting Partnership). Accessibility and user-friendliness would allow going far beyond the periodic generation of datasets in open format for publication on the GCABA’s open data site. Ideally, the updated data would be accessible in an open format directly from the JUC website to increase its usefulness for different stakeholders.
Implementing a strategy of focused transparency (transparencia focalizada) to make access to procurement information more user-friendly by facilitating access to key information items (i.e. procurement spending, suppliers, contracts awarded, etc.) and displaying it in graphical easy-to-read formats for non-expert audiences (e.g. dashboards).
Actively involve civil society (NGOs, media, universities, among others) in strengthening data transparency and availability, so that they access information on CM’s procurement and use it to exercise the function of social auditing. Likewise, business chambers and associations could be engaged to, among other things, help providing more visibility to information about procurement opportunities to their members.
As discussed, e‑procurement systems are subject to a wide variety of risks such as cyberattacks and operational failures. SAGyP could lead the initiative to develop a procurement risk management strategy, including risks directly related to JUC’s operation. The strategy should plan to use data from JUC and other CM systems, as well as specific tools such as a risk registry or map that also help to design the necessary measures to mitigate the risks that cannot be accepted. A dedicated function within SAGyP should lead these efforts, leveraging on the experience and capacity of the DGCGyAI.
SAGyP could develop a tailored evaluation framework for JUC’s operations. It could start by piloting a reduced set of KPIs (such as those described in Figure 5.6) to measure some of the most important JUC contributions to compliance, efficiency, and the achievement of strategic objectives throughout the procurement cycle, for example, average number of bidders in processes managed in JUC vis-à-vis other processes; share of procedures published and successfully awarded in JUC, and share of contracts awarded to SMEs in JUC vis-à-vis those awarded outside of JUC.
It will be important that all these recommendations are addressed with the participation of the CM’s Statistics Office and that its data analysis capabilities are leveraged and strengthened. Such capabilities will be necessary to make the best possible use of the increasing volume of data that will be available for addressing the aforementioned recommendations.
References
[3] Inter-American Network of Government Procurement (n.d.), iNN-Site: A web tool for exchange for innovation in public procurement, Sistema transaccional de compras públicas “Tianguis Digital, https://inn-site.ricg.org/index.php/articulos-buenas-practicas/sistema-transaccional-de-compras-publicas-tianguis-digitalhttps://inn-site.ricg.org/index.php/articulos-buenas-practicas/sistema-transaccional-de-compras-publicas-tianguis-digital.
[2] OECD (2025), Implementing the OECD Recommendation on Public Procurement in OECD and Partner Countries: 2020-2024 Report, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/02a46a58-en.
[1] OECD (2025), Implementing the OECD Recommendation on Public Procurement in OECD and Partner Countries: 2020-2024 Report, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/02a46a58-en.
[6] OECD (2023), “Managing risks in the public procurement of goods, services and infrastructure”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 33, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/45667d2f-en.
[5] OECD (2023), “Managing risks in the public procurement of goods, services and infrastructure”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 33, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/45667d2f-en.
[8] OECD (2023), “Public procurement performance: A framework for measuring efficiency, compliance and strategic goals”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 36, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0dde73f4-en.
[7] OECD (2023), “Public procurement performance: A framework for measuring efficiency, compliance and strategic goals”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 36, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0dde73f4-en.
[4] OECD (2015), Recommendation of the Council on Public Procurement, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0411.