This chapter discusses the functionalities of the e‑procurement system JUC (Justicia Compra) and the extent to which it addresses the different stages of the public procurement cycle. It analyses JUC’s integration with other digital systems in the Judicial Council, such as those managing budgets and administrative procedures, and how such integration could support JUC to enable a complete view of the public procurement cycle and facilitate communication with the supplier community. Finally, the chapter examines how e‑procurement can be leveraged by the Judicial Council to advance strategic policy objectives relative to environmental and social sustainability, which have been defined as a priority.
E‑Procurement Review of the Judicial Council of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires
Supporting the Judicial Function and Service Delivery
Abstract
The use of e‑procurement systems is widespread across OECD countries, but their functionalities and scope can vary. As the OECD research shows, the use of most e‑procurement functionalities has increased, at least, since 2018. This is particularly true for the post-tendering stage, for example, in the form of online catalogues, electronic submission of invoices, and contract administration. Moreover, the publication of supplier registries has become a more popular function of e‑procurement systems. Other more basic functions are leveraged by all OECD countries such as announcing tenders, disseminating procurement documents, and notifying contract awards. In contrast, other functions have remained steady such as the publication of procurement plans (see Figure 4.1). (OECD, 2025[1]).
Note: Data for 2018 and 2024 is shown for 31 Respondents which answered both editions of the OECD Survey on Public Procurement.
Source: (OECD, 2025[1]), Implementing the OECD Recommendation on Public Procurement in OECD and Partner Countries: 2020-2024 Report, https://doi.org/10.1787/02a46a58-en.
Although still an aspiration in most OECD countries, the ultimate goal is to adopt an end-to‑end approach, which implies incorporating the full public procurement cycle in the transactional capacities of e‑procurement systems. This entails several benefits: (OECD, 2025[2]).
Enhanced efficiency: Integrating various functions such as tendering, contracting, and payment into one digital platform and/or ensuring their interoperability to reduce administrative burdens, eliminate redundant tasks, and minimise procurement processing times.
Transparency and accountability: End-to‑end approaches allow tracking procurement activities from start to end and building linkages between procurement and the broader outcomes of public spending.
Access to procurement opportunities: Enhancing the user experience for bidders facilitates participation, increasing competition, promoting access to public contracts, and allowing the realisation of value‑for-money.
Monitoring and evaluation: Integrated approaches allow data from various procurement stakeholders to be transferred easily to support a comprehensive performance monitoring and measurement system.
Risk management: By integrating risk assessment tools with contract management systems, potential risks such as suppliers’ poor compliance or financial instability can be monitored closely allowing early identification to take preventive measures and mitigate potential disruptions.
Implementing a full-cycle approach helps managing the public procurement process as a seamless and integrated system rather than as a series of siloed stages. This practice advances efficiency and alignment across all phases of the public procurement cycle from needs assessment and planning to drafting and publishing tender documents, bid submission, contract administration, and payment. This perspective allows e‑procurement to go beyond process improvements to drive innovation and create new added value for different stakeholders, including, for example, contracting authorities, bidders, watchdogs, CSOs, competition authorities, and control and audit bodies, among others.
Source: (OECD, 2025[2]), “Digital transformation of public procurement: Good practice report”, https://doi.org/10.1787/79651651-en.
The experience of OECD countries indicates that some of the most common challenges to achieve this end-to‑end functionality of e‑procurement systems include:
Lack of strategic vision, unclear governance arrangements, and institutional and operational silos.
A limited understanding of users’ needs.
Resistance to change.
Technical and/or legal limitations to data sharing.
In the case of the CM, the JUC System has a series of functionalities that quite fully cover the tendering phase. This is not the case for the pre‑tendering and the post-tendering phases, as can be observed in Figure 4.1.
Other functionalities are covered by the budget and financial management system (Pilagá) or by the electronic administrative procedures management system (SISTAE). For example, requirements from technical areas to the DGCC are submitted via SISTAE. Although JUC is interoperable with other systems, integration with Pilagá and SISTAE is currently in the planning stage. In particular, SISTAE is undergoing a redesign as an integrated administrative file management system, which will allow progress in its connection with JUC and Pilagá. The integration plan among Pilagá, JUC, and SISTAE is under development and only when this integration is operational will it be possible to have information on the complete cycle of procurement processes.
Source: Information provided by the CM.
Public tenders, direct contracts, and minor contracts are processed in JUC. Purchases are also made through framework agreements, but these are not carried out by the CM; instead, through an agreement with the government of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, it acts as a purchasing entity in the framework agreements carried out by the General Directorate for Procurement (Dirección General de Compras, DGC) of the GCABA.
To register the bidders who participate in the contracting processes of the JUC, the CM uses the Permanent and Unified Computerised Registry of Suppliers (RIUPP) of the BAC. This decision makes sense, given that the RIUPP is a registry that has been in use for many years, has 11 000 registered companies, 65% of which are small or medium-sized, and records all the certifications and seals (quality, environmental, and social, among others) that these companies obtained. The fact that most CM suppliers are also suppliers to the GCABA is yet another reason to use the RIUPP.
The problem is that RIUPP is not integrated with JUC; rather, the RIUPP database is manually replicated in the JUC every 10 days, which creates a high risk of data inconsistency between the different systems. Currently, the DGIT is developing an application to make this update automatic, but there is no deadline for its implementation yet.
In light of the previous findings, SAGyP should aim to gradually extend the JUC transactional functionalities mainly to the pre‑tendering and post-tendering stages, including functions such as publishing annual procurement plans, verifying budget availability, completing contract modifications, and compiling progress reports about contract execution. These new functionalities would allow JUC to become a more comprehensive end-to‑end solution and advance transparency and efficiency in the CM procurement activities.
The integration of e‑procurement systems with other digital government platforms goes together with an end-to‑end approach. It is one of the principles of the OECD Recommendation on Public Procurement to leverage efficiency through more integrated public procurement systems. (see Box 4.1).
The Recommendation calls Adherents to support integration of public procurement into overall public finance management, budgeting and services delivery processes. To this end, Adherents should:
1. Rationalise public procurement spending by combining procurement processes with public finance management to develop a better understanding of the spending dedicated to public procurement, including the administrative costs involved. This information can be used to improve procurement management, reduce duplication, and deliver goods and services more efficiently. Budget commitments should be issued in a manner that discourages fragmentation and is conducive to the use of efficient procurement techniques.
2. Encourage multi-year budgeting and financing to optimise the design and planning of the public procurement cycle. Flexibility, through multi-year financing options – when justified and with proper oversight – should be provided to prevent purchasing decisions that do not properly allocate risks or achieve efficiency due to strict budget regulation and inefficient allocation.
3. Harmonise public procurement principles across the spectrum of public services delivery, as appropriate, including for public works, public-private partnerships and concessions. When delivering services under a wide array of arrangements with private‑sector partners, Adherents should ensure as much consistency as possible among the frameworks and institutions that govern public services delivery to foster efficiency for the government and predictability for private‑sector partners.
Note: The OECD Recommendation on Public Procurement 2015 is currently under review.
Source: (OECD, 2015[3]), Recommendation of the Council on Public Procurement, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0411.
There are two categories of integration: horizontal and vertical integration (see Figure 4.3). Vertical integration consists of the integration of the central e‑procurement system with the internal digital procurement and management tools of contracting authorities. Horizontal integration involves integrating the e‑procurement system with other governmental systems such as the tax system, the budgeting system, or the social security system.
Source: (OECD, 2024[4]), The Digital Transformation of Public Procurement in Ireland: A Report on the Current State, https://doi.org/10.1787/87912457-en.
The OECD Public Procurement Survey found that opportunities remain for further integration across different digital systems and services. Even though 68% of Respondents (27 out of 40 countries) integrate their digital procurement platforms with other digital government systems to facilitate exchange of information in real time, integration with specific systems is limited. For example, only 8% of Respondents have their e‑procurement platforms integrated with asset registries and beneficial ownership databases, 13% with enterprise resource planning, 23% with social security databases, 23% with e‑invoicing systems, 20% with budgeting systems, and 35% with tax registries. (OECD, 2025[1]) These numbers illustrate that integration can be technically complex, requiring sustained efforts to build the capacities and infrastructure to achieve it.
Note: Data are shown for 40 Respondents.
Source: (OECD, 2025[5]), Implementing the OECD Recommendation on Public Procurement in OECD and Partner Countries: 2020-2024 Report, https://doi.org/10.1787/02a46a58-en.
For years, one of the best practices in terms of integration has been Korea’s e‑procurement system KONEPS, which despite being on the cutting edge, continues evolving and improving (see Box 4.2).
Korea’s ON-line E‑Procurement System (KONEPS) is the Korean Public Procurement Service’s (PPS) online platform for the management of public procurement, including bidding, contract signing, and payment.
KONEPS is linked with 227 external platforms to share and retrieve information, allowing for maximum efficiency and the improved use of data. Its deployment has allowed the elimination of the submission of paper documents such as business registration certificates and tax payment certificates, which are now consulted directly from government databases. It also includes Korea’s Bid Rigging Indicator Analysis System (BRIAS), which analyses data including bidding price, the number of participants, and the competition method, and applies a formula to estimate a potential bid rigging score. If the score is above a threshold, it requires the collection of more information on the procurement process.
The Next-generation KONEPS Project, launched in July 2021, aims to unify four additional data systems and integrate 25 additional procurement platforms to KONEPS. Notably, the integration of procurement data with tax records and other government databases simplifies procurement processes for both procurement authorities and bidders. In fact, it allows contracting authorities to receive product recommendations based on their needs and purchase history and receive data to support planning activities.
Source: : (OECD, 2025[1]), Implementing the OECD Recommendation on Public Procurement in OECD and Partner Countries: 2020-2024 Report, https://doi.org/10.1787/02a46a58-en.
The CM’s mission involves integrating the CABA Judicial Branch as the permanent body for the selection of judges and for administration. In this capacity, administration is not simply an “auxiliary” function of a substantive mission but rather forms part of the institution’s fundamental mission. As discussed before, its function consists of ensuring the independence of the Judicial Branch, guaranteeing the efficient provision of the service of administering justice, promoting the optimal level of its members, and achieving the satisfaction of societal demands regarding the State’s jurisdictional function.
In the case of the procurement system, as discussed in the previous chapters, it operates in a centralised manner. However, when the national jurisdictions are transferred to the CABA, it is possible that it will be necessary to decentralise the system or strengthen the central purchasing unit. Should this occur, it will be essential to move forward while maintaining vertical integration.
Regarding horizontal integration, the first task, which has already been mentioned in Chapter 2, is the interoperability of the JUC with the SISTAE and Pilagá systems. Subsequently, integration with other systems could be pursued, including those internal to the CM, those belonging to different areas of the GCABA, and eventually, those of the national government and the private sector. This would not only improve procurement planning but also allow collecting the necessary information to evaluate the contribution of procurement to achieving the CM’s central objectives, such as guaranteeing the effective delivery of the justice administration service, promoting the optimal service level to its users, and achieving the satisfaction of social demands regarding the State’s jurisdictional function.
Public procurement is increasingly considered a strategic activity that can support governments achieve public interest goals relative to, for example, environmental sustainability, innovation, social inclusion, responsible business conduct, and SME development, among others. Balancing such strategic objectives vis-à-vis the primary objective of public procurement is one of the principles in the OECD Recommendation on Public Procurement (see Box 4.3).
In fact, the concept of “Value for money” is fundamentally linked to strategic policy objectives. It is useful to steer public procurement activities and decisions to favour the most advantageous combination of cost, quality and, sustainability to meet defined requirements. The economic argument (cost and quality) has been a privileged government consideration given budget pressures and citizen demands for accountability. Nonetheless, during the last decades, value in public procurement is increasingly linked to sustainability, including objectives beyond cost and quality like social and green objectives. This evolution aims to ensure that goods and services do not unduly harm societies and the environment. Indeed, value for money is also increasingly linked to social considerations such as respect for human rights, labour rights (i.e. non-discrimination and gender mainstreaming), and promoting economic opportunities for long-term unemployed people, minorities and people with disabilities. (OECD, 2020[6]).
The Recommendation calls Adherents to recognise that any use of the public procurement system to pursue secondary policy objectives should be balanced against the primary procurement objective. To this end, Adherents should:
1. Evaluate the use of public procurement as one method of pursuing secondary policy objectives in accordance with clear national priorities, balancing the potential benefits against the need to achieve value for money. Both the capacity of the procurement workforce to support secondary policy objectives and the burden associated with monitoring progress in promoting such objectives should be considered.
2. Develop an appropriate strategy for the integration of secondary policy objectives in public procurement systems. For secondary policy objectives that will be supported by public procurement, appropriate planning, baseline analysis, risk assessment and target outcomes should be established as the basis for the development of action plans or guidelines for implementation.
3. Employ appropriate impact assessment methodology to measure the effectiveness of procurement in achieving secondary policy objectives. The results of any use of the public procurement system to support secondary policy objectives should be measured according to appropriate milestones to provide policymakers with necessary information regarding the benefits and costs of such use. Effectiveness should be measured both at the level of individual procurements, and against policy objective target outcomes. Additionally, the aggregate effect of pursuing secondary policy objectives on the public procurement system should be periodically assessed to address potential objective overload.
Note: The OECD Recommendation on Public Procurement 2015 is currently under review.
Source: (OECD, 2015[3]), Recommendation of the Council on Public Procurement, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0411.
E‑procurement can support the Balance principle in different ways. First, e‑procurement portals can help selecting and communicating strategic criteria to the supplier community as the basis for the award of contracts (see Box 4.4on the case of Ireland). Second, particularly when supplier registries are hosted in e‑procurement platforms, they can support the collection of information on market capacities to support strategic objectives (for example, to what extent the supplier community can comply with environmental or gender-balance criteria). Third, particularly when e‑procurement platforms can systematically manage data to support decision making, they can provide intelligence to assess to what extent public procurement is indeed the best policy tool to achieve the determined strategic objectives (as the OECD Recommendation suggests). Likewise, e‑procurement platforms can be used to communicate the priorities of governments for the market so that bidders have a better understanding of expectations.
E‑procurement platforms can also help managing the heightened complexity that strategic public procurement may entail. This is indeed a trend amongst OECD countries. The OECD Survey on Public Procurement 2024 found that all of the 40 surveyed countries integrate at least one policy objective into procurement documents, with the most common being environmental objectives (100%), innovation (95%) and support for SME (90%). Social objectives are less frequently considered. (OECD, 2025[1]).
Twenty-two Respondents (55%) reported using requirements to incorporate strategic policy objectives in award criteria. Despite the increasing uptake, 20% of Respondents do not evaluate the impact of public procurement on the achievement of strategic objectives. The countries that do evaluate assess the number or share of procedures integrating such objectives (63%) and aggregate results by policy objective (33%) (see Figure 4.5).
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, https://doi.org/10.1787/02a46a58-en.
Law No 2095 (Law on Procurement and Contracting of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires) in Article 7 establishes sustainability as one of the guiding principles for public procurement activities. It establishes that sustainability will gradually and progressively entail the implementation of environmental, ethical, social, and economic criteria in public procurement decisions. Then, in June 2023, Law No 6 647 amended several articles of Law No 2095 to be more explicit, for example:
Instead of mandating the “gradual and progressive” implementation of the sustainability principle, it calls for its “adequate and effective” implementation.
It mandates the incorporation of policies to incorporate inclusion criteria for women, people with disabilities, the elderly, and companies that have obtained labels certifying social criteria.
It sets a 5% margin in the price offered in favour of the bid complying with the sustainability principle. The same margin applies for SMEs and co‑operatives.
It establishes the power of the contracting authority to verify compliance with the sustainability principle.
Two factors call the CM to leverage e‑procurement to advance the implementation of the sustainability principle. First, the fact that the mandate to apply it is quite recent and, therefore, clearly communicating it as a CM priority to the supplier community becomes of the highest relevance. Indeed, applying the principle without hindering competition may require adaptation by the supplier community, so graduality may very well be a good idea and JUC could be one of the main means to raise awareness among suppliers. Second, the normative framework establishes the possibility to pursue a wide variety of environmental, social, and economic objectives through public procurement, which may lead to overloading procurement processes or confusion by procurement officials, if the potential impact of public procurement in achieving such objectives is not properly assessed. Hence, it would be important to clearly define which objectives could be pursued and when. Then, JUC could facilitate the assessment of such potential impacts and define which strategic objective(s) to incorporate as award criteria in each tender process and to collect the corresponding justifications to use them. As the OECD Recommendation on Public Procurement clearly states, public procurement may not always be the best tool to achieve such objectives.
Green public procurement (GPP) is increasingly used by OECD countries to achieve environmental policy objectives.
Ireland’s Environmental Protection Agency published updated GPP Criteria for ten sectors along with Green Public Procurement Guidance for the Public Sector in 2021. The criteria can be copied by contracting authorities directly into tender documents, with minor adjustment where necessary. Technical specifications, selection criteria, award criteria, and contract performance clauses are included, as appropriate for a particular category. Methods of verification are provided for each criterion.
In 2022, the Open Government Partnership (OGP), the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications developed the Green Public Procurement Criteria Tool, which allows users to find, select and download the GPP criteria relevant to their specific procurement. Users can search criteria by keyword or by sector (e.g. food and catering services, textile products and services). The online search tool facilitates the use of GPP criteria to advance sustainability goals in a user-friendly and efficient way.
Source: (OECD, 2024[4]), The Digital Transformation of Public Procurement in Ireland: A Report on the Current State, https://doi.org/10.1787/87912457-en.
As mentioned before, the CM’s mission involves integrating the CABA Judicial Branch as the permanent body for the selection of judges and for administration. In this capacity, administration is not an “auxiliary” function of a substantive mission but rather forms part of the institution’s fundamental mission. In this sense, it is clear that efficient management of the JUC and permanent innovation, as well as its connection with the rest of the administrative and management systems directly contribute to the effective and efficient administration of the CABA Judiciary. But, in addition, the integration of the JUC with the rest of the CM’s systems (especially the EJE system, but also those used to manage claims, mediations, access to justice, training for the population, and citizen opinions on the justice service provided, among others) will make possible to have the necessary data to evaluate the contribution of procurement to the achievement of the core institutional objectives and those complementary policy objectives defined as a priority for the CM’s procurement function such as advancing social inclusion and promoting SME.
Following trends in OECD countries, SAGyP could aim to gradually extend the JUC transactional functionalities to the pre‑tendering and post-tendering stages, including functions such as publishing annual procurement plans, verifying budget availability, completing contract modifications, and compiling progress reports about contract execution. These new functionalities would allow JUC to become a comprehensive end-to‑end solution and advance transparency and efficiency in the CM procurement activities.
The experience of OECD countries suggests that the integration of e‑procurement systems with other digital government platforms leads to benefits for contracting authorities and suppliers. Consequently, the CM could complete the integration process of JUC with the SISTAE and Pilagá systems. This integration will enable a complete view of the procurement process cycle, from the identification of needs to contract closure and supplier evaluation. This will also facilitate communication with suppliers, from the beginning to the end of the process, through the system, which would also be a control for the integrity and transparency of such communication.
SAGyP could lead the integration of the JUC with other CM systems. This would not only improve procurement planning but also allow collecting the necessary information to evaluate the contribution of procurement to achieving the CM’s central objectives, such as guaranteeing the effective delivery of the justice administration service, promoting the optimal level to its users, and achieving the satisfaction of social demands regarding the State’s jurisdictional function.
DGIT should conclude the integration of the RIUPP with the JUC, which will eliminate the risk of data inconsistency between the different systems. Following this integration, the CM could propose the GCABA to move forward with efforts before other public agencies, both within CABA, for example, the Government Agency for Public Revenues (Agencia Gubernamental de Ingresos Públicos, AGIP), and at the national level, for example the National State Revenue and Customs Control Agency (Agencia de Recaudación y Control Aduanero, ARCA) and the National Social Security Administration (Agencia Nacional de la Seguridad Social, ANSES). Co‑ordination with the GCABA for the development of new applications for the RIUPP should also be strengthened.
The CM could leverage JUC to manage the implementation of the sustainability principle, for example, to communicate it as a priority to the supplier community and allow adaptation, as well as to facilitate the analysis of the potential impact of public procurement in achieving strategic objectives, define the strategic criteria to apply in each tender process and collect the corresponding justifications.
References
[2] OECD (2025), “Digital transformation of public procurement: Good practice report”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 77, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/79651651-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.
[5] 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.
[4] OECD (2024), The Digital Transformation of Public Procurement in Ireland: A Report on the Current State, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/87912457-en.
[6] OECD (2020), Integrating Responsible Business Conduct in Public Procurement, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/02682b01-en.
[3] OECD (2015), Recommendation of the Council on Public Procurement, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0411.