This chapter examines the distribution of institutional powers in the Judicial Council determining the governance of e‑procurement. It analyses the role of key stakeholders for the digital transformation of the procurement function of the Judicial Council and the synergies with other functions such as those relative to open and digital government, as well as oversight, control, and audit. It also reviews the potential role of external stakeholders to facilitate the continuous improvement of the e‑procurement system JUC (Justicia Compra). Likewise, the chapter discusses JUC’s business model and the extent to which building capacities can support e‑procurement. It provides insights on specific tools that could be useful for the purpose of building e‑procurement skills, for example, competency frameworks and certification schemes.
E‑Procurement Review of the Judicial Council of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires
Abstract
The digital transformation of public procurement is a priority in many OECD Member and partner countries as it has the potential to contribute to an enhanced governance of the system. By streamlining processes for contracting authorities and suppliers, it can make transactions more efficient and effective. It can also increase agility, allowing for quick adaptation to evolving needs and supporting innovation. Furthermore, the collection and use of data facilitated by e‑procurement platforms enable more precise evaluation and measurement of outcomes, particularly with regards to economic, environmental, and social objectives. Data generated by procurement systems can be used by a wide spectrum of stakeholders in policymaking and increase transparency, trust, and accountability. On top of that, the shift towards digital systems can promote user-friendliness and openness, putting people and businesses at the centre of public services, foster greater participation from small and medium-sized firms (SMEs), and advance competition. However, digital transformation in public procurement should not be pursued as an end in itself but as a strategic initiative that builds on and maximises existing systems and contributes to broader policies such as digital government, open data, and public integrity. (OECD, 2024[1]).
As discussed in Chapter 1, Law No 2095 establishes the principle of electronic management as a pillar of public procurement in the City of Buenos Aires by dictating that procurement and contracting should be executed via electronic means. Building on such mandate, Resolution CM No 276/2020 of CABA’s Judicial Council mandates the implementation of an e‑procurement system in the Judicial Branch of the city government. Article 3 of the mentioned Resolution delegates in the SAGyP the power to lead the process by, among other things, issuing complementary rules and operation manuals to implement the e‑procurement system. Likewise, SAGyP leads the strategy to adopt artificial intelligence tools in public procurement processes.
In light of this, the governance of the e‑procurement system of the Judicial Council of the City of Buenos Aires (JUC, Justicia Compra, available at http://juc.jusbaires.gob.ar/) is based on a distribution of powers mainly within SAGyP but also including other areas of the Judicial Council. The JUC is operated mainly from SAGyP’s General Directorate of Procurement and Contracting (Dirección General de Compras y Contrataciones, DGCC) and the Unit for Bid Assessment (under the General Directorate for Administration).
Key stakeholders for digital transformation include the requiring units (i.e. the users) which request the public procurement of goods and services to the DGCC, the economic operators who supply goods and services, and public procurement policymakers. Furthermore, stakeholders include other institutions and actors involved in digital government, public sector transformation, and oversight and control. This diversity of stakeholders can create challenges in designing and implementing tools and systems that meet the needs of all participants.
Current initiatives on digital government in the Judicial Council open possibilities to advance the digital transformation of public procurement to leverage policies intended to increase capacities to adopt and use digital tools and data. In 2021, Resolution No 31/2021 established the Digital Transformation Project of the Judicial Council, led by the Secretariat for Innovation to optimise the use of digital tools for the management of the Judicial Council. This initiative makes SAGyP’s General Directorate of Information Technology (Dirección General de Informática y Tecnología, DGIT) a critical area for co‑ordination. DGIT is responsible for suggesting projects to adopt innovative technologies to improve the quality of judicial services and administrative processes of the Judicial Council. This is achieved by adopting and maintaining IT systems that allow access and processing of precise, permanent, and updated information for users and agents of the judicial system. For example, DGIT leads the digitalisation process of the different areas of the Judicial Council, including the judicial e‑filing system and the adoption of e‑signature (cloud signature). It also supports the digital infrastructure of the e‑tools adopted in the Judicial Council. Moreover, it dictates standards for data protection and integrity. Indeed, aligning the digital transformation of public procurement with wider digital agendas is key to achieve consistency and sustainability beyond government terms The case of Ireland (see Box 3.1) illustrates how to align the digital transformation of public procurement with wider digital agendas. Even when the case refers to a national government, it suggests that consistency and a whole‑of-government approach to digital government can support the digital transformation of public procurement.
Specific initiatives on digital government in Ireland opened opportunities for the digital transformation of public procurement to leverage policies and actions intended to increase the capacity of public sector institutions to adopt and use digital tools and data. Strategies such as Harnessing Digital: The Digital Ireland Framework, Connecting Government 2030: A Digital and ICT Strategy for Ireland’s Public Service and Better Public Services established a robust vision for the digital transformation of government. While public procurement was not the main focus, there were opportunities for the digital transformation of public procurement to draw on.
Harnessing Digital, Ireland’s national digital strategy, was released in 2022. It is organised in four dimensions: Digital Transformation of Business; Digital Infrastructure; Skills; and Digitalisation of Public Services. Under the Digitalisation of Public Services dimension, the strategy commits to achieving a more user-centric service model, including leveraging and building on digital service provision. It also recognises the role of strong data governance and of harnessing publicly held data to increase transparency and improve public services.
Ireland’s public service digital and ICT strategy, Connecting Government 2030, was also published in 2022. It intends to change how people, businesses, and policymakers interact, ensuring interoperability across levels of government and public services. The strategy defined six priority action areas with direct implications for the digital transformation of public procurement.
On its side, Better Public Services, Ireland’s public service transformation strategy set the direction for strategic reform in the Irish Public Service. The strategy is focussed on six outcomes: greater use of digital, increased customer satisfaction, increased public trust, greater employee engagement, improved quality of public services, and better government effectiveness.
Source: (OECD, 2024[2]), The Digital Transformation of Public Procurement in Ireland: A Report on the Current State, https://doi.org/10.1787/87912457-en.
The General Directorate for Open Data is yet another area that collaborates with SAGyP to facilitate the adoption of open data standards in JUC. However, this project is currently under development as several operative details are still being defined.
For the purposes of integrity and control, the Judicial Council’s General Directorate for Management Control and Internal Audit (Dirección General de Control de Gestión y Auditoría Interna, DGCGyAI) performs the ex-post control function over procurement and contracting processes by relying on e‑files contained in the corresponding platform (SISTAE) and on data provided in JUC. The DGCGyAI estimates that, on average, the audited sample of procurement processes reaches 20‑25% of the total.
Figure 3.1 below illustrates the synergies between e‑procurement and other strategic agendas of the Judicial Council as part of its digital transformation.
Source: Produced by the OECD.
With regards to public procurement, the adoption of emerging technologies is centralised in SAGyP, specifically in its units that participate carrying out processes and making IT tools available for their implementation, namely DGCC and DGIT.
In discussions during the fact-finding mission, the OECD realised that co‑ordination and communication between the different digital agendas are strong enough to build bridges, in general, but they are based on rather ad hoc methods, which suggests that they could be strengthened through more formal means, for example, networks, communities of practice, working groups, project review mechanisms, etc. Even though the DGIT receives information about the different technological projects of various areas, such information does not always reach all units and, in fact, the DGIT itself claims to have found duplicities, for example, in the field of public attorneys. As a case to consider, there is a Procurement Network in the Executive Branch, which brings together big buyers and procurement units to exchange solutions and good practices. In Chile, coherence between digital projects and procurement operations is facilitated through an ex-ante review mechanism called EvalTIC (see Box 3.2).
EvalTIC is a system designed and implemented by the Budget Directorate (DIPRES) in response to the lack of standardisation detected in the requests received from public sector agencies. It allows institutional CIOs, procurement officials and other strategic decision makers to register and justify their technology needs and projects through an online platform.
This tool has improved the evaluation and planning capabilities of agencies and moved them to adopt practices to ensure that their needs meet EvalTIC standards and are fit for initial approval, which eventually allows for a more optimal route to get the required budget.
Since 2002, EvalTIC is backed by the yearly Budget Law and allows for the analysis of technology procurement projects with the objective of providing information to DIPRES to define budgets for each agency. The system is also considering providing feedback to each agency and evaluator.
EvalTIC has been in operation since 2018 and has evolved through joint work between DIPRES, the Ministry of Finance and the Digital Government Division, which elaborated a complementary process to the usual budget formulation for the design and evaluation of technology projects, ending with a technical recommendation to those responsible for budget clearance, regarding approval or rejection.
Based on an initial inventory of its technological assets through EvalTIC, each public agency must register its projects annually, considering a set of general principles that make it possible to standardise project elements and facilitate analysis, advancing coherence between the digital and procurement agendas.
Source: (OECD, 2024[3]) Good Practices for Procuring Computers and Laptops in Latin America: Fostering Neutrality and Market Engagement, https://doi.org/10.1787/cdf11f4d-en.
Another important set of stakeholders in the governance structure of JUC areare the users who prepare their purchasing requests and requirements via e‑files. This is the starting point of any procurement procedure and allows communication between users and the DGCC. The Judicial Council’s Legal Unit (Dirección General de Asuntos Jurídicos, DGAJ) performs ex ante control of the calls for tender through electronic means using SISTAE.
Beyond the Judicial Council, an important stakeholder is the General Directorate of Procurement (Dirección General de Compras, DGC) of the City Government’s Executive Branch, which manages the Buenos Aires Procurement system (Buenos Aires Compra, BAC). The experience with BAC in the Executive Branch laid the groundwork for transferring the electronic procurement system to the Judicial Council in the form of the JUC (and also to the national government in the form of the COMPR.AR electronic procurement system). The Judicial Council avoided, or at least shortened, the learning curve for the JUC’s implementation by building on the progress achieved by BAC. The JUC is an “instance” of the BAC that operates independently in the Judicial Council’s servers, which does not imply a relationship of subordination or dependency of the CM with respect to the DGC for the system’s development, given that it does not require DGC’s authorisation to make modifications or incorporate new developments and, at the same time, can access developments that the DGC implements in BAC.
Regarding engagement with external stakeholders for the purpose of JUC’s continuous improvement, the OECD heard during the fact-finding mission that it has been quite limited and rather informal. For example, suppliers are asked to fill out a satisfaction survey when they are paid. According to SAGyP, 92% of suppliers are satisfied with their experience with JUC. During a meeting with suppliers, they expressed that JUC is user-friendly and has contributed significantly to streamlining processes, but it was also mentioned that there are no formal channels to provide inputs for JUC’s continuous improvement. The same opportunity was highlighted in a meeting with civil society organisations (CSOs). Even though CSOs raised important opportunities for JUC improvement, such as difficulties following procurement processes throughout their full cycle (i.e. from pre‑tendering to post-tendering) and a lack of historical data, they claimed that there has not been a public call to engage them in the e‑procurement plans of the Judicial Council. Countries like Chile, Costa Rica, and Spain have engaged different stakeholders in public procurement though observatories (see Box 3.3). Likewise, during 2018, Mexico deployed a multi-stakeholder strategy to reform its e‑procurement system CompraNet (see Box 3.4).
Public procurement represented more than 25% of general government expenditures in Spain in 2023. The normative framework for public procurement has seen several recent reforms to adapt to European Directives and respond to economic circumstances. In this context, the Observatory of Public Procurement was founded in October 2011. The Observatory is defined as a meeting point for procurement professionals, academics, and other stakeholders to discuss and analyse reforms to the normative framework and recommend measures to modernise public procurement and advance the principles of efficiency, integrity, and good management.
The idea of the Observatory emerged from a research project funded by the Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities during the period 2009-2011, called “New scenarios for public procurement: Urbanism, e-procurement, and cooperation”. It was led by academics from the universities of Zaragoza, Castilla-La Mancha, Alcalá, and Vigo, as well as by the consultancy NTT Data.
Among other topics, the Observatory aims to analyse and provide recommendations on the following:
Advancing transparency, competition, and integrity in public procurement.
Improving efficiency for public buyers and suppliers.
Facilitating SME access to the public market.
Promoting innovation and development through public procurement.
Promoting the participation of Spanish businesses in the public markets of other countries.
Advancing public-private co‑operation to improve public procurement.
Source: (OECD, 2025[4]), Government at a Glance 2025, https://doi.org/10.1787/0efd0bcd-en and website of the Observatory of Public Procurement in Spain, https://obcp.es/.
In 2018, Mexico’s Ministry of Public Administration (Secretaría de la Función Pública, SFP) established a multi-stakeholder group for the reform of the e‑procurement system CompraNet. This group included representatives from the public sector, business, and civil society and worked towards a shared vision statement for e‑procurement in Mexico. The vision statement also aimed at guiding the future development of e‑procurement tools in Mexico, including at the subnational level.
The Plural Working Group had the OECD as technical secretariat and consisted of six subgroups: information disclosure, interaction with suppliers, competition and capacity building, efficiency and effectiveness, management of complaints, and integrity and trust in the tool. Each subgroup was represented by a wide range of stakeholders, including the public sector, civil society, and businesses, and worked on specific key issues and themes (see Table 3.1).
The establishment of the Plural Working Group was critical to develop a shared vision statement for Mexico’s e‑procurement system. In this vision, the Plural Working Group recognised the opportunities provided by digital technology to enable a fully transactional system that supports the full public procurement cycle. The vision statement articulated 12 principles to capture the goals and ambitions of all stakeholders involved in the public procurement process.
Note: In 2025, the name of SFP changed to Ministry for Anti-corruption and Good Governance (Secretaría Anticorrupción y Buen Gobierno).
Source: (OECD, 2018[5]), Mexico’s e‑Procurement System: Redesigning CompraNet through Stakeholder Engagement, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264287426-en.
The OECD Survey on Public Procurement 2024 found that even though stakeholder participation has been promoted in OECD countries, the quality of participatory processes in public procurement can improve, for example, by allowing feedback loops to procurement authorities. (OECD, 2025[6]) Any effort to engage suppliers or CSOs in the improvement of JUC would benefit from good practices such as providing feedback to consultees regarding their inputs (i.e. how were such inputs incorporated in the efforts to improve JUC?), the outcomes of their engagement, and the justification for decisions taken.
In this spirit, SAGyP could establish mechanisms for engaging a wide set of stakeholders (e.g. business associations and CSOs) in the continuous improvement of JUC. The Observatory of Public Procurement in Spain and the Plural Working Group of Mexico provide alternatives. Furthermore, any effort to engage such stakeholders would benefit from a feedback loop to inform them about the status and outcomes from their contributions.
The foundation of user orientation lies in understanding their needs when designing solutions such as an e‑procurement platform, and also throughout implementation, so that user feedback inspires continual improvement. Some of the many ways of collecting feedback include: (Thijs, Mackie and Krievins, 2022[7]).
User surveys usually conducted either face‑to-face or online, as a valuable way of gathering large volumes of data for analysis. They may take the form of satisfaction surveys but can also be employed to bring in new ideas on design and delivery scenarios.
Focus groups based on small selections of existing or potential users, using pre‑determined criteria that can be broadly representative of all users and manageable in size to hold a meaningful discussion. They are usually put together to collect qualitative information to address their needs and assess their experiences.
User panels consist of larger pools of people who can be sampled to participate in user research on a periodic basis, reducing costs and offering continuity.
Comments and complaint procedures based on open channels to facilitate immediate feedback, through “suggestion boxes” in offices, call centres, or websites to file concerns or suggestions
As highlighted in section 3.1, JUC stemmed from the transfer of BAC from the Executive to the Judicial Branch of the City of Buenos Aires. Resolution CM No 6/2021 approved the technical co‑operation agreement for the free cession of the license to use BAC to be implemented in the Judicial Council, including access to the catalogues of goods and services and the suppliers’ registry. The transfer entailed adjusting to some of the particularities of the Judicial Council, as well as eliminating some functionalities that BAC will keep and make available for the Judicial Council (for example, framework agreements and suppliers’ registry are managed from BAC and available for the Judicial Council, these were not replicated in JUC). The process was organised in four stages: New BAC implementation, database, look and feel, and flow adjustments (see Table 3.2).
Source: Information provided by the Judicial Council of the City of Buenos Aires.
As discussed in the previous section, even though JUC’s infrastructure is supported by DGIT, the developments and upgrades in the system may be performed by the General Directorate IT Unit for Financial Management (Dirección General Unidad Informática de Administración Financiera, DGUIAF) of the Executive Branch. In addition to the advantage that the Judicial Council shortened its learning curve for the implementation and use of JUC, relying on the DGUIAF for adjustments in the system allows it to tap into the expertise of such technical unit, avoiding the costs of having such staff in its own organisational matrix. This may also be justified after the fact that procurement volumes and complexity are significantly higher in the Executive Branch than in the Judicial Branch. However, it also means that, if at some point, the CM would like to change the structure or operation of JUC, it might have to operationalise such changes with DGUIAF. In other words, given that it has the necessary technical tools, DGUIAF is the vehicle to operationalise changes requested by the CM for JUC. Hence, it is important to have strong co‑ordination and communication bridges between CM and DGUIAF. At this point, there does not seem to be a case to completely disentangle JUC from BAC, but strong co‑ordination between the two teams is a must to identify opportunity areas and allow for the continuous improvement of JUC. This co‑ordination will be particularly relevant when carrying out the transfer of the ordinary jurisdictions under federal competence to the city. That said, an agreement between the CM and the Executive Branch is under preparation for the CM to be granted the source code of the system. This will allow the cm to operate future changes in JUC directly, without the need to request DGUIAF’s co‑operation.
The use of e‑procurement platforms is free in some cases, but there are different business models in OECD countries (e.g. suppliers’ fees, subsidies from governments, hybrid, etc.). For example, in Costa Rica, contracting institutions that use the Integrated Public Procurement System (SICOP) are charged a fee for each procedure, according to the average number of transactions they carry out (the institution that carries out more transactions pays less for each one, according to a formula). This has the advantage that the collected revenue may be tagged for the maintenance and improvement of the e‑procurement platform. However, it may discourage its use in contexts where e‑procurement is not mandatory.
The use of JUC is free for requiring units, suppliers, and any other user, even when there is a fee to access the calls for tender (pliegos de licitación), which, according to a set of suppliers consulted, is low and does not represent a barrier for participation but may entail an administrative burden. Consequently, it might be beneficial to make access to the calls for tender free.
The use of JUC is mandatory in the CM, with some explicit and limited exceptions. Given that there is already a cost for suppliers to access calls for tender, it would not be advisable to charge for the use of JUC as it may discourage participation and limit competition, hindering the potential to realise value for money. Regarding the possibility to charge a user fee for requiring units of the Judicial Council, given that the categories procured by the institution are very specific, it would not be advisable, unless there is a very particular need to fund a reform of JUC.
Chapter 4 will discuss JUC’s functionalities, but at this point it is enough to say that the operation model engages requiring units and SAGyP, particularly the DGCC and the Unit for Bid Assessment, in the definition of technical specifications and the preparation of tender documents. Once the call for tender is issued, suppliers come in to submit their bids and interact with the contracting authorities.
In addition to a robust governance scheme and modern technologies, the digital transformation of public procurement requires a skilled workforce. Indeed, a professional procurement workforce is recognised as an enabler for a sound public procurement system in the OECD Recommendation on Public Procurement (see Box 3.5). Furthermore, limited digital skills is one of the main challenges for the digital transformation of public procurement across OECD countries. (OECD, 2025[8]).
The team in charge of directly managing JUC consists of 10 to 15 officials at any given time. The Judicial Council has several instances of training for personnel who are part of the wider procurement and contracting teams, both at the Judicial Training Centre and through agreements with universities, such as those signed with Universidad Austral in 2021 and with Universidad Católica Argentina in October 2025. Likewise, procurement staff participate in an annual procurement congress organised by the Judicial Council to discuss national and international good practices. Beyond these training actions, the CM currently does not have a comprehensive professionalisation policy for its procurement staff to strengthen their competences in electronic procurement. This is despite the fact that Buenos Aires is the pioneer among Argentinian subnational Judicial Branches in adopting e‑procurement. Professionalisation is even more necessary as the Judicial Council has recognised the strategic nature of public procurement, for example, leveraging it to develop SMEs.
The experience of OECD countries illustrates that professionalisation strategies can include several dimensions such as developing a competency model, establishing a certification framework, recognising the procurement profession as a stand-alone function within the civil service, reinforcing capability-building systems, and setting up incentive mechanisms to attract and retain skilful public procurement officials.
More than half of Respondents to the OECD Public Procurement Survey 2024 (22 out of 40 countries, or 55%) indicated having a competency model for public procurement officials. Competency models allow procurement officials to identify critical skills and assess the capability levels required for the overall strategic direction of an organisation. They can be used for recruitment, promotion, and training on the skills and competences relevant to the procurement workforce. Most Respondents with a competency model in place (18 out of 22, or 82%) have such a model prepared at the national/central level, while four Respondents (Australia, Austria, Germany, and the Netherlands) reported that a competency model was created by certain entities (e.g. contracting authorities or CPBs). In 2020, only 41% of Respondents reported having a specific competence model for public procurement officials. (OECD, 2025[6]).
The Recommendation suggests Adherents developing a procurement workforce with the capacity to continually deliver value‑for-money efficiently and effectively. To this end, Adherents should:
1. Ensure that procurement officials meet high professional standards for knowledge, practical implementation and integrity by providing a dedicated and regularly updated set of tools, for example, sufficient staff in terms of numbers and skills, recognition of public procurement as a specific profession, certification and regular trainings, integrity standards for public procurement officials and the existence of a unit or team analysing public procurement information and monitoring the performance of the public procurement system.
2. Provide attractive, competitive and merit-based career options for procurement officials, through the provision of clear means of advancement, protection from political interference in the procurement process and the promotion of national and international good practices in career development to enhance the performance of the procurement workforce.
3. Promote collaborative approaches with knowledge centres such as universities, think tanks or policy centres to improve skills and competences of the procurement workforce. The expertise and pedagogical experience of knowledge centres should be enlisted as a valuable means of expanding procurement knowledge and upholding a two‑way channel between theory and practice, capable of boosting application of innovation to public procurement systems.
Note: The OECD Recommendation on Public Procurement 2015 is currently under review.
Source: (OECD, 2015[9]), Recommendation of the Council on Public Procurement, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0411.
The increasing number of OECD countries developing a competency model illustrates the value of this tool. For example, after a co‑operation with the OECD, Chile launched in 2021 a process to implement improvements in its certification of procurement officials. The process ended in a new training programme on several competences, including the use and functionalities of the e‑procurement system Mercado Público, which is part of the basic curriculum (Level 1 out of 3). Likewise, ProcurCompEU, the European competency framework for public procurement professionals includes as part of the 30 competences listed in its competency matrix “e-procurement and other IT tools”, as part of the horizontal technical competences that procurement officials should master (see Box 3.6).
Given the strategic nature recognised for public procurement in the CM, elevating the public procurement profession would be a critical initiative to launch. Several steps could be taken for this purpose. A competency framework could be the first tool to develop to advance a professionalisation strategy for the public procurement workforce of the Judicial Council. It would provide the basis to carry out a gap analysis on a set of competences required for procurement staff and, based on the results, develop a training curriculum that closes those gaps and strengthens those competences in need of reinforcement. For the sake of e‑procurement, it would allow the Judicial Council to assess the corresponding capacities and build them where needed. For example, the OECD worked with Lithuania to use the results of the ProcurCompEU self-assessment survey to identify capacity gaps and define priorities for training. Likewise, OECD applied a self-assessment survey to identify competences in need of support in the fiduciary function of the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) (see Box 3.7).
Description
E‑Procurement and other IT systems and tools support the procurement lifecycle, from the publication of tender opportunities to the final payment. They reduce administrative burden, improve efficiency, and strengthen transparency and accountability of procurement procedures. Key tools include:
Preparatory phase tools, e.g. TED and national procurement platforms, e‑notification, standardised tender documents and templates.
Submission phase tools, e.g. e‑submission, the European Single Procurement Document, e‑Certis.
Tendering phase tools, e.g. e‑catalogues, electronic procurement platforms, dynamic purchasing systems, auction systems, and e‑invoicing.
Other IT tools for data transparency, anti-fraud and anti-corruption, such as business and public contract registers.
The digital transformation of public procurement requires a continuous proactive approach to take advantage of the best available tools. It also requires continuous training.
KNOWLEDGE OF: eProcurement platforms and functionalities used within the organisation, including national and EU procurement systems, as well as other relevant IT systems and tools.
Basic level
Is able to:
Perform basic operations using the available procurement systems and tools, such as uploading data.
Collect and centralise required template documents to prepare tender documentation.
Intermediate level
Is able to:
Use the systems and tools available for supporting procurement procedures and perform the main e‑procurement procedures.
Use template documents, the national e‑procurement platform and public contract registers.
Use relevant procurement systems and tools in order to ensure the transparency of the procurement process.
Use available data from the systems in order to assess the risk of anti-competitive practices by suppliers (such as collusion).
Advanced level
Is able to:
Implement the use of a wide range of procurement systems and tools.
Analyse procurement data for budget monitoring and forecasting upcoming procurements.
Identify inefficiencies in the organisation’s use of systems and tools and make suggestions for improvements.
Ensure that all users have the appropriate access and training and act as a change management agent during implementation of a newly adopted system or tool.
Expert level
Is able to:
Promote procurement systems and tools and encourage a professionalisation culture within the organisation.
Use procurement data to identify procurement trends and to improve the organisation’s procurement procedures.
Contribute to the introduction and development of new procurement systems and tools, or to the improvement of existing ones, as well as advocate at the political level for the uptake of the latest systems and tools available.
Take part in expert working groups aimed at developing and fostering the uptake of the procurement systems and tools nationally and internationally.
Source: (European Commission, 2020[10]), ProcurCompEU – European competency framework for public procurement professionals, https://commission.europa.eu/funding-tenders/tools-public-buyers/professionalisation-public-buyers/procurcompeu-european-competency-framework-public-procurement-professionals_en.
Inter-American Development Bank (IADB)
In 2023, the IADB signed a co‑operation agreement with OECD to review the professionalisation strategy for its fiduciary function (procurement and financial analysis officials). The first step of the project consisted of developing a competency matrix for each stream of the fiduciary function. In an inclusive and highly iterative process that took several months with both procurement and financial analysis officials, the OECD designed a competency matrix for each function including both technical and soft competencies. Based on those matrixes, the second step was to identify capacity gaps by applying self-assessment surveys for each function. The results allowed the identification of the weakest competences and those which IADB officials felt in most need of capacity-building support.
Lithuania
In a project to support the good governance of public procurement in Lithuania and build capacities, the OECD leveraged the ProcurCompEU survey and adapted the standardised survey questionnaire to the Lithuanian context. It was applied to 99 public procurement officials at six CPBs in Lithuania. A webinar to launch the survey was organised by the OECD on 13 April 2022 to explain the purpose and structure of the exercise to the participants. The survey was closed on 18 May 2022.
The OECD shared the key findings from the analysis of the aggregated self-assessment results during workshops with Lithuanian officials. The total average points of the 30 competences analysed was 2.04. The total average points of 19 procurement-specific competences were 2.05, while the one for the 11 soft competences was 2.02. The exercise identified C6 (Innovation Procurement) as the weakest competence of the participants with the lowest average point of 1.14, followed by C17 (Certification and payment), and C30 (Risk management and internal control).
In addition to the self-assessment exercise, all the participants were requested to select three competences that require more methodological assistance. C5 (Sustainable procurement) was selected most as the first priority competence that requires methodological assistance, followed by C6 (Innovation procurement), C15 (Tender evaluation), and C14 (Tender documents). These results were meant to be considered by Lithuania to design tailored trainings for the identified top-priority competences.
Source: (OECD, 2024[11]), Public Procurement in Lithuania: Increasing Efficiency through Centralisation and Professionalisation, https://doi.org/10.1787/aa1b196c-en.
In a later stage, the Judicial Council could also consider certifying the competences of procurement officials, including the skills to manage e‑procurement. Amongst the Respondents to the OECD Public Procurement Survey 2024, 38% stated having a certification framework in place to recognise procurement as a separate professional discipline within the public sector, highlighting that this is not yet as common a practice as having a competency matrix. (OECD, 2025[6]).
Even so, the numbers from the survey indicate a notable increase from 2018, when only 19% of Respondents stated having certification frameworks, suggesting an emerging trend towards establishing frameworks to ensure that procurement officials possess the necessary knowledge and skills to effectively carry out their duties (see Figure 3.2). Moreover, 55% of Respondents (22 out 40) indicated that a certification framework is under development or being considered. In 87% of Respondents with an active certification framework, the certificate can be obtained after passing an exam. Other requirements may include completing mandatory training, relevant professional experience, or an academic degree. Nonetheless, only fourfour Respondents stated that obtaining the certificate is mandatory for carrying out any procurement functions. (OECD, 2025[6]) For example, in Chile, the certification scheme includes a competence on “Mercado Público Platform: Use and functionalities” at its Basic level.
Note: Data for competency model is shown for 31 respondents with data available for both 2018 and 2024 and for certification framework, for 32 respondents.
Source: (OECD, 2025[12]), Implementing the OECD Recommendation on Public Procurement in OECD and Partner Countries: 2020-2024 Report, https://doi.org/10.1787/02a46a58-en.
Finally, in addition to a competency matrix and a certification framework to professionalise the e‑procurement workforce, it would be worth implementing measures to make such positions appealing to attract and retain talent. Indeed, motivating public procurement officials is crucial not only for maintaining high performance and productivity, but also for attracting skilled professionals, yet in most Respondents to the OECD Public Procurement Survey 2024, procurement remains underpaid vis-à- vis other civil service workstreams. Notably, only 15% of Respondents reported offering competitive salaries, which are key to make public procurement an attractive and competitive career choice, given the complexity and the risks faced by the profession. Incentive mechanisms could also play an important role in motivating public officers. Such incentives can take the form of financial awards (e.g. performance‑based bonuses) or non-financial recognitions (e.g. professional development including training courses and certification, performance management systems, award systems, staff benefits such as flexible working conditions or holidays). While incentives to motivate procurement officials are implemented in approximately half of Respondents (21 out of 40, or 53%), they are mostly non-financial. The three most commonly used incentives among Respondents are professional networks (33%), staff benefits (25%), and clear career progression trajectories (20%). (OECD, 2025[6]).
The Judicial Council could set up a working group / intersecretariat committee as a formal co‑ordination mechanism to ensure coherence for the whole‑of-Council digital transformation effort, including between e‑procurement reforms and those pertaining to open government, integrity, and budgeting, among others. The Judicial Council could consider, for example, creating a digital-focused public procurement forum. This could include, for instance, the creation of a digital transformation working or steering group chaired by SAGyP and including representatives from DGIT, DGCGyAI, the General Directorate for Open Data, the Secretariat for Innovation, and other key stakeholders and reporting regularly to the Board of the Judicial Council to ensure high-level buy-in and alignment with broader Council priorities.
SAGyP could establish mechanisms for engaging a wide set of stakeholders (e.g. business associations and CSOs) in the continuous improvement of JUC. The Observatory of Public Procurement in Spain and the Plural Working Group of Mexico provide alternatives. Furthermore, any effort to engage such stakeholders would benefit from a feedback loop to inform them about the status and outcomes from their contributions. Other means to engage stakeholders and collect feedback for continuous improvement could include user surveys, focus groups, user panels, and comments and complaints procedures.
Even though JUC does not charge a fee to its users, access to calls for tender to procure goods and services does have a cost for bidders, which may entail administrative burdens. Since the revenue collected from this practice is not relevant budget wise, the CM could consider making access to calls for tender free and as open as possible via JUC.
SAGyP could launch initiatives to professionalise the staff involved in e‑procurement and build digital skills starting by developing a competency matrix that defines the digital competences required and serves as the basis for a gap analysis. A later stage could include designing a training curriculum to develop the digital skills in need of reinforcement. At a more advanced stage, SAGyP could even consider developing a certification framework based on good practices such as ProcurCompEU and ChileCompra.
SAGyP could develop a system of incentives for e‑procurement staff to make the corresponding positions attractive and retain talent. Even as turnover is low amongst the procurement staff of the Judicial Council, they could be offered non-financial incentives such as training opportunities and awards.
References
[10] European Commission (2020), ProcurCompEU - European comptency framework for public procurement professionals, https://commission.europa.eu/funding-tenders/tools-public-buyers/professionalisation-public-buyers/procurcompeu-european-competency-framework-public-procurement-professionals_en.
[8] 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.
[4] OECD (2025), Government at a Glance 2025, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0efd0bcd-en.
[6] 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.
[12] 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.
[3] OECD (2024), Good Practices for Procuring Computers and Laptops in Latin America: Fostering Neutrality and Market Engagement, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cdf11f4d-en.
[11] OECD (2024), Public Procurement in Lithuania: Increasing Efficiency through Centralisation and Professionalisation, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/aa1b196c-en.
[1] 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.
[2] 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.
[5] OECD (2018), Mexico’s e-Procurement System: Redesigning CompraNet through Stakeholder Engagement, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264287426-en.
[9] OECD (2015), Recommendation of the Council on Public Procurement, OECD Publishing, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0411.
[7] Thijs, N., I. Mackie and M. Krievins (2022), “Service design and delivery in the European Neighbourhood Policy East region: A comparative report on designing and delivering administrative services in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine”, SIGMA Papers, No. 64, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c6debcce-en.