The sixth session of the roundtable had the format of a joint workshop of expert groups. The purpose was to give more space for discussion among stakeholders. The second workshop focused on non-residential, mainly public buildings and was divided into three thematic blocks.

The discussion in Fishbowl format was opened by the President of ZSPS, Mr. Pavol Kováčik. The discussion focused on public procurement (PP) of public building renovation. Here are the main points that emerged from the discussion:

  • Public procurement:
    • Most of the renovation procurement starts to get complicated at the beginning because it takes place in two steps – the procurement for design documentation and the procurement for implementation.
    • The problem is the criteria and forms of procurement because 96% of the procurement is for the lowest price, therefore the problem arises how to procure modern innovative solutions.
    • Another problem is the inadequate staffing and professional capacity of contracting authorities, and often alibiism and unprofessionalism.
    • Considerable bureaucracy and goldplating are common obstacles.
    • Inspiration should be taken from examples of good practice that are often not shared.
    • Legislation-wise, we can take inspiration from and reflect the EU legislation that regulates the public procurement. The changes in Slovak legislation so far have been rather counterproductive.
    • One solution would be to loosen the playing field and give more leeway to contracting authorities and building owners in the procurement process, but at the same time provide quality and understandable methodologies.
    • Innovative forms of financing and financial blending should be used in the procurement and implementation of the renovation of public buildings, for example, as in the renovation of the prison in Sabinov, where a combination of a works contract and a GES was used.
    • The procurement should also include a requirement for the quality of the work to be carried out, thereby increasing the demand for quality work and skilled workers. However, the trend is the opposite and the quality of project documentation and execution is decreasing.
    • The experience from EPC/GES can be applied to public procurement, GES contains a requirement for quality of work by its very nature, as the ESCO company loses profit if the implementation is of poor quality.
    • The focus should be on integrated solutions for quality requirements, not, as at present, on individual solutions such as insulation licences.
    • Only certified contractors should carry out the construction of reserved structures.
  • Sustainability of public buildings and supporting systems for its financing:
    • The Smart Cities Club carried out an analysis of the use of EU funds in cities and municipalities and came to the following conclusions:
      • The same mistakes are repeated over and over again in the drawdown, so there is no need to expect a change in the bureaus if the same people are in charge of this agenda.
      • The implementation of projects is most delayed by the public procurement.
      • IROP projects last on average 31-33 months.
      • Low willingness of cities and municipalities to take the risk for a method other than lowest price selection.
      • The Public Procurement Bureau should establish criteria for different types of public procurement.
      • Need to increase the transparency of public procurement in cities, i.e. more involvement of the council in the preparation of public procurement.
      • Increased use of reverse procurement.
      • The lowest price means low quality of execution and that means a bad name for the whole construction sector.
      • A well-executed public procurement means both good quality work and good absorption of EU funds.
    • Other discussion points:
      • The need to standardise processes – creating a catalogue of criteria for the procurement and renovation of public buildings.
      • Extend use of Energy Performance Certificates, they should be a condition for public procurement.
      • Contractor’s responsibility for the result of the implementation.
      • Need for a change in the mindset of municipalities and towns in the use of EU funds, i.e. change grants to loans. Municipalities are waiting for grants and calls and this prevents them from financing what they really need.
      • The need for consultancy for municipalities/cities because often they do not know what they want and should procure.
    • Renovation financing for public buildings – One stop shop:
      • Establishment of a one-stop-shop (OSS) will require professional capacities, i.e. also a system for their training. Training programmes currently exist, but their promotion and visibility needs to be intensified.
      • It is important to make it an integrated centre of expertise, not just consultancy centres of different ministries and offices focusing only on one area. Not to create a new institution for the creation of OSS, but necessary to link and network existing initiatives and departments.
      • There is already a number of entities in the private sphere providing comprehensive advice, so the government could look at the possibility of funding advice.
      • Clustering of building renovation – economies of scale.
      • OSS should undertake a building passporting process.
      • Be clear in communication.

Related Posts