El riesgo inherente al proveedor como criterio preventivo en la contratación pública
The risk management of non-compliance attributable to the suppliers in Colombia’s public procurement is limited to the guarantees’ requirements, pressures associated with contractual measures, or the Public Administration’s exceptional clauses. In this regard, the Colombian State lacks a methodology...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | Spanish |
| Published: |
2016
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=5805148 |
| Source: | Revista Derecho del Estado, ISSN 0122-9893, Nº. 37, 2016, pags. 95-125 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags: Be the first to tag this record
|
| Summary: |
The risk management of non-compliance attributable to the suppliers in
Colombia’s public procurement is limited to the guarantees’ requirements,
pressures associated with contractual measures, or the Public Administration’s
exceptional clauses. In this regard, the Colombian State lacks a methodology
to monitor the performance of contractors and the risk they accumulate over
time, as well as the risk that they are supervening due to technical, financial or
market conditions; hence there is no record of parameterised data to classify
contractors according to their performance, quality and tendency to breach
the contract. Given the above, the State does not have prior measures of risk
mitigation to counteract the harmful effects arising from a recognised ‘bad
provider’ or a contractor with medium or high risk potential to breach the
contract. By contrast, the guarantees and requirements demanded during the
selection process apply equally to all applicants without any differentiation
for those with a history of non-compliance, fines or penalties, among other
risk specifications. This paper raises the need to assimilate the concept of
inherent risk in the supplier as an objective and standardised criterion, from
a preventative rather than corrective perspective, in such a way that the State
can improve the effectiveness of their public contracts and reduce the negative
outcomes resulting from failed contracting. |
|---|