Marta Andhov [00:00:00]: Welcome to Bestek, the Public Procurement Podcast. Today we’re discussing foreign subsidy regulation and its relationship to public procurement, as well as events after the pandemic.

About Bestek [00:00:18]: Welcome to the Bestek, the public procurement podcast. In this podcast, Dr. Willem Janssen and Dr. Marta Andhov discuss public procurement law issues, the love of food and academic life. In each episode, Willem, Marta, and their guests search for answers to intriguing public procurement questions. This is Bestek. Let’s dish public procurement law.

Marta Andhov [00:00:42]: Hello, sir.

Willem Janssen [00:00:44]: G’day, mate. How’s it going?

Marta Andhov [00:00:46]: It’s going pretty good. Pretty good.

Willem Janssen [00:00:49]: Are you still down under?

Marta Andhov [00:00:51]: I’m still down under. I’ll be down under for some time, as you know.

Willem Janssen [00:00:55]: As you know. So, where are you located at the moment?

Marta Andhov [00:00:59]: Perth, Australia.

Willem Janssen [00:01:01]: Perth, Australia. Fantastic. And you’re there on a research stay, right?

Marta Andhov [00:01:05]: I am. That is true. Looking at some interesting stuff. But that means that also you just starting your day, finishing. It’s a bit bizarre time difference, but we’re going to make it work for sure.

Willem Janssen [00:01:19]: It also means that it’s snowing outside here and that it’s about 35 degrees down there.

Marta Andhov [00:01:24]: That is true, but it’s not that bad.

Willem Janssen [00:01:27]: Does hurt me a little bit. But what are we going to talk about today?

Marta Andhov [00:01:31]: Today, for our main course, we’re discussing foreign subsidy regulation. So I would like to get straight into it. So can you lay the ground for us? What is foreign subsidy regulation and what are its objectives?

Willem Janssen [00:01:51]: Yeah, so the foreign subsidy regulation was adopted last December. I think it will have quite a substantial impact on big procurement projects in Europe, and it was mostly adopted to fill a regulatory gap because we have state aid rules in Europe that try to prevent state aid that distorts competition. So we can’t unlimitedly grant aid to our national champions. We’re trying to create an internal market. So that’s why we have state aid law in a nutshell. However, what that doesn’t take into account is state aid given by third countries. So say if Brazil or China or the US would want to subsidize entities on the internal market, the risk there is that these entities can still compete under different conditions because they get these subsidies. So what this regulation tries to do is it tries to tackle that and it does that from two perspectives. One, it contains a lot of rules and concentrations. But the second major leg of it also focuses on public procurement. And so that’s where public procurement, I think, will also start to play a role in the future. And maybe to just highlight the role of public procurement here is that the FSA kicks into effect if it concerns foreign subsidies that cause or risk causing a distortion in a public procurement procedure. And those foreign subsidies must then enable an economic operator to submit a tender that is unduly advantageous. So that core concept of unduly advantageous is then caused by that foreign subsidy in a public procurement procedure. And the underlying aspect of that is, is that we don’t want those bidders to participate. So they basically get punished through a public procurement procedure in a number or could get punished through a public procurement procedure.

Marta Andhov [00:03:56]: So, we would use the public procurement language to gain a competitive advantage over others due to those subsidies. Is that fair to say?

Willem Janssen [00:04:07]: Exactly, yeah.

Marta Andhov [00:04:09]: Can I ask you something? We recorded an episode some time ago on an international procurement instrument, and there was a certain relationship between the two. So, what I wanted to ask you for clarification is when you mentioned foreign subsidies, are they foreign subsidies to European companies or foreign companies’ access to public procurement markets, or is it both? Also, what is the relationship between the International Procurement Instrument and FACA?

Willem Janssen [00:04:49]: So, it’s really companies that are active on the internal market that receive foreign subsidies. And in a way, they are different because, like we discussed based on an article that you’d written on the API in a previous episode, the API is really outward-looking, trying to establish access in third countries, which have limited access for European companies to make their bids there. Whereas, FACA is about securing a level playing field and avoiding distortion of competition on the internal market. It’s more inward-looking, and the influence is coming from outside. If I can generalize, what’s interesting, though.

Marta Andhov [00:05:35]: Sorry, because we’re recording remotely, and the internet connection is poor, we don’t see each other, so we might jump a little bit on each other’s words. Please excuse that today.

Willem Janssen [00:05:54]: “Will it be always my fault, right? If we could establish that. Oh.”

Marta Andhov [00:05:57]: “I worry. What I just wanted to add is that I absolutely agree with you about this in word and outward perspective. I think, though, that there will be a certain moment of overlap. I wonder whether you agree with that, that in the context of API, even if it’s outward-looking and you can use it as leverage to say we want to get access for European companies in that market, if you’re not going to give it to us, we then going, you know, colloquially speaking, or kick you out of our market or not allow you entry point, etc., etc. But if you kind of look at it, it is because there is also something about ensuring a level playing field. So if we open our market to broader competition and also the competition that may not be meeting the same threshold of requirements and rules, there are, I think that, in that sense, there will be a consequence. So, as a consequence of API, you may also be excluded from procurement. Similarly, in the context of FSR, you will be excluded. This is also a good question. Excluded from procurement, or not even allowed to participate?”

Willem Janssen [00:07:21]: “Well, they refer to rejection, but the consequence is the same. But I think we’re on the same page, though. Yeah, I think you’re right. I think it’s a different level playing field. The FSA is really a level playing field like we know it traditionally on the internal market, or like you rightly say, the API is more of a global level playing field, whereas if we grant access in Europe, then you should to the U.S. or in Brazil or China. So that’s where. But I also think there’s one thing that overlaps, and that the consequences of both are present on the internal market, clearly right. In both instances, there’s a consequence for a bidder with either foreign nationality, and I mean by that like a registration from somewhere else or an entity that receives funding from there. So I think, in a way, they, and in general, I think they are very much part of a trend in which the Commission is gaining more power to enact on industrial policy and foreign trade. And public procurement is also part of that. It is one of the many tools that the Commission is getting at the moment to really try to establish itself as also the enforcer of that level playing field that you referred to.”

Marta Andhov [00:08:36]: I think it is also a consequence of specific contemporary issues and time where we are right now, post-economic crisis several years ago, but post-pandemic also in Europe. Obviously, extremely relevant consequences also to the internal market of the invasion of Ukraine. All of it, I think ultimately, really, at least that’s my impression, even regulatory-wise, if you look at a lot of proposals connected with procurement, but also outside in the EU, we are a little bit in the face of how you would describe a sort of like a reinforcing of protectionism, but not on a national level as such, but protectionism within the internal market, almost saying, “Well, we need to build something, we need to build our European champions, we cannot have everyone coming in and then just not applying the same rules when our companies go out and so on and so forth.” This is because also there has been recently this whole sort of movement about the political level promotion of resilience in Europe and this notion of being more self-sufficient in Europe in the context of supply chains and things like that. So I think that is part of this general trend. I’m not sure whether in the Netherlands you’ve kind of noticed a similar sort of discussion point when it comes to EU law right now or EU policies stronger.

Willem Janssen [00:10:08]: I think it’s very similar. I think also what’s interesting about this, on the one hand, we’re talking about an emphasis today, but maybe hamper also expectations to a certain extent in response to a lot of aid that the Biden administration is giving in the US. We’re now seeing that some member states are also calling for more flexibility to give aid to our national European champions. So it’s kind of like it seems to be a bit of an A. On the one hand, we’re really trying to uphold these standards that we’ve had for a long time when it came to state aid. But now we’re also seeing that we’re trying to reach this autonomy that you referred to. And they seem to be juxtaposed a bit to these two developments.

Marta Andhov [00:10:54]: Undoubtedly, undoubtedly, get us through more depth of efforts are what I mean by that. I think one of the other elements that in the scope and the consequence of looking at the FSA are that we can look at is things like administrative burden that is again quite similar to API. They both introduce a certain level of administrative burdens. And I know that you have a couple of other elements that you want to touch upon, but let’s maybe start with that one, and then I’ll give you space too to comment also on the other ones.

Willem Janssen [00:11:34]: Yeah. So I think administrative burdens maybe just start off with that because it’s limited in a sense through the limitation of scope, right? So to start with that, this regulation is very much linked to the public procurement directives. So a lot of the terminology is the same if it concerns a procedure and that falls under the scope of the public procurement directives. This regulation applies, but then there are different thresholds. So the value of the contract needs to be equal or greater than 250 million, except if it concerns an aggregate of lots, then it’s 125. So that’s quite a high number, right? We’re not talking about your everyday procurements. It’s really the big infrastructural projects, the big, big IT procurement. So it’s that they’re substantial contracts, and then the foreign subsidy needs to be equal to or greater than 4 million. So if you reach those thresholds, that’s when you get into the space of administrative burdens where, you know, then you do need to do something, right? Yeah. And then, in a nutshell, because the regulation is quite detailed, and also just a specific warning, it’s quite hard to read legislation. There’s lots of red tape and references to existing law, like an award can take place or must take place on the economically most advantageous tender. Things like that shouldn’t have been replicated. I think that can be taken out in the future. But basically, in essence, if you meet those two thresholds, there’s a prior notification if you meet them, and a prior declaration if you don’t meet them. And they can be related to the last three years. So what does that mean? It means that there’s some administrative burden about you as an economic operator submitting a bid, a tender, having to declare what your status is on foreign subsidies. Recently, the implementing regulation has also come out a few weeks ago. It basically means quite a detailed form about how your financial structure is set up and what can be coined as foreign subsidies or not.

Marta Andhov [00:13:50]: Hmm. I think in a way you can also see why companies, if you look at it specifically from a commercial perspective and outside of law, you can see why this is quite problematic. The amount of red tape, even just from these declaration notifications, which you’re mentioning right now, you can already see a lot that needs to happen. Then there is a question of what if something changes? To what extent? All this investigation, that’s a lot. And I imagine that this will cause also a lot of delays.

Willem Janssen [00:14:34]: Yeah, for sure. And also, to make the problem clear, we’re not just here to make problems, by the way. But if you also consider that not just the main contractor, but also the main subcontractors and suppliers need to notify, that’s a lot of work. And it makes sense because otherwise, you could use holdings that would simply not have foreign subsidies, but in fact, the one that does all the work does have the subsidy. So it’s a bit of a catch-all. But that does add to the administrative work that is required here.

Marta Andhov [00:15:22]: Well, I think that we need to distinguish between two elements here. And that’s, I think, for our listeners who might be predominantly looking at how we operationalize it. We’ve been given this. We mind at some point needing to work with this, and you may mirror our content in the red tape that this introduces. I think that as a counterbalance to that, it’s very important to highlight the importance of that, right? Because we’re talking about foreign subsidies in the context of winning the largest contract. Some of those contracts may have a really significant public interest in various areas of electricity, transportation, and even some defense sectors. And the potential of having those subsidies and the consequences of what that means is governments potentially gaining control or having a substantial impact. It’s about being aware of that and those large contracts. I might be a bit seeing doomsday, but I kind of feel like this is ultimately a matter of public interest that we are trying to somehow introduce or control the narrative through regulation like this. So, to give context to the goal or the perspective rather than solely the administrative burden along the way.

Willem Janssen [00:16:59]: No, and I think I’m not against this type of regulation. I think it’s more about making it effective. I very much see the need for it or the possibility to make it effective. But you mentioned the word delays, and I think that’s already an interesting angle. Most of it will depend on the capacity of the commission ultimately, because what happens is the commission gets these notifications and declarations. Then there’s a preliminary review, which can take 20 days plus ten days of extension in certain circumstances. And then there could be an in-depth investigation of 110 days plus 20 days of extension under certain circumstances. So that means…

Marta Andhov [00:17:44]: That you’re.

Willem Janssen [00:17:45]: Really delaying the procedure a lot.

Marta Andhov [00:17:47]: More. Now, imagine then if we assume that people listening to us or people working with procurement, this is not something that we need to translate. Imagine a 110-day delay on public procurement or something of that scale. Also, right? Because, as you mentioned, we’re talking about really high-value projects. That was, to be honest, the next thing that I wanted to say because I think the capacity of commissions here will be crucial. I quite like that they didn’t try to replicate here what they were trying to do with the international public instrument. And full disclosure, I didn’t check the final version of it right now, so I’m not 100% sure how it looks right now. But the big criticism towards that instrument in the past has been that you created that red tape and you burdened the contracting authorities with it. So I’m at least happy here that the commission, if they introduce that, they are saying, “Okay, we will look into it.” But that brings another question about this investigation and also the capacity of how such an investigation is carried out, how it is being done, and how effectively it is done. Is it like all this loud mess about something that ultimately will not be very realistic to drive home? And I think that right now, it will be super important to ensure that this goes fairly smoothly, and also that you have people who are capable of conducting such an investigation, right?

Willem Janssen [00:19:29]: Yeah, and I think also making the link again with the API. Ultimately, what they did is an API measure gets taken, and a contracting authority just needs to follow it or operate. So they just need to then reject or not. In a way, this is even more centralized. This is where contracting authorities, to a certain extent, are taken out of the discussion, and the commission needs to be very active here. Now, like I said, it probably won’t concern a lot of tenders, but still, it’s still important, particularly when these investigations take a long time. I think there’s a risk there. And also, why I think perhaps because we went through this discussion in state aid as well, which is first heavily centralized, and then mostly the burden was placed on the actors themselves because the commission simply couldn’t cope with all these state aid notifications. Then there was a filter system that, you know, you could check yourself. And then if you thought it was state aid that had to be notified, then you went to the commission. So I also wonder if it’s not ultimately more interesting to lower administrative burdens by simply using the European single procurement document for this, right? And making it more of a tick in the box.

Marta Andhov [00:20:46]: Well, you know, this is where we go back also to the point of a general value of self-declaration. And I think that this probably also depends on which sort of market or legal culture you have or how much trust in society in general you have for this and how you follow up on this. I’m generally not particularly fond of it because I think that it can be abused. At the same time, if you look at it, abuse will always happen, but it’s not the standardized way. So it’s probably maybe useless to create such a rigid system that makes everyone’s life miserable due to two or three people or companies abusing the system. Yeah, so it could be that. But what is also interesting here is when it comes to the scope. That is yet again a situation in which the financial regulations or the procurement rules for the European institutions are not covered. And I was just wondering, what do you think? Is it this standard thing of this oversight, this sort of missed someone’s attention, or is there a reason for that? Because we tend to always have this thing of, you know, who is watching the watchdog, right? That the more and more rules that are being implemented are not actually applicable to the European situation? I was just wondering, when you were looking into that, if at any point, any information across that came front and center?

Willem Janssen [00:22:24]: Yeah, so I must say I haven’t picked up on anything, but maybe that was something. But it does seem to be a trend where, I don’t know if it’s so much who’s watching the watchdog. It’s more like, is the watchdog practicing what they preach ultimately? And I think that could be very interesting, too, to have a look. Also, when you think about it, if you don’t abide by this foreign subsidies regulation, right, it’s not like the consequences are nothing, right? Because you can offer commitments. There can be no further action during a procedure. But if you don’t comply with the procedure and there are multiple moments where you would need to give openness to your books as an economic operator, they can find you 1% of your annual turnover. Or if you don’t notify where you should have, it could be 10% of your annual turnover. And that’s a lot of money. That’s very much like a competition law fine where you haven’t notified a merger. So in a way, also, that when the regulation in that sense also seems to have quite a lot of teeth, and perhaps that’s why you would also think maybe those teeth should have also extended to a broader scope, perhaps.

Marta Andhov [00:23:41]: Yeah. Okay. What about legal protection and effectiveness point to sort of wrap up our main, because I know that those are still the two points that are given importance that I’m sure you would like to share with us your review points on them.

Willem Janssen [00:23:58]: Yeah. So I think we’ll see a lot more direct action based on this because the Commission will then, in parts of the procedure, the commission can decide, you know, this entity needs to be rejected. So that means that there’s, I think, sufficient means to fulfill the criteria of 263 of the treaty, which means that as an entity, you could go directly to the court instead of to the European Court, instead of having to go through a national procedure. But I think one of the aspects that will be very interesting in Richard’s days to come is it almost seems like the regulation assumes that there’s no role for national courts, whereas I think because of this system, the Commission takes a lot of the work. So it means that you’re basically objecting against what the Commission has done. But the court still will play a role, I think, in many cases. What if you, as a competitor, think that the declaration that’s been given by your competitor is false? Where do you go? You’d probably go to a national court, or if you would say, in fact, this is a main subcontractor, this is not a normal subcontractor, this contractor also needs to notify. So I think those questions will inevitably go through a national court. Or similarly, the question of there’s this really interesting system that’s been put in which I think takes away part of the rigidity of procurement procedures where you can repair your declaration. So if you get notified by a contracting authority in the first phase or say you’re already at the commission, you get ten days to repair your declaration or your notification because it’s been said, well, it’s not complete or it’s incorrect, but you know, even that could be challenged. So I think all of those timelines will also lead to procedures. So I think the courts will have their work cut out for them also for that from this FSR. And I think again, it’s just emphasized again that we don’t want to work with, or that the EU is not willing to mandate or oblige the use of national supervisory authorities. It’s really the approach it is. The Commission does most of the work. The national courts have to deal with some aspects and mostly contracting authorities are left to just execute certain parts of the procedure.

Marta Andhov [00:26:24]: “And I just, you know, to piggyback on what you described, I think that something that comes to my mind is a question of legal standing. I think that your legal standing to somehow interact with the commission in the context of efforts is quite limited, to ask questions or to engage if you’re not directly involved in a particular scenario under the national rules, whether those are procurement rules or broader rules connected with competition law or state aid, and so on. You then have more spending within or possibility of sending within the National Court.”

Willem Janssen [00:27:04]: “So yeah, I think that really depends on the national setup of how and when you gain standing. But you’re right, I think that still leaves a lot of questions. And there’s one thing that I think is important to mention that we haven’t discussed yet when it comes to this. There’s not just, if it passes, it’s only related to a specific procedure. So the assumption there is seems to be that it can’t be used in exclusion grounds later on or something like that. So it’s specific to a specific procedure, but it’s not just the assessment that is procedure-based. There could also be what they call ex-officio reviews, and they can’t affect the award of contracts. But within a certain time period, the commission can still look at tenders that have already been awarded and then request commitments or at least ask for information. So it’s not just that specific procedure, but the review options of the commission or the enforcement options are broader than that. So just wanted to make sure that we mention that, because I think it’s an important aspect of the FSR as well.”

Marta Andhov [00:28:10]: “Oh, for sure. But what is the legal consequence of a review of something that has already been awarded?”

Willem Janssen [00:28:19]: “Yeah. So the FSA explicitly says that it can’t break open the contract, but it does seem that certain commitments could be requested, even though it can’t affect the award of contracts. And I think that also leads to a certain amount of legal uncertainty in the performance of a contract that might have already been finished. So yeah, I think most of the impact will be in the procedures themselves. But there was also an ex-officio review that I think we need to keep an eye on in the future.”

Marta Andhov [00:28:51]: “This particular review, also depending on the consequences, then you might have a contractor that wants to modify the contract because that contract is not any more commercially valid for them or beneficial, depending on what those commitments the Commission may be seeking. And then we have all the other measures of how difficult technically it is to modify the contract or also the issue of wanting to withdraw from the contract on the contractor’s side. Right. So yeah, a bit of a mess on our hands, as we say. Lawyers’ paradise, maybe not necessarily the stakeholders involved in the process. Okay. Any final thoughts on SSR building before we move to desert?”

Willem Janssen [00:29:39]: “No, let’s do desert. Let’s go for it.”

Marta Andhov [00:29:42] Okay. So I think that what we attempted to showcase to our listeners with the FSR is a couple of words on introduction to what it is, and then also giving you a context of introduction of this regulation and what is its what its relationship with international procurement instruments. So. Thanks so much, William, for guiding us through it. Now on to the desert and the desert. It’s a little bit reflecting predominantly from the perspective of organizers, but also from a perspective of participants on this phenomenon of events after the pandemic and mainly conferences, seminars and things of like whether we should continue with hybrid or online or go back to fully in-person. What are the challenges there, what are the opportunities, What are some of the thoughts surrounding this discussion? So what is where you see a challenge of the post-pandemic organization of the events parties?

Willem Janssen [00:30:55] That sounds like a tough exam question that maybe the reason why I think it’s interesting to discuss this, because I’m discussing it a lot with my colleagues and I’m hearing a lot of other people organizing events struggle with this as well. It’s where we’ve all of a sudden we’ve touched upon a different option, the hybrid version or fully online. And now in a somewhat post pandemic world where most of life has gone back to normal and we’re faced with the question, what do we do now? Like, do we go back to what we used to do? Do we keep a balance? Do we? You know? So I find that’s very difficult. And also from, like you say, from the perspective of a participant, I’m also seeing that people have changed how they work and they’ve also changed what they’re willing to do to go to an event and to make it more clear. What I’m finding is if I organize something. There’s a lot. So if there’s an online or hybrid option, so you can also participate online. There’s a lot there’s a higher registration rate than pre-pandemic, but there’s also a lower attendance rate comparatively. So maybe it’s ultimately the percentage is the same, but there’s a lot more people registering, but there’s also a lot more people not going. And I noticed it in myself as well, where I think I register for a seminar, something pops up and I think I’ll just either put it on in the background or I’ll just do something else. And I find that that makes it also very troublesome when you organize something, when you know you think, I’ve got to order catering, I’ve got to make sure if I have a room that there’s enough people there to sustain that or you know, what type of considerations come into play.

Marta Andhov [00:32:40] So when you think, let’s go with that, because I think that that’s kind of interesting. If you look at the organization of an online event, right? I would say that largely the online conferences or seminars, they have predefined panels. I would say the role of the participants is quite passive. Yeah. So is it just the sort of thing that, you know, usually when you put a lot of work in something that you hope to have some sort of impact and then when colloquially speaking, you know, like ten people show up, that does disappointing. The reason why I’m my question is, is it impacting how the event is carried out in itself or it’s rather about the amount of work versus the impact that the event has?

Willem Janssen [00:33:27] I think you touch upon a very important point because I think that the it’s probably both because I do find that like a lot of online events. So just to give you an example, the the first off event that I organized a couple of weeks ago, we did that fully online panel to or about uh, no, sorry, five speakers 2 hours in the afternoon. We had about 145 registrations. I think about 70 ended up showing up. Mm hmm. Which is fantastic. And I think also there’s an aspect there where I think that was really like a two hour quick five legal perspectives on a new piece of legislation. It’s very much an update, first thoughts. But if you then look at the interaction, which was for an online event, more than fine, but there was no debate. It’s generally like one question and answer, one question and answer. And I find that if you have a physical event, that debate does bring to life a little bit more or has more potential to do to to get off off the ground. And for me, another aspect that’s important is also. Or at least what I’m. My gut feeling is starting to do. I don’t know if it’s right yet, but I’m finding that I tend to lean more towards online for English events.

Marta Andhov [00:34:49] Yeah.

Willem Janssen [00:34:50] Because then you also have the benefit of, you know, people don’t need to travel, which is great for the climate. You equalize it for, for socio economic differences of academics or other people attending. So your your reach is bigger, whereas for events in Dutch that I organize, I tend to think, well, I’m not going to offer the online version because otherwise people won’t come and it’s not entirely true. But that’s, I think, the gut feeling that I’m getting.

Marta Andhov [00:35:17] Yeah, but I think it’s, you know, then again, asking yourself the question, why does it matter? And I think that the reason why I’m slightly poking is that. I think you always need to think what is the intention of the objective of the event. And, you know, and that sort of affects the form, the length, all these different elements, because I think the way how you describe the FZ one FSR 31 is, you know, like that was super cool and it says there was short. So you don’t need to invest much time. Now if you go to somewhere for 2 hours and you need to travel, you know, not to say across the town, but you know, from another country or even you never do that, right? Exactly. So from that perspective, it’s brilliant. At the same time, if you really have a panel and presentation is short and sweet, like we’re saying, the participants have quite passive role and then there is not really a point of really kind interaction as such. Now, if you would say, okay, I would really want a participation and a debate and Q&A, you probably will build into it another at least you would need to another half an hour, an hour for Q&A. Right now, the reason why I mention that is because, and I think that we’ve both been and we probably go to some of the same conferences where they were in person and you assumed, “okay, great topics, great panelists, you know, yeah, for interesting topics.” But because of the poor chairing of those conferences and going over time or whatever else, there would be a day of a conference that you barely heard any question being asked because there were just no time limits. So I think that is, you know, I wonder whether it is this sort of post-pandemic element or is it more that we really need to focus on what is the objective of each one and how we organize? One that I would, for sure, kick out is hybrids. I hate hybrid teaching. I hate hybrid events. I think that it just requires, you know, you don’t give 100% of yourself as an organizer of an event to either.

Willem Janssen [00:37:36] Yeah. I find that, you know, the only way to…

Marta Andhov [00:37:39] Do it.

Willem Janssen [00:37:40] In only teaching or in these things is, is you have to accept that online is a second class, second-rate citizen of the event. And I don’t like it. I find that then you don’t get enough time. So it’s either, you know, particularly because, you know, you have speakers that are not used to it or you might have people thinking like, “Oh yeah, oh, we still have to pay attention to the people that are online. Are you still there?” You know, like, and it’s all within good spirit, and it doesn’t really matter. But I think I definitely agree with you where you kind of, or I think, you know, I’d rather have it physical with a side effect that people might actually turn up and be actively engaged if you allow for it, like you rightly say, instead of the hybrid. So…

Marta Andhov [00:38:25] Yeah, no, you know, we’re nice also that working the only time, but that requires a humongous amount of work. And then you also need to ask yourself, you know, is it worth it for? Is it worth it? And so on. And that is in the situation, if you have like two leads, if those are like co-organizer. So imagine that the two of us organize events. Can you imagine?

Willem Janssen [00:38:49] That would be all fun, but keep going.

Marta Andhov [00:38:52] I figured that we already did something just so you have that. Okay. And I think we plan for some more. So watch out your words because that’s very now recorded. Okay.

Willem Janssen [00:39:03] Sorry.

Marta Andhov [00:39:07] Yeah, but what I mean is that, you know, let’s say that I’m sharing really like, in person and making sure that people ask question and contributing and all that. And you while at the same time we’d like, ultimately share online and you contribute with your answers and you like as a person that is, you know in the room say, “Oh, and there is a question online on this,” and like it needs to really be done in a very committed way to make this work. And I think that the problem of that is the older by experience in academia I get, the more I need to say that when I was organizing some of my first conference, seems like all of the bigger the better this will be impact will give exposure to what we’re doing, this and that. And I quite right now go all the way around. I’d rather have a small closed workshop in which you really have a chance and time to discuss and share opinions and brainstorms. But that’s also for the development of an argument, which I guess is also different when you already have a paper or work and you just want to present it, right?

Willem Janssen [00:40:17]: “Yeah, I agree. And it’s also, I find, maybe it’s, um… I think I can speak on behalf of both of us or a lot of academics when we organize events. It’s nice to have a lot of people there, right? Because it shows that there’s interest. What you’re doing is relevant. But I think what’s the question that you rightly raise is often the events that I enjoy the most are the ones where it’s more of an expert roundtable where you have ten people there because then everyone feels like they have a responsibility to contribute. So I think we’ll need to round up for sure. But maybe we can leave it also with a question for our listeners: What’s their opinion? Do you agree that hybrid is not the way to go in the future and that you really need to be specific about how you go about and what the objective is of a certain event as to how you think about moving online or on-site? And what are considerations to take into account for you? We’d love to hear about it for sure.”

Marta Andhov [00:41:20]: “If you have good practices, opinions or experiences when something worked well that you would like to share with us, we’ll be super grateful to learn and improve from them. As we work in this field, we’ll be organizing more events. To wrap up today, we talked about FSR and its relationship with procurement and how it will impact the largest procurements in years to come. We’ve also discussed the notion of post-pandemic events and how you need to be intentional about the objective of the event, what you’re trying to get out of it, and what potential challenges you may face, brainstorming ways to overcome them. We’re looking forward to hearing from you and your listeners. 

About Bestek [00:42:32] This was Bestek, the public procurement podcast. Do you want to contribute to today’s discussion? Then share your thoughts on LinkedIn or Twitter. Do you have an idea for a future episode? Write to us at www.bestekpodcast.com.

Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.