The RUP in the new procurement code

New RUP and old RUP: the continuity of the acronym does not help to denote the change that legislative decree no. 36/2023 has brought about (for some in a fruitful manner for others less so) in relation to the figure indicated.

In fact, the new public procurement code, which is gradually replacing the previous code, has significantly changed principles, professional figures and procedures belonging to the previous discipline. 

One of these changes has concerned, precisely, the RUP (formerly the single person in charge of the procedure, now the single project manager) to whom the new code has reserved, in addition to the articles of the decree, Annex I.2 regulating the methods of identification, professional requirements and tasks.

What certainly cannot be denied is the increasingly clear definition of this professional figure as a project manager (previously the RUP had been influenced by a vision increasingly akin to the project manager as suggested by the European directive of public procurement transposed by ANAC with Guideline no. 3 Determination 1097/2016 then updated with the Code of Contracts Legislative Decree 56/2017 with Guideline no. 3 Determination no. 1007/2017) that can follow the implementation of a public work from its planning to its realisation.

Project management focuses, in fact, on the triangulation between time, cost and quality of performance, which are three aspects that can be in contradiction with each other and for this reason must be managed and regulated with extreme competence (decreasing costs, for example, means increasing time and generating uncertainty on the quality standard).

These, today more than ever, have become pivotal elements in the activities of the P.A. Just think, for example, of those to be carried out in connection with or as a consequence of the PNNR, which imposes stringent time constraints to be respected to which we in Italy are not accustomed, so it is necessary for ‘insiders’ to be trained in this perspective in order to make a qualitative leap on this front.

For this reason (perhaps) the new Code should have been more stringent in indicating specific technical skills to be found in such an apex figure rather than simply requiring ‘an appropriate level of education and one/three years’ professional experience’.

In view of the fact that one of the main innovations of the reform in relation to this figure consists in the fact that the RUP itself will no longer deal with the procedure as a single phase, but will supervise and coordinate, with a view to a result principle, the various phases (in which individual responsible persons will be appointed) preordained to the realisation of a project, accentuating more and more the managerial and responsibility aspect. In fact, it remains the responsibility of the RUP to ensure the completion of the public intervention within the prearranged deadlines, responding both in the event of failure to enter into the contract and in the event of delays in its execution. 

Notwithstanding the fact that the appointment cannot be refused, Article 15, paragraph 6 provides, however, that contracting stations and awarding bodies may allocate financial resources not exceeding 1 % of the tender amount for the direct entrusting by the RUP of assistance assignments to the same. Obviously, the services that the RUP may directly entrust are technical or legal services, with the aim of managing the contract in the best possible way, but the fact remains that potentially high direct entrustments are left to its discretion.

For this reason, ANAC has already raised concerns in relation to this rule. 

In principle, it can be seen that the changes made are all aimed at increasing the responsibility (without raising the basic levels of competence, however!) of the figure with the consequent expansion of his discretionary powers, which in the public sphere can always become a double-edged sword.

For this reason, the advice to those who are about to take on this role is to implement their training to the best of their ability in order to move autonomously and consciously within the public system.