91997E3504

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3504/97 by Mathieu Grosch (PPE) to the Commission (10 November 1997)

Subject: Call for tenders (DG XXII/19/97) for the organization of NETDAY

In the summer the Commission issued a call for tenders (DG XXII/19/97) concerning the organization of NETDAY 1998. Two consortiums responded, one with a tender of ECU 494 000, the other with a tender of around ECU 900 000.

The Commission did not accept either tender, but did not notify the promoters thereof. On the contrary: it issued a new call for tenders, with a deadline of 31 October, without specifying whether the details of the call for tenders were available on the Internet or in which Official Journal they would be published.

Given that the Commission should set an example regarding the correct application of the directives that it proposes, will it indicate:

1. the reasons why no action was taken on the tenders submitted and why the lower of the two tenders was not awarded the contract?

2. whether it is normal practice for the Commission, without any explanation, to re-issue a call for tenders which is virtually identical to the first one, except for the greater emphasis placed on the evaluation of NETDAY 1997?

3. whether it is normal practice for a consortium comprising two Swedish companies, which are supported by a steering board including the Ministers of Education, already to have received ECU 500 000, without any competition, to set up and manage the present Web site, and to be able to take part in the new call for tenders with the official support of a member of Coreper?

4. whether it is aware of the legal and political implications of the decisions that it ends up taking in circumstances which exhibit as little transparency as this?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (16 December 1997)

The Commission considered that the call for tenders No. XXII/19/97 had failed to produce acceptable bids and that the invitation procedure therefore needed to be recommenced. It therefore requested publication of a new contract notice (XXII/26/97) in the Official Journal ((OJ L 209, 24.7.1992. )).

1. It is true that the first call for tenders yielded two bids. Neither was judged sufficiently strong to be accepted. Each had its own shortcomings. And although the specifications stipulated clearly that the contract covered evaluation of the Netd@ys 1997 as well as preparation of the Netd@ys 1998, neither tender gave sufficient attention to the first aspect. Since 136 organisations had requested the specifications when the contract notice was first published in the Official Journal, but only two had submitted bids, the Commission presumed that the specifications had been insufficiently precise to enable potentially interested organisations to prepare a satisfactory bid.

2. The Commission made sure that the specifications in the new call for tenders were more precise, so that potential bidders would be clearer about the work required of them under the contract (as the Honourable Member notes, fuller information was given regarding that part of the contract relating to the evaluation of the Netd@ys 1997). The new specifications differ substantially from the earlier set, notably as regards the formulation of the objectives, which are now clearly identified under three distinct headings, namely: evaluation of the 1997 initiative; preparation of the Netd@ys 1998; and presentation, drawing upon the 1997 and 1998 experiences, of guidelines to promote the use and diffusion of new information and communication technologies in schools. It should be noted that these improved specifications have yielded a significantly higher number of bids.

3. In compliance with the rules relating to public contracts, the procedure chosen by the Commission was the open procedure. Participation by a tenderer in activities other than those referred to in the call for tenders does not exclude the tenderer. In the case in question, one of the two tenderers had indeed been selected for implementing the Netd@ys 1997, following a call for tenders. A project presented by the other tenderer had also been selected, following a call for proposals, within the framework of this event.

4. The Commission does not consider itself guilty of a lack of transparency in re-publishing the call for tenders. Moreover, it should be noted that a steering committee (which in fact included members of the two tendering organisations) monitored the implementation of the Netd@ys initiative. This steering committee had been informed of the need to re-launch the call for tenders XXII/19/97.