91999E1562

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1562/99

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Project evaluation for the Fifth Framework Programme for RTD

The Commission awarded Wang the contract for managing the evaluation of proposals for the RTD Framework Programme. However, as the Commission was late in signing the contract, its own staff had to carry out the work and, in so doing, were obliged to perform tasks that did not fall within their job description, such as assembling tables, moving chairs from one building to another and buying tables and chairs from IKEA because not enough were available.

1. How much did this contract cost?

2. Is it true that the contractor is using Commission premises free of charge and how much is it costing the Commission to rent these premises?

3. Why was the Commission late in signing the contract with Wang, thereby obliging its directorates to conduct the evaluations in such inappropriate circumstances?

4. As the Commission officials themselves arranged the evaluations, how does the Commission intend to recover the fees due to Wang for managing the 1999 evaluations, since the company was unable to provide this service?

5. Which department and, more specifically, which official was responsible for the delay in signing the contract with Wang, and what does the Commission intend to do about the inconvenience caused?

6. How much would the management of the evaluation have cost if it had been done directly by the Commission, as in previous years?

7. Is it true that the computer system set up for the evaluation is unsuitable?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 1999)

Proposal evaluation is made by the Commission on the basis of recommendations issued by independent experts(1). Every proposal is screened by several experts, first on an individual analysis basis, secondly in the framework of a panel. For efficiency and confidentiality reasons, experts are invited in Brussels or in Luxemburg to participate within a team in the evaluation process. The Commission makes available the appropriate infrastructure (meeting rooms, data processing facilities, administrative support) and prepares the documents aimed at collecting the results of the individual and group evaluation and the experts' reports.

On the basis of available resources for the whole framework programme but also taking into account the past positive experiences of the Esprit programme during the fourth framework programme (FP4), the choice has been made for the fifth framework programme (FP5) to subcontract to an external company all the tasks relating to evaluation and that do not imply the responsibility of the Commission in the evaluation process: collection of the proposals, encoding of the forms, storing proposals, creating of the electronic files for further process within the information systems of the Commission, reporting.

The selection of the subcontractor and the lease of a building hosting the evaluation platform (meeting rooms, bureaux de passage for Commission staff, reserved space for the service provider) are the result of normal open call procedures, compliant with the rules applying to public markets.

1. The financial basis of this contract includes three components: a fixed price portion for the infrastructure (e.g. 1,6 million for year 2000), a variable component per proposal treated (e.g. 54 for single partner proposal electronically submitted, 107 for the same type of proposal submitted on paper, 354 for a multi-partner proposal with more than 20 pages of free text, submitted on paper), and a variable component per expert evaluator day worked in the facility ( 5,4).

2. For its own activities, the service provider uses about 10 % of the total area (13 000 m2) of the building leased for the evaluation platform. The main part of the building (almost 12 000 m2) is thus allocated to the meeting rooms normally hosting up to 700 experts during the evaluation campaigns, and to the Commission bureaux de passage. This space allocation was clearly mentioned in the specifications supporting the call for tenders.

3. For obvious reasons, the contract with the evaluation service provider (ESP) has to be signed at the same time, or after, the signature of the lease contract for the building. The building contract was late because a second inter-service consultation was deemed necessary after the resignation of the Commission in order to apply prudently the guideline of the resigned Commission to limit its action strictly to ongoing business.

4. As already explained above (at 1), and as far as variable costs are concerned, the ESP is repaid by the Commission only for actually provided and accepted services (based on the number of proposals or supported expert-day).

All the parties recognise that the context within which the first proposals were collected, encoded and transferred to the Commission, and the first evaluation campaigns were organised, was not optimal (due to the late signature of the lease contract and to the constraints applying to the implementation of the 1999 budget). Some parts of the building were not totally ready for hosting the ESP and the evaluators, and some parts of the data processing infrastructure were still in the installation phase.

Only a joint effort by both Wang and the Commission made it possible, under these exceptional circumstances, to run the evaluation process so that the important functions were in place and the important deadlines kept.

5. The main part of the question has been answered under 3 above. The associated delays resulting from the unforeseen circumstances can therefore not be attributed to a particular service or person.

6. Under FP4, evaluations were generally executed in temporary offices and hotels for periods between three and six months. This required the installation and removal of infrastructure, networks, and furniture. In addition temporary staff (managing as well as administrative) were contracted. The global costs are difficult to estimate, as the accounting systems did not give the possibility of consolidating these costs, including the numerous overheads. In terms of cost, the Commission is of the opinion that the in-house costs would be of the same order as those associated with this common evaluation facility.

7. The computer systems used for the initial evaluations were perfectly suitable and have done the job as intended. The lack of infrastructure did physically limit their availability however. Now that the network and computer room infrastructure is in place in the building, the systems are being physically moved to the secure computer room from where they will be able to serve users throughout the building.

(1) OJ C 173, 7.6.1997.