WRITTEN QUESTION E-0354/02

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 February 2002)

Subject: ISPA Programme, Practical Guide implementing provisions

Paragraph 4.3.2 of the Practical Guide to PHARE, ISPA and Sapard Contract Procedures provides, inter alia, as follows: Where variants are allowed by the tender dossier, the contracting authority may take them into account when they are submitted by the tenderer submitting the least expensive compliant tender . The result in practice is that tenderers do not submit any variants (which by their nature involve costs and provide other benefits), as this would minimise their chances. This provision is not normal in international tender procedures, interferes with the mechanisms intended to produce the best project at the best price and in some circumstances tends to perpetuate outdated technology.

Is the Commission aware that the above extract from Paragraph 4.3.2 on assessment of variants in ISPA contract procedures makes it very difficult to achieve a final price optimisation of project costs, a final technical/technological project optimisation and a final optimisation of operating costs and can mean that project planning and technologies that are economically or ecologically unsatisfactory can become firmly entrenched in practice? Is it aware that this is contrary to the usual international procedure for accepting variant (technically equivalent) offers, including those from tenderers whose compliant tenders are not the least expensive, and that these shortcomings mean that ISPA funds are not used to best advantage and the result is an unnecessary charge on the EU budget and the European taxpayer?

What changes to the Practical Guide does the Commission propose, in order speedily to remedy these shortcomings and not to place restrictions on finally achieving the optimal project through a competition on quality?

When will any changes be implemented and communicated to those issuing invitations to tender, as invitations to tender for ISPA projects are currently under way?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2002)

Firstly, the Commission wishes to point out that the provisions cited by the Honourable Member were the subject of a broad consultation process prior to their adoption in December 2000. They reflect experience acquired through many years of implementing programmes, not only under the PHARE, ISPA and Sapard Programmes, but also under other Community external aid programmes (TACIS, Cards, MEDA, ALA, etc.). As stated in the introduction to the Practical Guides for Contract Procedures, these texts were to be revised to take into account any changes which might prove necessary following the first months of their implementation. Interested parties were invited to submit their comments by 31 March 2002. The initial results that have emerged from analysis of these comments do not call into question the approach adopted on this point in the provisions of the Practical Guide.

In general, invitations to tender are based on the principle that candidates should submit a proposal which complies with the technical specifications laid down in the tender documents. To argue otherwise would contradict the case law of the Court of Justice.

International procedures for invitations to tender for contracts for supplies and works generally award the contract to the company which submits the least expensive tender which complies with the specifications. This type of tender procedure is highly transparent and guarantees that best use is made of European taxpayers' money.