WRITTEN QUESTION E-1562/99 by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Project evaluation for the Fifth Framework Programme for RTD.
Date: 1999-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU research policy, project evaluation

C 303 E/4

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

24.10.2000

According to the MoU, the bulk of the proceeds (up to 80 %) is used to clear pension fund arrears.
3.
This has already taken place for an amount of 961 million roubles. From the total amount deposited up to
now on the special account, 290 million roubles is available for the funding of social projects. A number
of recent submissions by the Russian ministry for labour and social policy are now in the process of being
assessed.

4.
According to the reports received by the Commission, there is no substance to the allegations in the
Dutch media. Product sales prices have been negotiated to ensure that the market cannot be manipulated.
Although there is provision for free distribution of the food products, in certain circumstances, this facility
has not yet been used. All products have to be sold at the agreed price and funds deposited on the special
account. According to the latest available figures, arrears to the special account were approximately 18 %
of the total so far lodged, and under the terms of the agreement, the Russian administration is obliged to
guarantee payment from federal funding for those regions which fail to meet their commitment.

5. Monitoring of the programme in Russia is being carried out by Euro Monitoring Group, contracted
by the Commission under competitive tender. This company has ten strategically-located regional bases,
which report their findings daily to the Euro Monitoring Group headquarters in Moscow. All survey
reports are analysed by a team of experts and all information is posted to a website accessed only by
authorised users. A team of 400 surveyors performs quantitative and visual quality controls on arrival at
the Russian border, seal the product before dispatch to its final destination, check the seals on arrival at
destination and undertake further quantity surveys. Any anomalies are noted and reported to Moscow for
appropriate action. The Commission considers this control mechanism to be sufficient guarantee thatthe
product reaches the beneficiary regions. After delivery to the first receiver the cost of further monitoring
would be prohibitive.

A comprehensive progress report (1), covering programme implementation to 31 May 1999 was
6.
submitted to the Council, Parliament and Court of auditors on 5 July 1999. A monthly report
for September 1999 (2) has been prepared and submitted to the Council, Parliament and Court of auditors
on 15 October 1999. A further comprehensive report is in preparation for diffusion end of October.

(1) SEC(1999) 1070.
(2) SEC(1999) 1651.

(2000/C 303 E/004)

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?

Is it true that the contractor is using Commission premises free of charge and how much is it costing

2.
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?

24.10.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 303 E/5

As the Commission officials themselves arranged the evaluations, how does the Commission intend
4.
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?

How much would the management of the evaluation have cost if it had been done directly by the

6.
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(cid:146)
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, (cid:145)bureaux de passage(cid:146) 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.

this contract

The financial basis of

1.
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).

For its own activities, the service provider uses about 10 % of the total area (13 000 m2) of the
2.
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 (cid:145)bureaux de passage(cid:146). 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 (cid:145)ongoing
business(cid:146).

C 303 E/6

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

24.10.2000

As already explained above (at 1), and as far as variable costs are concerned, the ESP is repaid by the
4.
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.

The main part of the question has been answered under 3 above. The associated delays resulting

5.
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 (cid:145)in-house(cid:146)
costs would be of the same order as those associated with this common evaluation facility.

The computer systems used for the initial evaluations were perfectly suitable and have done the job
7.
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.

(2000/C 303 E/005)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1673/99

by Horst Schnellhardt (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 September 1999)

Subject: Regulation No 820/97 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine

animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products

In Regulation No 820/97 (1) of 21 April 1997 establishing a system for the identification and registration
of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products, the EU Agriculture Council
provided for the introduction of compulsory labelling of beef from 1 January 2000 in all Member States.

According to press reports,
compulsory labelling in the form laid down in the 1997 Regulation until the year 2002.

the Commission intends to retreat

from this date and not

introduce

1. What progress has been made with preparations in the various Member States for the introduction of
the system guaranteeing the origin of cattle?

2. What problems are occurring in implementing the regulation? In which Member States in particular
are the problems arising?