WRITTEN QUESTION E-0354/02 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission. ISPA Programme, Practical Guide implementing provisions.
Date: 2002-02-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: accession to the European Union, award of contract, financial management, invitation to tender

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/19

(2002/C 309 E/023)

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and in some circumstances tends to perpetuate outdated technology.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.