WRITTEN QUESTION E-1370/02 by Fiorella Ghilardotti (PSE), Giovanni Pittella (PSE)and Catherine Guy-Quint (PSE) to the Commission. Training courses for staff.
Date: 2002-05-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, European Commission, European official, contract, invitation to tender, professional career, vocational training

C 92 E/50

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

(2003/C 92 E/052)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1370/02

by Fiorella Ghilardotti (PSE), Giovanni Pittella (PSE)
and Catherine Guy-Quint (PSE) to the Commission

(14 May 2002)

Subject: Training courses for staff

We have recently been informed that the Commission has paid a considerable fee to a consultant to carry
out a compulsory staff training course on the subject of the new system of assessment and careers. The
quality of this course appears to have been so bad that, we are told, the Commission was obliged to revise
it. However, it seems that even the revised version can still only be called mediocre, and that it still fails to
meet the expectations and needs of staff.

Considering that Mr Kinnock has defined the competence and motivation of staff as cornerstones of his
reform, it is deplorable to discover that the Commission pays so little attention to the practical details of
the information and training of its staff.

Can the Commission confirm this information and state the amount of the fee paid under this training
contract?

What were the criteria which were used to award this contract and led to the choice of so mediocre and
expensive an offer? Can the Commission provide the evaluation reports on which this choice was based?

Can the Commission communicate the results of the assessments of the officials who have already taken
part in this course, and explain why it has been so late in reacting?

Should the assessments of the ‘revised’ training course also be negative, what action can the Commission
take to terminate the contract and reimburse the sums wasted?

How can the Commission justify expenditure of this kind to the European taxpayer?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2002)

The Commission is surprised that the Honourable Members are willing to describe the efforts of the
Commission in introducing Career Development training as ‘deplorable’ before securing the facts of what
has happened, what is happening, and what will be implemented.

The Commission also has difficulty in understanding how the Honourable Members could describe
provision of training as ‘expensive’ when, in the same question, they ask how much the training cost, and
‘mediocre’ before seeking any of the relevant facts.

It is reasonable to ask the Honourable Members to recall that no training of any form relating to career
development had ever been provided for staff until the Commission (prompted by the mandate of the
Council, the explicit demands of Parliament, and its own commitments) began the current strategy for
Reform and modernisation.

The personnel of the Institution have always (cid:1) rightly (cid:1) been described as the ‘greatest asset’ of the
organisation and, in the Commissions view, that made it essential (cid:1) for career training to be provided as a
part of responsible employment policy, in the professional interests of staff as well as in the interests of the
Commission.

Introducing the new career development system is obviously a major challenge in an Institution which has
made no comparable previous provision. The new Career Development Report (CDR) is an instrument for
appraisal which (cid:1) consistent with best practice (cid:1) goes well beyond simply assessing officials and seeks to
integrate training and career prospects (including promotion) with the day-to-day work of all staff, with
the priorities of their departments, with their own ambitions, and with the needs of the service.

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/51

The design of the training featured five modules (cid:1) two for all staff and three intended more particularly
for assessors. The Honourable Members’ question refers to the first of these modules, which is intended to
introduce the new system to all staff. 243 sessions have taken place to date, attended by a total of some
20 000 members of staff. This number includes the additional sessions for those who could not attend the
initially planned sessions. Other sessions have still to be organised in the Delegations.

In response to the questions listed by the Honourable Members:

1. The task of providing the relevant training courses was allocated to outside instructors, as is the case
for the majority of training courses organised by the Commission. This practise is followed as the only
reasonable alternative to permanently retaining a large training function and staff which would
obviously be much more expensive than hiring specialists under contract for specific purposes and
courses.

The contract for this training programme was, of course, awarded in full accordance with the rules in
the Financial Regulation. An initial invitation to tender for this work was launched in April 2001,
using a list of firms which was drawn up on the basis of a call for expression of interest in this type of
training (1). This invitation resulted in the receipt of only one tender which, on examination, was
rejected on grounds of quality. A negotiated procedure was consequently launched in September
2001. Three firms, including the unsuccessful bidder from the initial tender procedure, were invited to
submit proposals for the work in question. This resulted in the receipt of two proposals, with one
invited firm declining to participate in the procedure. The amount paid for this contract was based on
the result of the call for tender. The cost of preparation amounts to EUR 76 000. The cost of delivery
per half-day session amounts to EUR 900. The total cost of delivery of module 1 has so far amounted
to EUR 328 000. If the Honourable Members were to seek comparisons with Member State provision
they would be likely to discover that the costs are not excessive.

2. The criteria for awarding the contract were the same for both the procedures and they specified that

the work would be awarded to the most economically advantageous bid on the basis of:

(cid:1) cost to the Commission, and in particular the price, and

(cid:1) quality of the service proposed, in view of the requirements and the details in the specifications.

It was further specified that quality would be assessed mainly on the basis of:

(cid:1) quality and the competence of the proposed trainers (cid:1) this criterion counted for 35 out of 100

points, with a minimum requirement of 21 points;

(cid:1) proposals on methodology (cid:1) this criterion counted for 20 out of 100 points, with a minimum

requirement of 12 points;

(cid:1) quality control measures (cid:1) this criterion counted for 20 out of 100 points, with a minimum

requirement of 12 points;

(cid:1) general quality of the formal presentation and of the supporting documents produced during the
planned presentation (cid:1) this criterion counted for 25 out of 100 points, with a minimum
requirement of 15 points.

The qualitative evaluation of proposals took place in two phases:

(cid:1) First, an analysis based on the firms’ written proposals which used criteria 1, 2 and 3, above;

(cid:1) Second,

firms were then invited to make an oral presentation of their proposal before an

evaluation panel. This phase used criterion 4, above.

The criteria were applied and points were awarded accordingly.

C 92 E/52

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

The Commission is sending the information requested on the evaluation report directly to the
Honourable Members and to Parliament’s secretariat.

3. The first version of module 1 comprised one full day of training per session, using an interactive
technique to explain the CDR. The idea was to arrange officials in ‘multigrade’ groups to promote
dialogue among officials across all the grades and categories. This approach was poorly received from
the beginning, mainly because of hostility to the teaching technique being employed. When the feed-
back from the courses indicated that they were not up to expectations, instructions were immediately
given for corrective measures to be taken without delay. It is factually incorrect for the Honourable
Members to state that the services in charge were ‘late in reacting’.

teaching presentation. Since that meant

After a 48-hour suspension, the structure of the courses was thoroughly overhauled in favour of a
traditional
the group discussion approach was
abandoned, the leader’s role become one of
instructor, and there was regular attendance by a
representative of the Directorate-General for Personnel and Administration either in the question time
at the end, or throughout the session where Directorates-General considered this necessary. The new,
more conventional, approach meant that the course was reduced to half a day.

that

the participants said, after the course,

4. The revised version of the courses was evaluated. Surveys made at the end of each session showed
that, contrary to the impression conveyed in the Honourable Members’ question, a large majority of
those present (80 %) stated that they had a better understanding of the key aspects of CDR and 75 %
they understood their own role in CDR. The
of
Commission is not complacent about
to secure further
improvement will be made. Those responses to the broad surveys do, however, reflect a measured
staff view that is based on personal experience. It diverges strongly from the opinion on which the
Honourable Members’ question appears to be based.

response and continual efforts

that

this

5. The new appraisal system is a novel approach for the Commission and it represents a significant
challenge. It was therefore considered that appropriate training was required to guide staff (cid:1) in their
own interests (cid:1) in understanding and assimilating the goals and mechanisms of the new system. For
this reason, the Commission’s Communication of 30 October 2001 (2) on the reform of staff policy
recommended the organisation of appropriate training that is directly related to the implementation of
the Career Development Report system to be introduced in 2003, and further recommended that it is
targeted at jobholders, reporting officers, countersigning officers and Heads of Unit responsible for
human resources.

(1) OJ S 151, 7.8.1998.
(2)

Final Guidelines on ‘Career Development Report’ (Staff Appraisal) and Promotion, 30 October 2001 Annex 8 of
Global package for the reform of personnel policy, SEC(2001) 1697/78.

(2003/C 92 E/053)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1417/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Investigations into unlawful State aid within the Union

Once again, the Commission has announced that it is instituting a formal investigation into the way in
which Belgium apparently discriminates in favour of businesses by providing State aid. In one of the most
recent cases, it instituted inquiries into how the Belgian treasury taxes American companies.

How many investigations has the Commission instituted concerning unlawful State aid to businesses
operating in Belgium?

How many of these have been completed? In how many of these cases has the Belgian State been found
guilty of unlawfully granting State aid? What measures has the Commission taken after arriving at such
findings?