WRITTEN QUESTION P-3650/02 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission. More SME-friendly structuring of tendering conditions for EU third-state assistance programmes.
Date: 2002-12-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, access to EU information, administration of the Institutions, administrative formalities, aid programme, award of contract, invitation to tender, restriction on competition, small and medium-sized enterprises

C 88 E/300

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

(2004/C 88 E/0307)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3650/02

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 December 2002)

Subject: More SME-friendly structuring of tendering conditions for EU third-state assistance programmes

The tendering conditions laid down by the EU for third-state assistance programmes (ALA, CARDS, EDF,
ISPA, MEDA, PHARE, Sapard, TACIS), often apply criteria that seriously complicate bidding by SMEs and
the very smallest enterprises, since the trend is for ever larger-scale projects to be put out to tender.
Bidders are thus frequently being required to show an annual turnover of between double and ten times
the project budget, with that condition also applying separately to each participating enterprise that joins
in the bidding as a partner in a consortium. Similarly, for well-nigh every tender, staff complements of up
to 100 experts in some specialist areas must be demonstrated, even for project turnovers of as little as 0,6
m EUR. Successful participation in some of the abovenamed EU programmes within the past three years
and in the same region and of the same complexity is also frequently expected, effectively excluding new
enterprises from bidding. Tender conditions are often specified in such detail that the time necessary to
complete a submission acts as a deterrent to the greater part of potential participants. Tender documents
often contain no more than a rough outline of requirements with only a few performance criteria, which
forces bidders to perform additional (cid:1) and unremunerated (cid:1) planning services, which, for SMEs, are
economically unsustainable and impossible to cost. A further problem for SMEs is that of the cost-
intensive bank guarantees to which participation in the tendering process is subject. It would also be
desirable for the fiscal and social-security confirmations laid down in the Practical Guide to be defined
more specifically, since these are often obtainable only by way of time-consuming and bureaucratic
formalities that vary from one country to another. For SMEs, most of which usually maintain no direct
contacts with tender-issuing departments, it is difficult to enter into communication with the latter and to
obtain information or justifications for rejections. Consideration might also be given to publishing the
offer prices of all bidders, following the award of contracts, making it easier for unsuccessful bidders to
assess their own competitiveness retrospectively.

What specific measures will the Commission adopt without delay to structure conditions for participating
in EU third-state assistance programmes in ways more congenial to SMEs, so as to rule out continuing
distortions of competition and the disadvantaging of competitive positions?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2003)

The current procedures are intended to encourage, rather than deter, the participation of Small and
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The situation improved significantly with the introduction of
the
‘Practical Guide to EC external aid contract procedures’ in January 2001. The Practical Guide procedures,
which are published on the EuropeAid Web site (1), are based on the key principles of fair competition and
transparency. Contract forecasts, procurement notices, shortlist notices and contract award notices are now
required to be published on the EuropeAid Web site, which has become the most heavily consulted Web
page of the European institutions. These aspects and others have contributed to the overall process of
simplifying and harmonising the procedures in this domain.

Furthermore, by encouraging participation in tender procedures by consortia (which may be a permanent,
legally-established grouping or a grouping which has been constituted informally for a specific tender
procedure), SMEs should have access even to larger contracts by associating themselves with other
companies to form such a consortium. In this case, the participation of a small enterprise or even a start-
up in a consortium might be an opportunity for it to gain experience.

The selection criteria in every tender procedure have to be clear and detailed but not overly restrictive.
However, the Commission is aware of instances in the past in which some contracting authorities have

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/301

established selection criteria which apply to individual consortium partners and not to the consortium as a
whole. Consequently, a reminder was circulated in March 2002 that selection criteria must apply to
consortia as a whole. The situation should have been corrected since then but any SME which comes
across overly restrictive selection criteria should complain to the contracting authority responsible.

The Commission has addressed the problem (see, for example, the 2nd report of the Committee of
Independent Experts in 1999) of assessing the solvency of potential contractors before awarding contracts
to them. Consequently, in order to protect the financial interests of the Community, the Practical Guide
procedures oblige contracting authorities to publish financial criteria in their procurement notices.
Similarly, the requirement to provide financial guarantees for larger amounts derives from the principle of
sound financial management. Faced with these requirements, the small enterprise has also the possibility of
sharing this cost with others, being part of a consortium.

The documents which tenderers need to provide are now more clearly specified in the Financial Regulation
adopted by the Council on 25 June 2002 (2). The Commission is also contacting the national authorities of
the Member States to establish an up-to-date list of the authorities and organisations which are able to
provide the necessary certificates for entities based in these countries. The Practical Guide is currently
being revised in order to take these changes into account. The standard application form for service
contracts is also being revised to ensure that overall data are provided for the consortium as a whole, as
well as for each individual consortium partner. At the same time, additional guidance will be issued
concerning the setting of selection criteria, such as basing the annual turnover criterion on the average
annual contract budget, rather than on the total contract budget.

Concerning the extent to which tender documents contain details of the requirements, all tenderers have
the opportunity to seek clarifications from the contracting authority, especially if the terms of reference or
technical specifications are unclear.

Concerning the availability of
information or justification for rejections the Practical Guide already
contains standard letters to unsuccessful applicants and tenderers which require comparative information
to be provided in order to allow them to assess their own competitiveness retrospectively. For example, for
service contracts, the letter to unsuccessful tenderers includes a detailed breakdown of the scores obtained
both the addressee and the successful tenderer.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/tender/gestion/index_en.htm.
(2) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the

general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 248, 16.9.2002.

(2004/C 88 E/0308)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3676/02

by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 December 2002)

Subject: Incapacity for work

A cross-border worker previously employed under an insurance system with benefits not based on the
insured period (the Netherlands) and last employed subsequently under an insurance system with benefits
that are insured-period-based (Germany) who becomes incapable of working is entitled, in principle, to
Dutch and German disability benefit on a pro rata basis. The lack of harmonisation means that a cross-
border worker may be declared completely unfit for work under Dutch law and completely fit for work
under German law. Often (cid:1) because they may have been covered for only a few years by an insurance
system with benefits not based on the insured period (the Netherlands) (cid:1) such cross-border workers will
receive a small amount, on a pro rata basis, by way of disability benefit from the Netherlands (and no such
benefit from Germany).