WRITTEN QUESTION P-1203/04 by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI) to the Commission. Suspected irregularities in the management of European Development Fund (EDF) resources for Project 8.ACP.PNG.003.
Date: 2004-04-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Development Fund, award of contract, fraud against the EU, services contract

C 88 E/726

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The assessment of whether a country should be granted Market Economy Status for trade defence
investigations is a technical analysis, with very precise practical parameters aimed at ensuring that the costs
and prices of companies can be relied on for the purpose of trade defence investigations.

It should be noted that the Commission assesses each application for Market Economy Status on its own
merits, rather than by comparison with other countries which have applied for it.

Ukraine’s official request
it Market Economy Status in trade defence
investigations was received in May 2002. The Commission’s preliminary assessment was issued in March
2003. It identified five areas where additional information or further progress was required. Ukraine sent
the information requested in three stages, in June 2003, December 2003 and January 2004.

to the Commission to grant

The Member of the Commission in charge of Trade has not given any assurances as to the readiness of
Ukraine for Market Economy Status. In fact, the Commission’s Trade Defence Services have undertaken to
finalise their assessment of progress in the five problematic areas identified in March 2003 during the
month of April 2004. This document will then be made available to Member States and to the Ukrainian
authorities soon thereafter.

The full Market Economy Status assessment will therefore be completed shortly. In this context, the
Commission welcomes the progress achieved by Ukraine in economic reform, which represents a step
towards fulfilment of the Market Economy Status criteria. The Commission remains committed, as has
always been the case, to grant Market Economy Status to Ukraine as soon as sufficient progress has been
made on the issues identified and the technical conditions for this are in place.

It should also be borne in mind that individual Ukrainian companies can apply to receive Market Economy
treatment.

(2004/C 88 E/0747)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1203/04

by Gianfranco Dell’Alba (NI) to the Commission

(14 April 2004)

Subject: Suspected irregularities in the management of European Development Fund (EDF) resources for

Project 8.ACP.PNG.003

1. With regard to the contract award procedure used to select the undertaking to replace the original
consultant (Studio Bichara Srl (‘SB’)) in the services contract in question, can the Commission indicate why:

(a) no international restricted invitation to tender was launched, despite the contract being of a value in
excess of EUR 200 000, and a local invitation to tender was opted for instead (see the Common
Service for External Relations manual of procedures (cid:1) paragraph 10 and Annex (cid:1) applicable at the
time of the events in question);

(b) no suspicion was aroused by the fact that the participants in the tender procedure (which differed
enormously in terms of size and financial capacity) submitted tenders in excess of the maximum
available budget when some of them had also participated in the original 1999 procedure and
submitted tenders below the level of available resources;

(c)

the contract was subsequently awarded (by direct agreement) to the companies PAC and ETS, contrary
to Article 12(2) of the General Conditions for services contracts financed by the EDF, when PAC/ETS
had, moreover, been declared ineligible in respect of another EU project in the Republic of Vanuatu?

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/727

Concerning the contracts awarded after the cancellation of the contract with SB why, following the
2.
criticisms levelled by PAC/ETS itself at the Unitech plans drawn up by SB, was management of the works
originally envisaged by SB awarded to PAC/ETS for an amount of around EUR 772 000, as opposed to the
EUR 660 000 originally agreed with SB for the same services, on top of around EUR 100 000 for
supplementary services and a rider amounting to around EUR 420 000 relating solely to the new plans for
the Unitech institute (as opposed to the EUR 600 000 agreed with SB for the plans for all 9 of the
institutes covered by the project)?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 2004)

Further to the additional documentation received from the Delegation in Papua New Guinea,
the
Commission is now in a position to formulate a reply to point 2) of the above-mentioned written
question.

The two contracts mentioned cannot be completely compared in terms of scope of service since the
second one, which was then awarded to PAC/ETS included additional design review which was not
foreseen in the original contract. This explains the higher amount of the second contract.

Supplementary services were then requested in order to carry out additional geo-technical studies in some
of the buildings.

At a later stage the Contracting Authority requested a new re-design for the Unitech building after some
deficiencies were identified in the original design work. This is the reason for the rider mentioned in the
written question.

The Commission has, however, launched more detailed enquiries to check that the amounts provided for
in the contract are fully justified.