Invitation to Tender
Contract Award Notice
In the case where a potential contractor has a framework contract for the delivery of services to the ECDC, would this constitute a 'conflict of interest' for the same contractor as regards the possibility to submit a tender for the current external evaluation procedure?
Potentially, yes however, this would depend on the specific services provided. Prospective tenderers would not be automatically excluded on the basis of other contracts, either past or present, which they may have with the Centre. However, tenderers are expected to act with integrity and disclose any current or recent contractual relationships with the Centre which could conceivably represent a conflict of interests and explain why, in their view, a conflict does not exist in fact . This information will be reviewed and, if necessary, clarification sought both within the Centre and with the tenderer prior to a decision being made by the Centre in this regard.
We would like to obtain ECDC clarification whether the inclusion of a former member of the ECDC Advisory Forum in the evaluation team would constitute a conflict of interest?
In general the inclusion of a person with prior association to the organization does not necessarily imply a conflict of interest. However, the individual will be expected to provide more details as required in the standard annual declaration of interests form that may be reviewed in:
1) Could documents regarding the financial perspective 2014-2020 be made available?
2) Does ECDC use performance indicators as recommended by Ecorys during the first external evaluation, and if so, could we have documentation on these performance indicators, e.g., (annual) reports including these performance indicators?
3) On page 5 of the tender document (paragraph 1.2.) a site visit or clarification meeting is mentioned. This meeting seems to conflict with page 31 (paragraph 2.9) of the tenderdocument (Timetable, governance and implementation of the contract). At this page a “one day meeting in Stockholm to discuss the work and agree detail deadlines” is mentioned. Could you please clarify this?
4) On page 15 it is stated that a ‘limited number of programmes, projects and actions’ will have to be included. Who decides what programmes, projects and actions to include? And regarding the disease programmes, are we supposed to limit ourselves to certain diseases?
5) On page 23 of the tender document the external EPIET evaluation is mentioned. Could we please have a copy of the EPIET evaluation document?
6) On page 28 of the tender document it is mentioned that focus groups could be organised on the margins of network/governance meetings hosted by ECDC. For planning purposes, could you please indicate when such meetings will take place in the period August – November 2012?
7) According to the table on page 5 of the tender document, the contract will be signed approximately on June 13 2012. According to page 30 and 31, two months later the Steering Committee will have reviewed and accepted the Inception Report in August. This will probably lead to (slight) alterations in the evaluation methods, so the actual evaluation cannot be started before the Steering Committee has accepted the Inception Report. Is that correct?
8) On page 32 of the tender document you state that the entire cost of this contract and all its activities should not exceed € 220.000,--. Is this amount of € 220.000,-- including VAT or excluding VAT? In other words is it correct that if the amount of € 220.000,-- is including VAT, we can not exceed the amount of € 178.200,-- excluding VAT?
9) We will have to fill out several Annexes. Could you please provide us with the Annexes in Word-format, so as to facilitate processing?
10) Do we have to add Europass CV’s to the technical and professional capacity documents (part A) or do they have to be part of the technical proposal (part B)?
11) Does ECDC have teleconferencing / videoconferencing facilities that could be used for the external evaluation? If so, what would the use of these facilities cost, or could these be made available without extra costs,?
12) The final report of the External Evaluation of the ECDC by Ecorys in 2008 mentions most questions included in the questionnaire used during the first evaluation, but not all. Could we please have a copy of the questionnaire of the first evaluation?
1) As mentioned in part 2.3.2 in the tender specifications, it is currently under discussion and is expected to be adopted during 2012.
2) All documentation and reports on performance indicators used by ECDC will be made available together with all other relevant documentation once the tender is awarded.
3) On the award and signature of the contract the successful tenderer will be invited for one day meeting in Stockholm to discuss the work and agree the detailed deadlines.
4) During the one day meeting in Stockholm to discuss the work, the programmes, projects and actions to be included will also be discussed in detail.
5) The EPIET evaluation document is available on: http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/epiet/about/pages/externalevaluation.aspx 6) The information on when such meetings will take place in the period August – November 2012 is not complete yet and therefore is not available at this time – but one Advisory Forum And one Management Board is likely to take place.
7) Yes it is correct. The actual evaluation cannot be started before the Steering Committee has accepted the Inception Report.
8) The amount is excluding VAT. See part 2.12.5 in the tender specifications.
9) Unfortunately it has not been foreseen to provide annexes in Word-format as it is not considered like an ECDC practice.
10) Europass CV’s shall be used for the technical and professional capacity documents (part 3.2.5 of the tender specifications).
11) Yes, ECDC has teleconferencing / videoconferencing facilities and these can be made available without extra costs.
12) The questionnaire used during the first evaluation is available on http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/aboutus/key%20documents/0808_kd_external_evaluation_annexes.pdf
While in the process of writing up a proposal, we have a few questions related to the judgement criteria to be included in the table mentioned on Page 29 of the Tender Specifications.
1) In 2.8.1 (Pag 29) it is stated “in particular how the method will answer each evaluation question, the criteria and indicators used, and provide a judgement.” Should this read: “in particular how the method will answer each evaluation question, the judgement criteria and indicators used, and describe data sources.”? Please clarify.
2) In 4.2 (Page 37) it is stated “the tools for structuring the evaluation questions (success criteria, indicators),..”. Should this read “the tools for structuring the evaluation questions (judgement criteria, indicators),..”. Please clarify.
3) Based on your Tender Specifations, we intend to draft judgement criteria and indicators for all evaluation questions. In our experience, the external evaluation of ECDC will in that respect be different from most evaluations we performed so far, in the sense that drafting indicators is usually the first step in an evaluation, and is not executed before the evaluation starts. Is it correct that we are expected to come up with a full list of indicators to be determined during the evaluation, or did we misinterpret the Tender Specifications?
1) This should this read: “in particular how the method will answer each evaluation question, the judgement criteria and indicators to be used, and provide a justification for these.
2) It is correctly stated “the tools for structuring the evaluation questions (success criteria, indicators),..”.
3) You are expected to propose as full a list of indicators to be used during the evaluation as possible to answer the evaluation questions.
1) Administrative documents (p.7): Is it correct that tenderers only have to provide one original of the administrative documents?
2) Administrative documents (p.7): Is the order of the administrative documents mentioned mandatory?
3) Disease programmes and their networks (p. 17): In the second paragraph the following sentence is not clear to us: “The evaluators are referred to the background papers specified in section 2.11 below that will be supplemented by others, include a logic model representing ECDC’s operations in terms of structure, input, output and impact.” This is an odd sentence. Please could you specify what you exactly mean?
4) Partnerships (p.25): Could you elaborate what is meant with stakeholder proximity?
5) Cost-effectiveness analysis (p.28): It is mentioned that the cost-effectiveness analysis needs to be conducted as evidenced by the data collection phase. Is it correct to assume that the type of costing or financial analysis will therefore depend on the type of data collected and does not necessarily have to be a cost-effectiveness analysis if the quality of data is insufficient or incomplete?
6) Cost-effectiveness analysis (p.28): For the cost-effectiveness analysis it is unclear whether it concerns an overall analysis at the Centre’s level or for a specific selection of interventions. Could you please specify?
7) Steering Committee (p.29): Could you elaborate on the composition of the Steering Committee?
1) Yes it is correct. You may send a copy if you wish to.
2) No it is not.
3) This sentence means that further documentation will be made available (over the documents referred to in the tender) once this is awarded. One of these documents is a logic model.
4) "Stakeholder proximity" refers to the relationship with the main stakeholders and how two way communications and their support is maintained.
5) Yes it is correct, there does not necessarily have to be a cost-effectiveness analysis if the quality of data is insufficient or incomplete.
6) "Cost-effectiveness analysis" concerns an overall analysis at the Centre’s level (if carried out at all).
7) The "Steering Committee" is made up of representatives of Member States, DG-SANCO and the Director of ECDC, supported by a secretariat of ECDC staff.