EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
INFORMATICS
Resources and Logistics Directorate
Finance and Contracts
Brussels, Post mark date
DIGIT/R2-CTR 1374091 (2011) 1261692
«Title» «First_Name»
«LAST_NAME»
«Company»
«Street_Address»
«ZIPPostal_Code» «City»
«CountryRegion»
Subject :
Call for Tenders DIGIT/R2/PO/2011/040 STIS III
Ref.: Additional information regarding the preparation of the tenders -Series 9
Dear «Title» «LAST_NAME»,
Our contact point received questions of general interest from the tenderers. Please find
herewith the answers to these questions.
Please note that any information, questions or observations, of whatever kind, contained
in this correspondence can in no way be regarded as a commitment on the part of the
Commission. No binding commitment will be entered into until after completion of the
procurement procedure, with the signing of the relevant contract.
Yours faithfully,
(signed)
Martin BILBAO
Head of Unit
Enclosure: 1. Replies to questions of general interest received until 22.11.2011
1
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS –Series 9
Question 9-1:
Clarification 1: 9-1.:
Tendering Specifications, questionnaire Technical Selection and Evaluation Lot 4,
section 4.1.3.1.1 (b) Training Centre, page 183/960 –“(for technical training only in
relation to this lot)”
and
Additional information regarding the preparation of the tenders – Series 5, Answer 5-8,
page 5-“In both general and technical trainings the tenderers shall mention the
trainings relevant for the profiles of this Lot. An example is for relevant training is a
training provided by the owner of the products included in Attachment 1 to Annex 1.”
Questions:
Our understanding is that it is not mandatory to present trainings for every tool and
technology specified in Attachment 1 to Annex 1. Please confirm that our understanding
is correct.
Answer 9-1
9-1.: Your understanding is correct.
________________________________________________________________
Question 9-2:
9-2.: Questions and Answers-Series 6, Answer 6-4 – “d. P(tender) = Volume (normal
working hours) +Volume (extended working hours (EWH), either on NWD or on WE)
+Volume (on-call service), where “NWD = Normal Working days” and “WE =
weekends or holidays” ”
and
Questionnaire Technical Selection and Evaluation Lot 4, section 6.3.1 Lot 4 –
Information System infrastructure solutions engineering, development, support and
testing”
Questions:
Could you please explain in more detail the formula that you provided in response to
Question 6-4? Since Tenderers are requested to provide different prices covering
extended working hours on normal working days and different prices covering extended
working hours during weekends or holidays, our understanding is that the formula
should be the following:
P(tender) = Volume (normal working hours) +Volume (extended working hours
(EWH), on NWD) + Volume (extended working hours (EWH), on WE) +Volume (oncall service).
Please confirm that our understanding is correct or else please clarify.
Answer 9-2
9-2.: Yes, your understanding is correct.
__________________________________________________________
Question 9-3:
2
9-3: Tendering Specifications, Description of the Services to be provided, section 6.1
Definition of profiles, page 31/40 –“In complement to the profiles with normal
expertise, different levels of specific expertise are defined. They correspond to normal
expertise with a minimum number of years of experience in a particular domain
indicated in the request (e.g. a technology, a methodology, a tool or a function)…Two
levels of specific expertise are defined with an increasing minimum number of years of
related experience depending on the profile”;
Questions:
According to tender specifications the particular “domains” refer (among others) to
specific functions. We understand that an Infrastructure Software Engineer who has
gained 6 years of experience in software engineering using Java and 3 years of
experience in software engineering using .Net (after his 3-year studies in an IT institute)
will be considered eligible for the position of Infrastructure Software Engineer Specific Expertise Level 3 in software engineering / programming. Please confirm that
our understanding is correct.
Answer 9-3
9-3.: Your understanding is correct.
_________________________________________________________
Question 9-4:
9-4.: STIS-III – Tendering Specifications Questionnaires, Attachment 2 CV Forms,
page 196 – 204 / 960
Questions:
a) In the CV front page, Tenderers have to present the “number (successful) years after
secondary school”. In a number of cases the candidates have completed their MBA,
Masters or even PhD studies following remote courses or courses created for
working staff, so they worked full time while attending post-graduate courses, with
no interruptions.
Given that the candidates were fully employed, could you please clarify whether in
the above cases the “Number of years/months of experience (apart from the
studies):” may include the period of post graduate studies?
If the answer is yes, should these years be included in the Number of (successful)
years after secondary school as well?
b) In the CV front page, Tenderers have to provide the specialised expertise of each
candidate. Please elaborate further on the term “specialised expertise”. Please
clarify how the “specialized expertise” field of the CV form should be filled.
c) In the CV professional experience page, the start and end dates of each project in
which they participate(d) should be provided. We understand that these fields should
present the start and end dates of the candidate’s involvement in the project and not
the start and end dates of the project. Please confirm that our understanding is
correct.
d) We understand that the Effective number of months worked on the project is the ‘full
time equivalent’ the expert has worked on the project. Please confirm that our
understanding is correct.
Answer 9-4
9-4.:
3
a) The answer is yes to the inclusion for experience and no to the number of years after
secondary school, as (double counting of the same years is not acceptable.).
b) We are requesting to provide 3 to 5 CV's per profile and level. The box "specific
expertise" should give proof of the years of experience for a specifically chosen
expertise domain (by yourself out of the many specified in Annex 1 "Description of the
Services to be provided" and for this profile.
c) Your understanding is correct.
d) Your understanding is correct.
_________________________________________________________
Question 9-5:
9-5: Questionnaire Technical Selection and Evaluation Lot 4, section 4.3. Tenderer’s
manpower of staff for the required services with sufficient educational and professional
qualifications.
Description of the Service to be provided, chapter 5.6. Profiles requested in lot 4, pages
25 – 32 / 40.
Questions:
In a number of cases, the candidate’s IT professional experience begun before the
candidate completed his studies. Could you please clarify whether the overlapping years
of professional experience and studies should be counted in the total number of years /
months of the candidate’s professional experience (“Number of years/months of
experience (apart from the studies)” field of the CV)?
Please consider the following example. A candidate who has been studying from 2000
to 2006 (6 years) in order to obtain a university master degree (4-years program), has
been working on a full time basis in the period 2004-2010. In this case, we understand
that the candidate’s CV should indicate that he has attended a 4-years program of
studies (i.e. “Number of (successful) years after secondary school: 4”) and that he has 6
years of professional experience (i.e. “Number of years/months of experience (apart
from the studies): 6”). Please confirm that our understanding is correct.
Answer 9-5
9-5.: Your understanding is correct, if he has been working on a full time basis
(otherwise the 6 years of study only count for a master degree equivalent i.e. 4 years).
_______________________________________________________________
Question 9-6:
9-6: Additional information regarding the preparation of the tenders – Series 6,
Answer 6-14, page 7-“For Lot 4 in Section 5.1's "methodology used" we are referring
to the broad domain of "agile development methodologies like e.g. SCRUM etc", to "test
driven development", to specific ICT project management approaches, to the
application/integration of open source products & communities, etc… … i.e. "the
technological foundation (building blocks)" for a competence centre which can make a
difference between success and failure in complex infrastructure projects.”
AND
Additional information regarding the preparation of the tenders – Series 7, Answer 7-1,
page 1-“For example, in ESP DESIS II the question 5.1.1 is similar to Question 5.1
4
second bullet. The same is true for Question 5.1.4 of ESP DESIS II and Question 5.1
first bullet point, etc.”.
Questions:
a) We refer to DIGIT’s answer to Question 6-14, concerning the methodology used
which is requested under “5.1. Quality Management and Technical Merit –
(weighting 45%)”. Could you please be more specific on the exact information
required in order for Tenderers to respond adequately to this specific requirement?
The list that you provide in the specific response (6-14) is not exhaustive (it includes
etc. and i.e.) and covers several different thematic areas. Could you please explain
the mandatory areas that DIGIT wants Tenderers to cover in their response? What
are the criteria that you are going to use in order to evaluate responses to this
requirement?
b) Our understanding is that DIGIT requests a software engineering methodology (such
as RUP), a project management methodology, a service management methodology,
and a systems integration process to cover this point. Please confirm that our
understanding is correct.
c) Question 5.1.1 of DESIS II requests “the overall organization that you will put in
place for the management of the framework contract (including roles, interfaces,
responsibilities, contract follow-up)”. This is considerably different from what is
described in Answer 6-14. Furthermore, our understanding is that 5.1.1 of DESIS II
is more relevant to the third bullet of “5.1 Quality management and technical merit –
(weighting 45%)” rather than the second bullet. Please clarify.
d) Question 5.1.4 of DESIS II, which is referred to in Answer 7-1, requests a risk
analysis related to the contract (for Lot 1A, Lot 1B and Lot 1C) or the Tenderer’s
approach for monitoring quality indicators and assuring their conformance to
acceptable values (for Lot 2). Contrary to what is provided in Answer 7-1, both
these questions are considerably different from what is described in the first bullet
of 5.1 of STIS III “Questionnaire Technical Selection and Evaluation Lot 4”, where
the understanding of requirements and challenges to the Tenderer are requested.
Could you please clarify exactly what should be covered in this point? What are the
criteria that you are going to use in order to evaluate responses to this requirement?
Answer 9-6
9-6.: a) The responses are evaluated with respect to coverage of the typical tasks
described extensively in chapter 5.2 of Annex 1 "Description of the services to be
provided".
b) Your understanding is correct, but it is important to see how these methodologies are
"put into practice".
c) Please refer to Answer 8-1.
d) Please refer to Answer 7-1.
_____________________________________________________________
Question 9-7:
9-7: Ref.: Additional Information regarding the preparation of the tenders-Series 7,
Answer 7-1.: STIS III, as STIS II is different form other CFTs in that the services to be
5
provided are different. However, it follows the same evaluation principles as other
CFTs, in particular ESP DESIS II. Section 5 of Questionnaire focus on how the
Tenderers will provide the services on the required level of quality and performance.
For example, in ESP DESIS II question 5.11. is similar to Question 5.1 second bullet.
The same is true for Question 5.1.4 of ESP DESIS II and Question 5.1 first bullet point,
etc.
AND
Ref.: Additional Information regarding the preparation of the tenders-Series 7, Answer
7-5.: This sentence is a reminder of Section 5.3, where these aspects will be examined.
To the purpose of an objective evaluation, it is important that the offer is clear,
readable, concise and complete, as without these characteristics it is very difficult to
assess its contents on the merit of the answers. The criterion has a weighting of 10% of
the total quality evaluation and so it is not the most decisive factor. As explained, these
aspects are evaluated just under section 5.3 and not under the other criteria. The
requirement not to make reference to any other annex or document has the same
purpose. For example if the strategy paper does not cover explicitly the bullet points,
and includes references to other documents, previous parts of the same document or to
internet, it is not easy to follow and understand what was intended to be there.
Therefore, we think that the Tenderers shall make efforts to present a clear, readable,
concise and complete offer.
Questions:
a) In your answer to question 7-1 you mention that the STIS III CFT follows the
same evaluation principles as other CFTs and in particular ESP DESIS II. With
all due respect, we have to draw your attention to the fact that there was no
“Overall quality of the Offer” criterion in the ESP DESIS II. Furthermore, in the
ESP DESIS II CFT references to additional annexed information or documents
were accepted if they formed an integral part of the response, by providing
specific additional and not merely generic information (e.g. a practical example).
Moreover, you indicate that the criterion for the “Overall quality of the Offer”
“has a weighting of 10% of the total quality evaluation and so it is not the most
decisive factor”. We strongly believe that 10% of the overall Technical
Evaluation is critical and decisive since this can penalise a Tender fully covering
the requirements of DIGIT and having the competence to provide the particular
services requested under this CFT, relying on unspecified criteria.
To conclude, one would remark that the evaluation of characteristics such as
“structure, clarity, concision and readability” is based here on a purely
subjective process which is not pertinent in public procurement. On the one
hand, structure and clarity will be evaluated in criteria 1 and 2, so they are out of
place here. We do not understand how the term “concision” and “readability”
will be interpreted.
Taking all the above into account, could you please reconsider this particular
“quality” criterion as well as the point that imposes to Tenderers “NOT to make
any reference to any other Annex” and adapt the specifications accordingly in
order to ensure compliance to the applicable public procurement rules of the
EC? Could you eliminate this criterion or adapt it and clarify how it will be
used?
b)
Furthermore, in your answer to Question 7-5 you imply that no reference can be
made even in case Tenderers would like to refer to previous parts of the same
document. This provision appears to be very restrictive. Could you please
reconsider this point to allow Tenderers produce their tenders in an optimum
manner? Tenderers should have the freedom to present in the best possible way
6
their response to “Quality Management and Technical Merit” as well as
“Services Provision Merit” respectively, and such references may be necessary
to ensure an optimum presentation.
Answer 9-7
9-7.: a) Please refer to Answer 7-1.
b) The tenderers might make reference to different part of the same document, however
the clarity and readability, coherence, completeness, concision of the document will be
evaluated under Section 5-3.
_____________________________________________________________
Question 9-8:
9-8: Section 4, Selection documentation
Further to your answer to question 5-34 and subsequent clarification in the 6th set of
Q&As, we would insist on the form of answers that DIGIT expects in section 4.
In the Q7As, it is stated that a consolidated response for all Consortium members is
required in two pages, with Annexes to be allowed.
However, it is the nature of the questions themselves that refrains us from providing a
consolidated response. For example, Question 4.1.1.1 requires the presentation of the
“organisational structure detailing the departments and allocated number of staff on all
levels of your company(ies), as well as the division(s) responsible for the delivery of
services requested in lot 4 of the present call for tenders”. Such question is directly
related to the each member of the Consortium internal structure, a common response
would not be possible. The same applies to all questions of this section (project
management methodology, corporate quality assurance manual, etc).
To this end, we would expect you to allow Tenderers follow the standard approach in
similar tenders (also for DIGIT) where the required information is provided per
Consortium partner. If this is not the case, please clarify how the questions of this
section can be answered in only two pages for all members of a Consortium.
Answer 9-8
9-8.: The tenderers shall reply on behalf of the whole consortium. In case the 2 pages
are not enough for the answer they might put the remaining information (or all
information) in an Annex. The tenderer shall decide on its own how to answer the
questions on behalf of the whole consortium.
_________________________________________________________________
Question 9-9:
9-9: Would DIGIT kindly elaborate on its answers to Question 6-12 and 6-16?
a). Do we understand that if an answer to a question within section 4 exceeds two pages
within the questionnaire itself it has to be further detailed in an external annex i.e.
anything beyond these two pages? This external annex can then exceed two pages?
b). Do we understand that if we provide an answer by default in an external annex; that
the length of this annex can exceed two pages?
7
c). Do we understand that if we provide an answer by default in an external annex; that
this annex cannot exceed two pages? If further detail is thought necessary to provide a
complete answer that it should be annexed again to this annex?
Answer 9-9
9-9.: a. Please refer to Answer 9-8. There is no limitation regarding the Annex, however
the tenderers shall avoid including very large number of pages.
b. Please refer to Answer 9-9.a.
c. The answer in the Questionnaire itself shall not exceed 2 pages. In case the whole
answer is just in an Annex the 2 pages limit does not apply, however the tenderers shall
avoid including very large number of pages. Also the tenderers might consider to to
include the most important elements in the Questionnaire and detail them in the Annex.
_________________________________________________________________
Question 9-10:
9-10: In your answer 8-4 you reply:
"8-4.: a) The specific expertise refers only to the candidate’s expertise gained while he
was working in the specific role / profile. So your software architect in BI would miss 5
years expertise in order to qualify for level 3 (9 years of specific expertise).
b) The SAP project manager with expertise level 2, would need 7 years of experience in
project management or in a profile covering similar tasks as described on page 5152/960 in the relevant technology. "
Could you please further clarify?
Answer 9-10
9-10.: The specific experience which can be counted as such needs to be relevant for the
profile, tasks and technology throughout all the years of professional experiences.
8