ENPROTEX
10th
December
2015
Smart@Fire
Christophe Veys
Project Director Smart@Fire
& Procurement legal advisor
Innovation Agency of Flanders (IWT)
Partners
1 Confederation
2 Innovation Agencies
5 Procurers
1 University
1 Notified body
1 innovation
management
company
2
Objectives
Develop innovative Personal Protective Systems to
reduce risks inherent to firefighting.
Create a commonly agreed approach for precommercial procurement (PCP) that can be deployed and
duplicated in the EU.
Project duration: 01/2013 till 12/2016
3
PPI-PCP- Innovation
friendly
Innovation
- friendly
Public
procurement
PPI
Innovation
Pre-commercial
procurement
4
Definitions
① Innovation-friendly procurement encourage procurers to leave
room for innovation in their purchasing proces (mindset and
procedural aspects)
② Public Procurement of Innovation (PPI): purchase of innovative
solutions available (or partly available) on the market (new for the
procurer)
③ Pre-commercial procurement
is a phased approach of purchasing R&D services by procurers
for the development of innovative products, services or
processes (not yet available on the market) by enterprises/
research centres with as goal:
• To solve socio-economic challenges
• To improve the performance, functionality of public services
5
Risks
Risks vs distance to
market
PCP
R&D
PPI
Innovation
- friendly
Distance of the solutions (to
be developed) to the market
PCP Smart@fire
Phase 1: Needs assesment of firefighters & state-of-the-art
Febrary 2013 till June 2013
Phase 2: Market
consultations
September –December 2013
Phase 3: Pre-commercial
procurement
Phase 4: Commercial
purchasing
Development of prototypes
Purchase of a final product
July 2014 – December 2015
Januray 2016
7
Needs assessment
Phase 1: Needs assesment of firefighters & state-of-the-art
How can I increase my
safety and reduce risks
undertaking fire fighting
and other civil
protection work?
Market Consultation
•
> 450 participants (enterprises/universities/procurers)
attended the different market consultation sessions
•
•
Feasability check & Risks assessment
Summary of the findings both innovation expectations vs
technological feasability. Prioritization!
Preparation of the tender documents and submitted in
February 2014 for approval to the EC
Phase 2: Market
consultations
September – November 2013
•
9
Prototype priorities
Prototype Scope: value vs. risk
H
DO
DERISK
Priorities on
prototype
roadmap
Added
Value
Innovative for end-user
=
+
Significant technological risk
Innovation potential
from
end-user perspective
L
Off-the-shelf
Avoid if possible
L
H
Risk
Innovation potential from technological perspective
Market consultations
Belgium (Brussels, 10 & 11/9/2013)
Localisation systems
Integration of ICT solutions in PPE
France (Marseille, 17 & 18/9/2013
Data transfer & visualisation systems
Integration of ICT solutions in PPE
Germany (Dortmund, 1 & 2/10/2013)
Sensors
Integration of ICT solutions in PPE
Wrap-up session (10/10/2013)
Overall participants
per country
Switzerland UK
Slovenia
2%
4%
2% Spain
Norway
3%
1%
USA
1%
Netherlands
7%
Belgium
37%
Lithuania
3%
Greece
1%
Total number of
participants:
470/170 different/18
countries
Germany
13%
France
21%
Finland
2%
Australia
1%
Austria
Czech Republic
2%
Denmark
1%
Estonia
2%
1%
PCP in 4 phases
Phase 2: Market
consultations
September – October 2013
13
Pre-commercial
procurement phase
Phase 3: Pre-commercial
procurement
Stage 1
• Solution Exploration
• Prototyping & Demo
Stage 2
Stage 3
• Testing first batch of
complete products
14
Scope of the Precommercial tender:
15
6
State of play
• Tender launched in OJEU 11 June 2014 (2014/S 110194508) + Information day 1st of July (65) :
• Challenge brief
• Invitation to Tender
• Framework agreement
• Bids submitted in October,
Award on the 26 of November
4 consortia were selected
Stage 1
Solution Exploration
17
Consortium
Consortium 1
Consortium 2
Submitted date
10/06/2015
16:54
10/06/2015
16:57
Partner
Prevent Deloza Ltd.
Titera Ltd.
Biotech Knowledge
Center, Obuda
Bioteklab Ltd.
ITP Gmbh-Geselschaft
für Intelligente Textile
Correspondent
E-Mail
Andreja Oder
Andreja.oder@prevent-deloza.si
Daniela Zavec Pavlinic info@titerad.com
e-BO Enterprises NV
Seyntex NV
Texport
Consortium 3
10/06/2015
24:00
Consortium 4
8/06/2015
10:22
BHT Solutions
ICON
IOS International nv
Omnisense
Applycon s.r.o.
Elitronic s.r.o.
Holik International
Vochoc s.r.o.
University of West
Bohemia
Dune s.r.l. (subcontranctor)
Miklos Kozlovszky
Krisztina Szarvas
Kozlovszky.miklos@nik.uni-obuda.c
Contact@bioteklab.com
Klaus Richter
richter@itp-gmbh.de
Christophe Dhaene
Thomas Seynaeve
Uwe Heinemann
Markus Valle-Klann
Herman Oberwalder
Ronald Van Kampen
Mr. Leon Rousseau
Andy Thurman
Milan Baxa
Roman Kotrc
Tomas Pekar
Petr Loukota
Christophe.dhaene@ebo-enterpris
tse@seyntex.be
U.Heinemann@texport.at
Markus Valle-Klann <markus@klann
hoberwalder@bht-solutions.at
ronald@iconprotect.com
Leon.rousseau@iosint.be
andy.thurman@omnisense.co.uk
baxa@applycon.cz
kotrc@elitronic.cz
pekar@holikinternational.cz
petr.loukota@vochoc.cz
Ales Hamacek
hamacek@ket.zcu.cz
Enrico De Marinis
demarinis@dunesistemi.com
Stage 1
Solution Exploration
Submit deliverables Solution Design & End of Phase 1:
•
On April 30 2015, after 4 months of preparing their solution design, all 4 consortia
submitted the following 4 deliverables:
1.
2.
3.
4.
•
End of Phase Report
Detailed solution Design
Request for clarification
List Background IPR
In order to evaluate the quality of all submitted deliverables, a jury was appointed
o 2 representatives of the end-users (SDIS13 – IBZ)
o 1 IWT advisor
o 2 independant external experts
Solution Exploration
The Jury Criteria evaluated the satisfactory completion
• The jury evaluated the deliverables in order to see if the execution of phase 1 was in line with the
work submitted in the bids.
•
•
Detailed assessment of the solution design and the request for clarification were evaluated by
scoring these deliverables on 4 evaluation criteria.
For Successful completion of phase 1 and to obtain the access to phase 2, the following minimum
scoring requirements had to be attained.
 The end of phase report should be evaluated as
satisfactory
 The average score over all 4 criteria, taking the
different weightings into account, should be min. 50%.
 The contractors should score min. 60% on criteria I
and criteria IV.
•
Results:
• All four participating consortia completed their first phase in a satisfactory way.
• As a result, all four participating consortia received their requested payments for phase 1
1/ Applycon 2/ Texport: 3/ E-Bo enterprises: 4/ Prevent & Deloza
Prototyping
Invitation To Tender phase 2 (ITT2): Prototyping & Demonstration
• Based on the original Invitation to Tender (ITT 1), a new Invitation to Tender (ITT2), with specific
requirements for Phase 2, was produced by IWT in cooperation with Addestino and appointed
partners.
•
A lot of efforts went to the development of a more accurate description of the Evaluation Process
at the end of phase 2 and a list of expectations regarding the results to be achieved at the End of
Phase 2.
•
On May 18, 2015 all 4 consortia were invited to submit a bid for phase 2. All eligible bids had to be
submitted before June 11, 2015.
After evaluation 3 Tenderers with the highest ranking were selected
•
www.smartatfire.eu
Christophe Veys
Project Director Smart@Fire
& Procurement legal advisor