P4ITS Meeting #3
Giacomo Somma
Project coordinator
Welcome!
Participants list
Benef. Number
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
15
15
16
17
Short name
ERTICO
ERTICO
NDR
ATE
ASFINAG
VL
VIGO
VIGO
CTAG
FTA
VTT
EARDA
ITSB
TUDOR
STA
LIGURIA
LIGURIA
LIGURIA
OHLC
TOPOS
First name
Giacomo
Anita
Lasse
Bianca
Bernhard
Jozef
Antonio
Manuel
Jose Manuel
Kari
Satu
Melinda
Imad
Christophe
Lisa
Jacopo
Cristina
Silvia
Ana
Jean-Philippe
Family name
Somma
Toni
Stender
Kapl
Jelinek
Cannaerts
Vivero Mijares
Monroy Castro
Martinez
Hiltunen
Innamaa
Mátrai
Fhail
Feltus
Silvemark
Riccardi
Battaglia
Risso
Pou Merina
Méchin
VERONA
Arnaldo
Vecchietti
Excused
12
Meeting objectives and agenda
P4ITS objectives
Overall project objectives
•
•
•
•
•
Mutual learning and training
Set-up of an external consultation process
Raise awareness on PPI in C-ITS purchasers
Propose key recommendations (guidelines) for PPI in C-ITS
Consolidate P4ITS into a sustainable longer-term network
Specific WP2 objectives (M1 – M6)
•
•
•
•
Trigger the networking function
Identify main specific points for discussion
Agree on the planning for the first period meetings
Prepare the framework for accession of new partners
Specific WP3 objectives (M7 – M12)
• Trigger in-depth discussion on the first identified barriers
• Prepare first discussion paper/points
• Identify potential external stakeholders-speakers for consultation
P4ITS Meeting #2, Verona, 11-12.06.2014
Main outcomes of Meeting #2:
• Updated flowchart defining the PPI concept
– Presentations: Procedures & approaches in PPI (NDR), Technology Readiness Levels (TOPOS)
• Discussion on key network topics (methods & procedures, ITS related risks & opportunities)
– Presentations: IPRs (FTA), Procurement of services (FTA), Preferred supplier (Verona),
Standardisation (TUDOR), Liability (Liguria), Modules strategies in ITS procurement (ATE)
• Finalisation of deliverable D2.1 (submitted to the EC, to be published on P4ITS website)
Agreement on objectives of Meeting #3 :
• Completing the PPI flowchart with TRLs
• Further discussion on key network topics
• Develop methods table with smaller working groups
• Find examples linked to the different methods
• Prepare a discussion paper for the external consultation
Agenda of P4ITS Meeting #3
Day 1 – Monday, 20 October 2014
13:30
14:00 – 14:15
Arrival of the participants
Opening and welcome
Meeting objectives and agenda
14:15 – 14:45
Network management and status overview
Final approval of the PPI flow chart with TRLs
14:45 – 18:30
Presentations from the partners (TOPOS and ITSB)
(coffee break
around 16:30)
Discussion on PPI strategies & methods, including pros & cons with practical examples and court cases
19:30
Open discussion on barriers and solutions of different methods
Network dinner
Day 2 – Tuesday, 21 October 2014
Discussion in Working Groups to develop table on PPI methods:
08:30 – 11:00
 Legal aspects (incl. IPRs, liability, etc.)
 Practical aspects (e.g., product vs. service procurement)
 C-ITS specific aspects
11:00 – 11:30
Coffee break
11:30 – 12:30
WGs summary and completion of the table on PPI methods
12:30 – 13:30
Lunch
Preparation of the external consultation and D3.2 (Discussion paper)
13:30 – 15:30
Update of work plan, next steps and meetings
First annual report and review
AOB
15:30 - 16:30
Visit to the urban traffic control centre of Bordeaux “Gertrude”
Network management status overview
Management of the network
• The Project coordinator:
– Manage the network, provide the secretariat, and organise the network meetings and regular conference calls
– Support the preparation of the meeting agenda by interacting with the network participants to define the
topics to be addressed and the needed speakers and cases to be presented
– Follow up the meetings with minutes and a list of actions and decisions
– Be in contact with the EC to implement any recommendation formally addressed to the network
• The WP leaders:
– ERTICO (WP1, 6, 7), NDR (WP2), CTAG (WP3), ATE (WP4), and VTT (WP5)
– Other than for ERTICO, this function is meant as ‘honorary’ and does not imply a role in managing the WP
– The WP leaders will support the organisation of the network meetings at their facilities and chair the meetings
• The Management team:
– As a basis, the project coordinator and the WP leaders form the Management team
– Maximum of eight partners with a balanced representation (city, region, private road operator, agency, etc…)
– The task is to steer the project coordinator in any decision making process
– It is foreseen that the management team would participate in a monthly management conference call
Management of the network
• Network participants:
– Consulted on the adoption of the discussion topics and the work plan
– Validate candidature of new partners accessing the network
• Communication:
– Internal communication & information sharing  all partners via email, coordinator also via p4its.eu
– External communication & dissemination  all partners in line with D7.1 - Communication Plan
Risk management
Description of
possible risk
Impact
Probability of
occurrence
Low
Low
Change of staff
at one partner
Medium
Medium
Members of the
network are not
experienced
enough in PPI
High
High
Partners send a
different member
of staff to
network meetings
each time
High
Medium
Network unable
to agree on the
key points for
discussion
High
Low
Availability of
negative
experiences
High
Medium
Partner
dropping-out
Remedial action
Invitation of external stakeholders (which will happen anyway) will make up for any
partner loss. It is not expected to replace a lost partner with a new contract signatory.
Recommend two active participants from each partner to ensure continuity in the
event of a person departing.
The requirement that named staff should have appropriate knowledge and
experience has been made clear while formulating this proposal. In the event of staff
changes, a replacement person with an equivalent level of knowledge will be insisted
on by the project coordinator.
Meetings planned well in advance to ensure that the right people are available.
Ensuring the success of WP2, i.e. agreeing to a work plan, is key to creating a
common view on where the project should go.
Possibly encourage anonymous experience of negative experiences (reported in
public documents in a way which explains the problems encountered but does not
allow the reader to identify the parties involved).
Milestones
Mileston
e No.
Milestone
name
WP
No.
Achievement
Planned
date
Actual
date
Leads to
M1
Project
confirmed
WP1 Grant agreement signed
M0
M0
Start of the project. Opening of
WP1 and WP2.
M2
WP2 end
WP2
Agreement on key topics and work plan
M6
M7
End of WP2. Start of WP3.
M3
WP3 end
WP3
Invitation sent to external stakeholders,
with the discussion paper enclosed
M13
M13M14
End of WP3. Start of WP4.
M4
WP4 end
WP4
Agreement on the 2nd analysis phase
work plan
M18
End of WP4. Start of WP5.
M5
WP5 end
WP5
Draft guidelines internally circulated
M24
End of WP5. Start of WP6.
M6
Network
continuation
WP6
Go/no go decision on the continuation
of the network
M30
Set-up of a sustainable network
following the project / end of the
network activities
M7
Project
completed
WP1
Final review successfully passed
M31
Finalisation of reporting and closing.
Deliverables
Deliverable
No.
D1.1
D1.2
D1.3
D1.4
D1.5
D1.6.(0 to 9)
D1.7
D2.1
D2.2
D3.1
D3.2
D4.1
D4.2
D5.1
D6.1
D6.2
D6.3
D7.1
D7.2
D7.3
D7.4
D7.5
Deliverable name
Network quality plan
Year 1 progress report
Year 2 progress report
Final report
Project factsheet
Quarterly Progress Report
Draft standalone webpage
Network topics
and work plan
Renamed:
WP2 description
meetings proceedings
New partners application process
WP3 meetings proceedings
Discussion paper
WP4 external meetings proceedings and feedback
Updated network topics description and work plan
WP5 meetings proceedings
WP6 meetings proceedings
Final guidelines/recommendations
Letter of commitment for the network continuation
(if agreed by the network members)
Communication plan
Network website
Network leaflet
Final event
Network compendium
WP
No.
WP1
WP1
WP1
WP1
WP1
WP1
Natur
e
Report
Report
Report
Report
Other
Report
Dissem.
level
CO
PU
PU
PU
PU
CO
WP1
WP2
WP2
WP3
WP3
WP4
WP4
WP5
WP6
WP6
WP6
Other
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Other
PU
PU
PU
PU
PU
PU
PU
PU
PU
PU
PU
M3
M13
M25
M30
M2
M4, 7, 10, 13, 16,
19, 22, 25, 28, 30
M2
M6
M6
M12
M12
M18
M18
M24
M30
M30
M30
WP7
WP7
WP7
WP7
WP7
Report
Report
Other
Other
Report
CO
PU
PU
PU
PU
M7
M9
M9
M24
M30
Due delivery date
Actual / planned
submission date
M12
M13
M5
M6, 9, 11
M3
M10
M10
M12
M12-M13
M10
M3 (report M12)
M11
Grow the P4ITS network: Associated Partners
(see deliverable D2.2)
1.
Public stakeholders external to the project consortium having knowledge &
interest to work on P4ITS topics without access to EU funding (at own
expenses)
Main obligation  contribute to the project (not just “sit and watch”)
What they are
3.
P4ITS network to remain at a manageable size in line with work-plan and
available resources
Current issue
4.
5.
6.
7.
Sign the “non-disclosure agreement”
No impact on the budget / resources of P4ITS
The interest of the P4ITS network shall prevail both on the interest of the
potential Associated Partner and the interest of the individual beneficiary
Propose ways of cooperation and active role, including the time
8.
9.
Unanimity of partners to accept the application
Termination by 2/3 majority of votes
2.
Conditions
Acceptance /
Termination
Potential applicants
•
CHARM project (Coordinator: Ian Chalmers, Highways Agency, UK)
Area: PCP for Traffic Management Systems
Start  End date: 01-09-2012  31-08-2016
Web: www.rws.nl/en/about_us/business_opportunities/charm_pcp
•
SYNCRO project (Coordinator: Jean-Christophe Maisonobe, Conseil Général de l’Isère, FR)
Area: PPI for Road Users Information Systems
Start  End date: 01-10-2012  31-03-2016
Web: www.syncromobility.eu
•
V-CON project (Coordinator: Benno Koehorst, Rijkswaterstaat, NL)
Area: PCP on Building Information Modelling for virtual road construction and management
Start  End date: 01-10-2012  30-09-2016
Web: www.rws.nl/en/highways/v_con
Source: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/pcp/projects_en.html
Participants to this Meeting #3 agree unanimously that the P4ITS coordinator invites :
- the coordinators of the above listed projects to become Associated Partners of P4ITS
- the respective consortia to participate to the external consultation.
Final Event: ITS WC, Bordeaux, 5-9.10.2015
P4ITS-CHARM joint session? Yes!
http://www.itsworldcongress.com/bordeaux-2015/
P4ITS network leaflet (D7.3)
Dissemination
• Website: to be updated with public deliverables,
publications, news and events
• Helsinki ITS European Congress
– Special Session on PPI
• Other events…?
Inputs? suggestions?
Please send them to
g.somma@mail.ertico.com
PPI flowchart with TRLs
Proposed…
TRL 1
TRL 2
TRL 3
TRL 4
TRL 5
TRL 6
TRL 7
TRL 8
TRL 9
Basic
principles
observed
Technology
concept
formulated
Experimental
proof of
concept
Tech. validation
in lab (small
scale prototype)
Tech. validation
in relevant
environment (large
scale prototype)
Technology
demostration
in relevant
environment
System/prototype
demonstration
in operational
environment
System
complete
and
qualified
Actual system
proven in
operational
environment
Which TRL?
 Pre-commercial procurement (PCP) encompasses R&D services up to
prototyping or first test production stages (i.e. the development of limited
prototypes and/or test products, but not the acquisition of larger volumes
of resulting end-solutions on a commercial scale. (pg. 20)
 TRL range for PCP ? 3-5 or 2-6/7
 The innovation process encompasses R&D and later phases such as
preproduction, production, distribution, training, market preparation and
new organisational or marketing methods. (pg. 5)
 TRL range for PPI ? 6-7 or 5-9
Source: “Guidance for public authorities on Public Procurement of
Innovation”, www.innovation-procurement.org
 Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRLs) shall be also considered?
Agreed
TRL 1
TRL 2
TRL 3
TRL 4
TRL 5
TRL 6
TRL 7
TRL 8
TRL 9
Basic
principles
observed
Technology
concept
formulated
Experimental
proof of
concept
Tech. validation
in lab (small
scale prototype)
Tech. validation
in relevant
environment (large
scale prototype)
Technology
demostration in
relevant
environment
System/prototype demonstration
in operational environment
System
complete
and
qualified
MRL 1
MRL 2
MRL 3
MRL 4
MRL 5
MRL 6
MRL 7
MRL 8
MRL 9
Basic
manufact
impl.tions
identified
Manufact.
concepts
identified
Manufact.
proof of
concept
developed
Production of
technology in a
lab environment
Production of
prototype
components in
relevant env.
Produce of
prototype system
or subsystem in a
relevant env.
Production of
system, subsystem
or components in a
representative env.
Pilot line
demo
Low rate
prod ready
Low rate
prod demo
Full rate
prod ready
Actual
system
proven in
oper. env.
MRL 10
Full rate
prod demo
Lean prod
practices
ready
Relationship of MRLs to System Milestones, TRLs, and Technical Reviews
( source: MRL Deskbook V2.21, Oct. 2012, http://www.dodmrl.com/MRL_Deskbook_V2_21.pdf )
TRLs - Technology Readiness Levels
MRLs – Manufacturing Readiness Levels
TRL 1: basic principles observed - Basic research.
MRL 1: Basic manufacturing implications identified
TRL 2: technology concept formulated - Concept and
application formulated.
MRL 2: Manufacturing concepts identified
TRL 3: experimental proof of concept - Applied research. First MRL 3: Manufacturing proof of concept developed
laboratory tests completed; proof of concept.
TRL 4: technology validated in laboratory - Small scale (“ugly”) MRL 4: Capability to produce the technology in a
prototype built in a lab environment.
laboratory environment
Pre-concept
Material
solution
analysis
TRL 5: technology validated in relevant environment - Large
scale prototype tested in intended environment.
MRL 5: Capability to produce prototype
components in a production relevant
environment
Technology
development
(component)
TRL 6: technology demonstrated in relevant environment tested in intended environment close to expected
performance.
MRL 6: Capability to produce a prototype system or Technology
subsystem in a production relevant
development
environment
(system)
TRL 7: system prototype demonstration in operational
environment - pre-commercial scale.
MRL 7: Capability to produce systems, subsystems
or components in a production
representative environment
TRL 8: system complete and qualified - First of a kind
commercial system. Manufacturing issues solved.
MRL 9: Low rate production demonstrated.
Capability in place to begin full rate
production
TRL 9: actual system proven in operational environment - Full
commercial application, technology available for
consumers.
MRL 10: Full rate production demonstrated and
lean production practices in place
Engineering
and
manufacturing
MRL 8: Pilot line capability demonstrated. Ready to development
begin low rate production
Production and
deployment
Operations
and support
Presentations
Presentations
•
PPI in the French regulation,
Jean-Philippe Mechin (TOPOS)
•
Buying results of R&D Projects – The best practices,
Imad Fhail (ITSB)
Key network topics & Methods table
Key network topics
Essential for the “Discussion paper” (D3.2) for external consultation  due delivery M12 (Nov. 2014)
List of topics agreed:
• Methods: table on methods and procedures for PPI with PROs & CONs, links to existing cases and
possibly to some of the C-ITS modules and tools
Method
Description
Forward commitment procurement
Competitive dialogue
Open procedure
• IPRs
• C-ITS related risks and opportunities, such as:
– Legacy
– Standards
– Market size / development issues
– Procurement of services vs. products
– Human factor and planning
– Maintenance and continuity of operations
Legal aspects
Practical aspects
ITS aspects
Procedures and Approaches in PPI
Procedures:
• Preliminary market consultation
• Flexible procedures:
Approaches:
• Early announcement / Forward Commitment
Procurement (FCP) or Prior Information Notice (PIN)
– Innovation partnership
– Needs assessment vs. market solutions
– Competitive dialogue
– Performance-based or functional requirements, also
with variants
– Competitive procedure with negotiation
• More traditional procedures:
– Open procedure
– Restricted procedure
Directive 2014/24/EU implementation in MS
depends on national legislation.
– Technical specifications, if known
• Information:
– Short prospectus or detailed tender documentation
(incl. standards)
– Info sharing with or without IPR transfer
• Joint procurement with other public / private
stakeholders  www.citymart.com/citiesshare-index
• Type of contract (e.g., Framework Agreement or Phase
Contract), also based on KPIs & indemnities
• Joint committee to steer PPI project and assess risk
sharing between procurer and supplier / provider
• Award criteria based on Total Cost of Ownership (TCO),
Life-cycle costing
Procedures and Approaches in PPI
Source: “Guidance for public authorities on Public Procurement
of Innovation”, www.innovation-procurement.org
Working Groups
Working groups
Basis for discussion to fill in the table on PPI methods:
• Legal questions related to public procurement of innovative ITS
• Procurement issues for those innovative ITS as identified
• Wider integration of PPI in the context of other instruments at regional or national level
• Interoperability and certification
• Identification and mitigation strategies for risks related to
– Technology lock-in
– Interoperability
– Compatibility with legacy systems
– Backward compatibility
– Technical maintenance
WG1:
• Topics:
– Legal aspects (incl. IPRs, liability, etc.)
– Practical aspects (e.g., product vs. service procurement)
• Composition: A. Toni (moderator), L. Stender, S. Rizzo, C. Feltus, L. Silvemark, M. Mátrai, B. Jelinek,
K. Hiltunen
WG2:
• Topics:
– C-ITS specific aspects
– Practical aspects (e.g., product vs. service procurement)
• Composition: G. Somma (moderator), J.P. Mechin, I. Fhail, J. Riccardi, C. Battaglia,
B. Kapl, S. Innamaa, A. Pou, J.M. Martínez, A. Vivero, M. Monroy
Working Group 1 - Discussion summary, 1/2
Approach
Description
Legal aspects
Practical aspects
Remuneration
• Increases the incentives for participating and
• Provide incentives / awards to the
for participation
developing/modifying/adapting solutions
suppliers to participate to market
and shortlisting • Today: Competitive dialog (and design contest)
consultations
• Directive 2014/24/EU: + innovation partnership • ‘Design contest’
• The same mechanisms as in PCP – competitive • Always consider the risk of illegal state
development but combined with a public
aid!
procurement contract
Reward
innovative
solutions
through the
evaluation
criteria
• Art. 67
• Innovation of PA in PPI
• Involve stakeholders in defining the
needs (public debate)  once needs
are known it is easier to achieve the
targets / impacts
IPR sharing
(presupposed in
innovation
partnership)
• IPR in the whole value chain – limited
IPR from supplier, then from the
subcontractor…
• Define in the requirements the
‘openness’ of your platform; example:
ACUT project (hospital sector) in
Denmark
Free test sites?
• For the market consultations
• Always consider the risk of illegal state
aid!
• Different
stakeholders
interest
Working Group 1 - Discussion summary, 2/2
Approach
Risk reducing
procedure (e.g.
joint procedure)
Description
Legal aspects
• Get all experts together when
writing the specifications
• Risk for the future by choosing
‘innovation’ – consequences
• Test period before procurement
procedure but you do it after
Practical aspects
Working Group 2 - Discussion summary, 1/5
Approach
Early
announcement
Forward
Commitment
Procurement
Description
Practical aspects
• Early announcement of intention to procure or the
deploy innovative solutions
• “Prior information notice” (PIN) in the OJEU (Official
Journal of the European Union)
• Between announcement and tender: preliminary
market consultation (art. 40) – have the industry
solutions reached the required readiness (technology,
tests, price?)
• Combined with long time limits for the receipt of
tenders?
• Guarantee of minimum procurement volume?
- Define the challenge (not
easy)  define high level
objectives from which the
functional requirements can
be derived
- Set up a working group
with different expertise
involving all relevant public /
private stakeholders
(avoiding risk of dominant
position from potential
provider by sharing
information adequately),
incl. innovation agencies
- Need to allocate budget
available vs. expected
benefit (measured with
KPIs) for both the PPI
process and then for the
actual contract (phased or
not) and clearly
communicate in the
tendering process for each
phase
ITS aspects
- Define mobility policy
vision (incl. safety,
security, and efficiency
and societal challenges)
and scenario objectives
in a defined time period
(in short / mid / longer
term)
Operational level:
- Price evolution of C-ITS
technology can change
compared to process
launch
- Service vs. technology
acquisition hides more
complexity (Comms
providers, ITS data
sharing)
Working Group 2 - Discussion summary, 2/5
Approach
Functional
requirements
Description
Practical aspects
ITS aspects
• Define req.ts Design the technical specifications with
the aim of allowing innovation, efficiency
improvement, and new ways of thinking – “open
specifications”
• Suitable for PPI’s following PCP’s or other PublicPrivate-Innovation projects (art. 14/16 f)
• Helps to prevent supplier lock-out / disqualifying
competitive advantages
- Need to define KPIs to
decide how to describe
functional req.ts; this is not
obvious how to measure
minimum thresholds vs.
optimum quality achievable
- Leave it at abstract level
(balance between under /
over specifying and keeping
the competition open)
- Market innovation:
consider technology transfer
from across different sectors
(cross-fertilisation) so to
open new markets for
existing technos
Need to refine adequacy
of functional req.ts &
KPIs while moving on in
the PPI process,
especially when technical
specifications can be
defined  evaluation
tools and metrics to be
revised at each step
Working Group 2 - Discussion summary, 3/5
Approach
Variants
Description
• Allows the procuring authority to evaluate both the
technical specified solutions but also other “already
on the market solutions”
• In principal a combined tender with, and without,
open (functional technical) specifications
Practical aspects
ITS aspects
- Risk of proper definition of
req.ts / functional
specifications vs. technical
specifications not yet
defined;
- Challenge of how to
measure how well the
different solutions match
the requirements when
these are defined at an
abstract level
- Market innovation:
consider technology transfer
from across different
sectors (cross-fertilisation)
so to open new markets for
existing technos
- Piloting solutions for
technology evaluation
but also for testing
evaluation framework
itself (the evaluation tool
could be not well suited
to assess certain
technology aspects)
Working Group 2 - Discussion summary, 4/5
Approach
Description
Total Cost of
• E.g. energy efficient or labour
Ownership
cost-saving solutions
(TCO)
• An evaluation-technical price
Life-cycle costing
comprising different aspects of
(art. 68)
the costs over the life cycle of a
product, solution etc.
• Focus on data (from the suppliers)
and transparent, objectively
verifiable and non-discriminatory
methods of calculating life-cycle
costs
Practical
aspects
ITS aspects
- Very difficult to know the cost of running the ITS
“ecosystem” (techno acquisition + operating it + …) since the
beginning of the PPI process, so a provisional price can be
defined at the end of the PPI process when awarding the
contract, and then include in the contract a process for
annual revision of price based on cost-effectiveness /
performance. e.g. if a tender cover a TM service for 5 yrs, the
contractor can fix the requirements on annual basis, so that
the TM solution is always at the front end of innovation (VTT)
- Cost of electricity related to RSU techno should be also
looked at in the long term perspective, so maybe the
cheapest RSU is more energy demanding, and another
solution can be selected because of a lower Life-Cycle cost
(TOPOS).
- Legacy issues can make the cheapest techno more
expensive to integrate in the existing system (e.g. connection
to the Traffic Mngt Centre), depending on the volumes of
units to be purchased (TOPOS).
- Interoperability: need to maintain processing performance
of old RSU / OBU when the sw is updated - often it is cheaper
to update the sw than replacing the unit; sw vs. hw rebooting
of the unit for system updates), hw rebooting in RSU require
real road works because RSU are located at the top of the
mast
Working Group 2 - Discussion summary, 5/5
Approach
Description
Remuneration
• Increases the incentives for participating and
for participation
developing/modifying/adapting solutions
and shortlisting • Today: Competitive dialog (and design contest)
• Directive 2014/24/EU: + innovation partnership
• The same mechanisms as in PCP – competitive
development but combined with a public
procurement contract
Practical aspects
- Clearly define PPI process
remuneration as an incentive for
suppliers / providers to
participate in it, but which does
not cover all their participation
expenses
Option 1) Cost of PPI process is
equally shared between procurer
and supplier, and risk-benefit to
be fairly shared as well.
Option 2) The supplier is paid not
for the work done but for the
extra cost involved with the PPI
process
- Procurer to communicate that
suppliers will be able to gather
knowledge on the procurer /
market needs while keeping the
IPRs if not selected
ITS aspects
External consultation & plans update
WP4: External consultation & feedback
WP4 objectives (M13 - M18):
• Interact with external stakeholders on the network's discussion paper
• Collect feedback
• Input the consolidated feedback in the network's work plan
Task 4.1 - Start of the external consultation
• Invitation to the identified external stakeholders
• Interviews and/or questionnaires can be used, but a physical meeting is the main activity:
– to present to external stakeholders the “Discussion paper” (D3.2) in detail
– to gather external stakeholders opinion on discussion topics
– to perform a reality check on the first conclusions of the network (not to convince anyone)
Task 4.2 - Identification of potential enablers and discussion topics update
• Based on feedback received, identify PPI enablers remaining realistic in the scale of their potential
achievement (e.g. aligning competition laws in all MS is not considered as a realistic enabler)
• Identify which points could be effectively addressed through a concerted approach and which will have
realistically the highest impact, thus leading to update network discussion topics
• Prepare the planning and work plan of the second analysis phase (WP5)
Work plan update & next meetings
• Revision of work plan 
 confirmed as agreed in Meeting #2, i.e.
meeting planned in Dec. 2014 is cancelled
• Meeting #4  3-4 February 2015, Brussels, hosted by ERTICO
– 3 Feb. 8:30-12:30 review + 3 Feb. 13:30-18:00 meeting + 4 Feb. 9-17 meeting
– Rehearsal to be organised via telco
– Agreed to invite CHARM, SYNCRO, V-CON coordinators (if they join as Associated Partners)
• Meeting #5  20-22 May 2015, Vienna, hosted by AustriaTech / ASFINAG
– 1 day workshop + 1,5 days consortium meeting with associated partners only
– Agreed to invite external consultation participants to this meeting
• Meeting #6  Sep 2015, Genoa, hosted by Regione Liguria (alternative: Helsinki, hosted by VTT)
• Meeting #7  Nov 2015 (date, venue and host to be defined)
• Meeting #8  Feb 2016 (date, venue and host to be defined)
• Meeting #9  May 2016 (date, venue and host to be defined)
First annual Progress Report & Review
Progress Report:
• Simplifications on financial aspects for lump sum Thematic Networks:
– No definition of eligible costs
– No actual cost reporting
– No justification of costs
– No provision of certificates
– No budget transfers
– Only coordinator financially validated
• Technical report:
– Contractually due to the EC within 60 days after the end of reporting period (29.01.2015)
– …but to be submitted at least two weeks prior to the Review (16.01.2015)
– Template prepared by coordinator and distributed to partners in November-December 2014
– All partners to provide input two weeks later (9 January 2015 at the very latest)
Review:
• Duration: half day
• Participants: Project coordinator, WP leaders, EC project officer, + two external reviewers appointed
• Proposed date and venue: 3 February 2015, 08:30-12:30, Meeting #4 venue (to avoid extra travels)
Discussion paper (D3.2) – draft TOC
•
Executive Summary
•
Introduction
•
Document structure
•
European legal framework (Directive 2014/24/EU on PPI and Directive 2010/40/EU on ITS)
•
PPI definitions with flowchart & TRLs / MRLs
•
P4ITS Key Network topics
•
–
PPI approaches table
–
C-ITS related aspects
Experiences and challenges / opportunities
–
Country implementations / programmes / projects
•
French case with good practice table
•
Deloitte study (L. Stender to provide G. Somma with references)
–
Practical examples
–
Plans for the future (2020 document)
Horizon 2020 calls on PPI / PCP actions
Events
www.eventbrite.com/e/modernizing-the-public-sector-and-boosting-economic-growth-throughinnovation-procurement-tickets-13238483661
This event is also related to the upcoming 2015 Horizon 2020 calls for proposals which could be of
particular attention for procurers in the transport domain:
• MG8.3 – call for PPI Cofund proposals on transport Infrastructure
• ICT-36 – call for PCP Cofund proposals on any topic in any area of public interest (including
transport) requiring ICT based solutions.
MG.8.3-2015 – Facilitating market take-up of
innovative transport infrastructure solutions
• Specific challenge: deployment of highly innovative infrastructure solutions at integrated system level
• Type of action: Public Procurement of Innovation (PPI) Cofund
• Scope: actions should lead to the improvement and capacity building in the field of public purchasing of innovative
solutions in transport infrastructure leading to implementation of best available solutions on cross-border TEN-T network
and other business cases representative of typical European situations. Proposals should be driven by clearly identified
procurement needs of infrastructure owners (the procurers), including life-cycle and cost-benefit assessments and
environmental impacts under the life-cycle perspective, and should effectively control budget across various European
regions. The work should contribute to the revision / development of relevant standards and regulatory framework, and to
study strategies oriented to favour the innovation in transport sector. Good practices should be made available for
replication.
• Expected impact: serve as pilot projects; allow for a better coordinated dialogue between procurers and suppliers;
contribute to competence building in the sector; build a coherent basis for progressive step changes to regulation,
standardisation and public procurement practices fostering innovation and sustainability in transport infrastructure.
• Call funding: total budget 18,5 Million euro (1 to 5 Million euro per project, but request can be higher); 20% funding rate.
• Call details: one-stage proposal submission; opening 24-06-2015; deadline 15-10-2015.
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/2647-mg-8.3-2015.html
ICT-36-2015 – Pre-commercial procurement open to all
areas of public interest requiring new ICT solutions
• Specific challenge: to drive innovation and reduce fragmentation of public sector demand in Europe by together
challenging the market to develop innovative ICT based solutions. To share costs of procuring high-tech R&D and to
speed up the time-to-market for promising research outcomes. To engage in more forward looking R&D procurement
strategies to modernize the provision of public services faster whilst creating opportunities for EU industry and research.
• Type of action: Pre-Commercial Procurement (PCP) Cofund
• Scope: bring radical improvements to the quality and efficiency of public services through development and validation of
breakthrough solutions through Pre-Commercial Procurement in all areas of public sector interest requiring innovative ICT
based solutions, complementary to PCP Cofund actions foreseen under other challenges in ICT LEIT. Open both to
proposals requiring improvements mainly based on one specific ICT technology field, as well as to proposals requiring
end-to-end solutions that need combinations of different ICT technologies.
• Expected impact: reduced fragmentation of demand for innovative solutions from procurers in the public sector;
increased opportunities for wide market uptake and economies of scale for the supply side through the use of joint
specifications, wide publication of results and where relevant contribution to standardisation, regulation or certification to
remove barriers for introduction of PCP innovations into the market.
• Call funding: total Call budget 561 Million euro (4 Million euro per project, but request can be higher); 70% funding rate.
• Call details: one-stage proposal submission; opening 15-10-2014; deadline 14-04-2015.
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/9092-ict-36-2015.html
ERTICO Partnership Project Proposal(s)
• Coordinated by ERTICO Office or by ERTICO Partner
• Based on the ERTICO Proposal Development Process
• ERTICO Selection Committee selects Project Core Group based on:
– Active contributions to proposal development
– Proven competence/experience and expertise of organisation and person
– Balanced and appropriate participation of sectors
– Geographical balance
– Optimum consortium size according to EC funding budget request
• Participation of non-ERTICO Partners in project proposal is decided by the Project
Core Group according to the following selection criteria:
– Needs expressed by ERTICO Partners already in the consortium (e.g. local
partners for test site activities)
– Filling gaps in competence / expertise
Statement of interest to participate in
ERTICO Partnership Project Proposal(s)
•
•
•
•
Submitted by: Organisation
Contact person: Name SURNAME, email, phone
Call identifier: MG.8.3-2015 and/or ICT-36-2015
Project contribution: Please describe briefly your contribution in the context of the
proposal selected above
• Proposed role for your organisation: Please select among Coordinator, Core team
member, Consortium partner
• Proposed contribution for your organisation: Please select one or more among
Requirements, Architecture, Research, Development, Implementation, Test- or pilotsite, Validation, Communication, Other (please specify)
• Expertise, competence and experience of your organisation: Please state your
organisation’s specific expertise, competence and experience relevant for this
particular call topic & proposed project; describe the tasks of your organisation
Please return it to g.somma@mail.ertico.com by 31 October 2014. Thank you!