Suche starten De menü de ClientConnect
Suche starten
Ergebnisse
Top-5-Suchergebnisse Alle Ergebnisse anzeigen Erweiterte Suche
Häufigste Suchbegriffe
Meistbesuchte Seiten
    Reference: SG/G/2017/04
    Received Date: 02 May 2017
    Subject: Technical Assistance TA2015041
    Complainant: Confidential
    Allegations: Alleged reduced input hours in the Technical Assistance contract
    Type: G - EIB's Governance
    Outcome*: No grounds
    Suggestions for improvement: no
    Admissibility*
    Assessment*
    Investigation*
    Dispute Resolution*
    Consultation*
    Closed*
    3/05/2017
    16/06/2017
    27/06/2017
    11/07/2017

    * Admissibility date reflects the date the case was officially registered. All other dates pertain to the date in which a stage was completed.

    Case Description

    Complaint

    On 29 April 2017, the EIB Complaints Mechanism (EIB-CM) received a complaint concerning a contract for the provision of Technical Assistance (TA) for the “Abu Tartour” port project in Egypt financed through the EIB. The complainant, had been presented as Key-Expert by the winning bidder. The Global Price contract has been awarded to a consortium composed of company A from the Netherlands, company B (Italy), and company C (United Kingdom) and led by company A.

    The complainant claims that after being approached by company B to join their Abu Tartour bid as key-expert–n° 5 – as specified in the Terms of References, he submitted a 60 day proposal at USD XXX/day (40 days UK/20 days Egypt) in November 2016. On 27 April 2017, e.g. almost 6 months later and after the start of the project in March, the complainant was made aware that his part in the contract was 20 days, instead of his proposed 60 days, with the remaining 40 days being filled by Egyptian personnel. The complainant claims that this was not according to the winning proposal of the company A led consortium to the EIB and that the consortium did win the EIB contract with the aid of his expertise as part of the bid. The complainant further claims that, after winning the contract, company B tried to drop him completely without informing the EIB, offering him 20 days as a compensation.

    EIB-CM Action

    The EIB-CM liaised with the Consultant Procurement & Contract Management Division within the SG’s Advisory Services to find out about the Global Price TA contract for the Abu Tartour port project in Egypt.

    Conclusions

    It appears that the Technical Assistance contract for the Abu Tartour port project in Egypt is a global price, output based, contract. This implies that from the EIB’s perspective the terms of the contract indeed determines the required expertise, the expertise of ‘expert n° 5’, but that it is the contractor, company B as member of the company A led consortium, that decides the number of specific working days for each expert required by the EIB under the terms of the awarded contract. Company B would indeed have had to inform the EIB if the ‘expert n° 5’ had been removed from the team, but, under the terms of the TA contract, the number of days of, and the support for, the expert-input of the ‘expert n° 5’ is entirely up to company B. The EIB-CM, therefore, concludes that the complaint has no grounds and proceeds to close the case.