P4ITS Meeting #8 Giacomo Somma Project coordinator

Welcome!

Benef. numberBenef. short-nameFirst nameFamily name 1ERTICOGiacomoSomma 2NDRLasseStender 3ATE BiancaKapl 4ASFINAG BernhardJelinek 5VLJozefCannaerts 6VIGOManuelMonroy 6VIGOAntonioVivero 7CTAGJose ManuelMartinez 9VTT AkiLumiaho 10ÉARDAMelindaMátrai 11ITS BretagneImadFhail 13LISTChristopheFeltus 14 ITS Sweden (STA)AnnicaRoos 15LIGURIA JacopoRiccardi 15LIGURIA SilviaRisso 16OHLCEmilioCacheiro Participants list Excused 8 FTAEskoHätälä 12VERONABrunoPezzuto 17TOPOS (CEREMA)Jean-PhilippeMéchin

Meeting objectives and agenda

P4ITS objectives (second year) Overall project objectives Mutual learning and training Set up 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 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 Specific WP5 objectives (M19 – M24) Trigger in-depth discussion on the updated identified barriers, or new topics identified Prepare draft key recommendations/guidelines

P4ITS Meeting #7, Helsinki, Main outcomes of Meeting #7: Recommendations / Guidelines (deliverable D6.2): draft format & structure defined Meeting #7 follow-up: Preparation & publication of short version of D4.1 for the participants to the external consultation Deliverable D4.2 cancelled with the approval of the EC project officer Final event at the ITS World Congress successfully concluded Received input by NDR and VTT for the draft D6.2

Objectives P4ITS Meetings 6-7  Meeting 8 Task Identification of potential enablers and discussion topics update (end M18) 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 work plan of the second analysis phase (WP5) and update meetings planning for In addition: Prepare P4ITS towards a sustainable longer-term network (new partners, funding opportunities, etc.) –MG-4.4: CSA on urban transport deployment, 2M€, 26 Jan 2016 –ICT-34: PCP on ICT based solutions for any area of public interest, 4 M€, 12 Apr 2016 –ICT-33: CSA on competence centers & procurer networks in any area preparing PCP/PPIs, 4 M€, 25 Apr 2017 PCP actions: co-finance (90%) actual procurement cost for joint PCPs + coordination costs PPI actions: co-finance (35%) actual procurement cost for joint PPIs + coordination costs CSA actions: co-finance (100%) only coordination costs e.g. procurer networks preparing future PCPs/PPIs

WP5: 2 nd analysis phase WP5 objectives (M19 – M24): Trigger in-depth discussion on the updated identified barriers, or new topics identified Prepare draft key recommendations/guidelines Task Analysis of the updated discussion points/enablers The network will hold a meeting (Helsinki, Sep 2015) to move forward on the identified enablers. Network partners will have to: –process external feedback and provide a possible answer to realise the enablers; –have a close look at the latest PPI experiences and actual cases –look at the legal context, evolved with the entry into force of the new public procurement directives Task Towards the delivery of recommendations The network will hold a meeting (Genoa, 2-3 Dec 2015) to discuss potential recommendations. Partners should identify items where a consensus and a consolidated approach can be reached, and can have a positive impact for the market deployment of cooperative ITS. Partners should produce a short internal report summarising the rationale behind the production of recommendations, and a draft structure of the recommendations deliverable to be documented into written meetings proceedings, and made publicly available.

Agenda of P4ITS Meeting #8 Day 1 – Wednesday, 2 December :30Arrival of the participants 09:00 – 09:10Opening and welcome 09:10 – 09:30 Meeting objectives and agenda Network management and status overview 09:30 – 10:00 Session 1: Presentations (10 minutes each + 5 minutes Q&A):  D6.2 – draft legal chapter (Lasse Stender, North Denmark Region)  project (Imad Fhail, ITS Bretagne) 10:00 – 10:30Coffee break 10:30 – 12:30 Session 2: Preparation of draft recommendations / guidelines paper – Plenary discussion 12:30 – 13:30 Lunch 13:30 – 15:30 Session 2 (continued): Work on draft legal and C-ITS chapters – Discussion in two Working Groups 15:30 – 16:00 Coffee break 16:00 – 17:00 Session 2 (continued): Preparation of draft recommendations / guidelines paper – Plenary discussion 19:30Network dinner

Agenda of P4ITS Meeting #8 Day 2 – Thursday, 3 December :30 – 10:30 Session 3: PPI enablers & key points for a concerted approach 10:30 – 11:00Coffee break 11:30 – 13:00 Session 4: Discussion on setting-up a sustainable longer-term network Update of work plan, next steps and next meetings 13:00 End of the meeting 13:00 – 14:00 Lunch

Network management status overview

Deliverables Deliverable No. Deliverable name WP No. Nature Dissem. level Due delivery date Actual / planned submission date D1.1Network quality planWP1ReportCOM3M13 D1.2Year 1 progress reportWP1ReportPUM13M14 D1.3Year 2 progress reportWP1ReportPUM25M26 D1.4Final reportWP1ReportPUM30 D1.5Project factsheetWP1OtherPUM2M5 D1.6.(0 to 9)Quarterly Progress ReportWP1ReportCOM4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 30 M5, 9, 11, 13, 16, 19, 21, 26 D1.7Draft standalone webpageWP1OtherPUM2M3 D2.1Network topics description and work planWP2ReportPUM6M10 D2.2New partners application processWP2ReportPUM6M10 D3.1WP3 meetings proceedingsWP3ReportPUM12M13 D3.2Discussion paperWP3ReportPUM12M15 D4.1WP4 external meetings proceedings and feedbackWP4ReportPUM18M21 D4.2Updated network topics description and work planWP4ReportPUM18Cancelled D5.1WP5 meetings proceedingsWP5ReportPUM24M26 D6.1WP6 meetings proceedingsWP6ReportPUM30 D6.2Final guidelines/recommendationsWP6ReportPUM30 D6.3Letter of commitment for the network continuation (if agreed by the network members) WP6OtherPUM30 D7.1Communication planWP7ReportCOM7M10 D7.2Network websiteWP7ReportPUM9M3 (report M13) D7.3Network leafletWP7OtherPUM9M11 D7.4Final eventWP7OtherPUM24M23 (report M26) D7.5Network compendiumWP7ReportPUM30 Renamed: WP2 meetings proceedings

Milestones Milestone No. Milestone name WP No. Achievement Planned date Actual date Leads to M1Project confirmed WP1Grant agreement signedM0 Start of the project Opening of WP1 and WP2 M2WP2 endWP2Agreement on key topics and work planM6M10End of WP2 Start of WP3 M3WP3 endWP3Invitation sent to external stakeholders, with the discussion paper enclosed M13M15End of WP3 Start of WP4 M4WP4 endWP4Agreement on the 2 nd analysis phase work plan M18M19End of WP4 Start of WP5 M5WP5 endWP5Draft guidelines internally circulatedM24M25End of WP5 Start of WP6 M6Network continuation WP6Go/no go decision on the continuation of the network M30Set-up of a sustainable network following the project / end of the network activities M7Project completed WP1Final review successfully passedM31Finalisation of reporting and closing

Risk management Description of possible risk Impact Probability of occurrence Remedial action Partner dropping-out Low 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. Change of staff at one partner Medium Recommend two active participants from each partner to ensure continuity in the event of a person departing. Members of the network are not experienced enough in PPI High 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. Partners send a different member of staff to network meetings each time HighMediumMeetings planned well in advance to ensure that the right people are available. Network unable to agree on the key points for discussion HighLowEnsuring the success of WP2, i.e. agreeing to a work plan, is key to creating a common view on where the project should go. Availability of negative experiences HighMediumPossibly 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).

2 nd 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 ( ) –…but to be submitted at least two weeks prior to the Review ( ) –Report prepared by coordinator and distributed to partners mid Dec for review / approval by all partners until Monday, 4 January 2015 (at the very latest) Review: Duration: half day Participants: Project coordinator, CTAG, NDR,, EC project officer, + two external reviewers Agreed date & venue: 21 January 2016,10:00-13:30, DG CNECT premises BU25 0/S10

Network Meeting Beneficiary NM # 1NM # 2 NM # 3NM # 4NM # 5NM # 6 NM # 7NM # 8Missed 1ERTICOxxxMxxxx 2NDRxxxExxxx 3ATExxxExxxx 4ASFINAGxxxTxxx1 5VLxIxxx3 6VIGOxNxx4 7CTAGxxxGxxxx 8FTAxxxx3 9VTTxxxCxxxx 10ÉARDAxxAxxxx1 11ITS BretagnexxxNxxxx 12VERONAxxCxx3 13LISTxxxExxxx 14ITS Sweden (STA)xxxLxxx1 15LIGURIAxxxLxxxx 16OHLCxxxExxx1 17TOPOS (CEREMA)xxxDxx2 P4ITS meetings attendance by partners

Dissemination

Other news, events, publications, …?  Please give echo to P4ITS on your website and provide inputs for the P4ITS website Inputs? suggestions? Please send them to

Presentations

project, Imad Fhail, ITS Bretagne D6.2 – draft legal chapter, Lasse Stender, North Denmark Region

P4ITS Recommendations / Guidelines

Recommendations/guidelines paper A4 format - Each chapter structured in small “modules” that can be read stand alone as in P3ITS handbook with colored box text-shapes with Pros/Cons/Risks (green/red/yellow) and practical examples (blue) TOC: Intro on how we intend PPI (short version from Discussion paper – PPI flowchart without TRL) Intro on the C-ITS context we look at in relation to PPI (Flowchart with TRL) In-depth analysis of PPI approaches, legal aspects & IPRs –Legal framework (Procurement Directive, procedures with TRL (Trafikverket), explanation that PPI is procedure-neutral)  pages –Approaches to PPI  Table in 1 page (Lasse ppt from Verona) –Elaboration on legal aspects (e.g. Jean-Philippe presentation from Bordeaux, Deloitte study?) –IPRs In-depth analysis of PPI and (Cooperative) ITS –PPI and TRL together with WG3 table –Suitability of PPI for C-ITS (Day-1 technology, market, risk,) –Practical examples of PPI in C-ITS (national/EU, like Eco-ATE, NordicWay,...) Ways forward to PPI –PPI Enablers –Some recommendations for policy makers –Some recommendations for public procurers

PPI enablers Overall innovation strategy and integration of PPI strategy in different sectorial strategies –Out-of-the-box re-thinking process –Definition of strategic objectives, key priorities and multi-annual master plans with concrete KPIs to measure achievements –Reserve dedicated budget for deployment of innovative solutions Clear rules / legal framework for PPI –Define clear, measurable innovative characteristics in the award criteria of public procurement procedures –Set up clear rules to minimise the risk for public procurers of setting up wrong or unsucessful tenders or having to deal with appeals (before or after granting the tender to a supplier/provider) Training and education in PPI, such as: –For public procurers and suppliers on how PPI can be implemented in practice –Promotion to create awareness on opportunities for PPI and achieve acceptance –Guidelines for documentation of common standards and best practices for PPI National Contact Points, such as: –Create a network of contact points supported by a central service unit of expert people on innovation procurement (collecting, disseminating knowledge on a strategic and operational level) also linking procurers and suppliers –Establish and maintain a knowledge platform (IT tool for PPI) and link procurers with suppliers Make innovations measurable to better demonstrate and communicate benefits –Consider quantitative / qualitative assessment of cost-benefits (material and immaterial) between keeping on with an existing solution and procuring an innovative solution –Evaluate the impacts on socio-economic, environmental and business aspects (e.g., business model of public company) Multiregional PPI / PPI with several procurers? (“Nordic Way Project”) –Sharing resources and risk between different public administrations to make procurement more effective –Create economies of scale and increase equity for the purchasers and suppliers in one regions or from different regions –Carry out harmonised procurement actions in terms of technical specifications (e.g., interoperability), financial aspects, organisational aspects, particularly sensitive in case of new, risky innovative solutions Bottom-up PPI –Create a mechanism (e.g., innovation platform / virtual box) allowing suppliers to put forward innovative solutions in any sector, which can then be selected by public administrations to answer a general issue or specific need (innovation procurement driven by supply side, not by procurement side) Bianca to provide example Canada Silvia to provide example (if any) Wider possibilities of demonstrating innovation –Enable living labs approach / test fields / participation of users / in real traffic conditions in a controlled or open environment –Enable sharing of open data and open standards

Key points for a concerted approach To be elaborated at P4ITS Meeting #8

Next steps

WP6: Final recommendations and continuation framework WP6 objectives (M25 – M30): Finalise recommendations Decide on the need and conditions for the continuation of the network Task Network recommendations Network meeting # 9 (19-20 January 2016, Brussels, Belgium) Reach a common position on some topics and propose some recommendations, based on draft doc; The network recommendations: –Target Group(s): addressed to themselves (as procuring authorities), to a specific type of external stakeholders (e.g. industry suppliers) or to the community at large; –Rationale: be specific, realistic and support the deployment of C-ITS through wider use of PPI approaches. PPI will be presented in a critical way, with advantages and disadvantages, and in the context of the different tools supporting C-ITS deployment, with areas where PPI is more adequate than other tools. –Format: short deliverable, easy to communicate on; attractive format for a wide dissemination is expected. Task Network continuation Network meeting # 10 (5-6 April 2016, Vigo, Spain) Decide whether the network will continue its activity after the end of the project : YES or NO, format, objectives in a wider context (pilot deployment projects, readiness of the C-ITS market, number of PPI cases undertaken in Europe, implementation of the new public procurement directives, etc.) If YES, sign a letter of commitment, highlighting the main objectives of the follow-up network, potential format of the network, its sources of financing (e.g., subscription based) and its terms of reference.

Work plan update & next meetings Revision of work plan   confirmed as agreed in Meeting #2, i.e. Meeting # 4 (Dec. 2014) was cancelled Meeting #9  January 2016, Brussels, Belgium (hosted by ERTICO) –19 Jan. half day (13:00-17:30) –20 Jan. full day (9:00-17:30) Meeting #10  5-6 April 2016, Vigo, Spain (hosted by Vigo City Council) –2 full days (from 9:00 to 17:30)

Expectations, contributions, continuation CTAG & VIGO: good learning, C-ITS focus, OK to continue provided there are funding opportunities. VTT: good learning, funding needed to continue, need to see benefit and go from high to practical level to be able produce best practices for daily work of Finnish procurers. LIST: new partnership to investigate & provide procurement tool to support the PPI tendering and select the best solution; funding opportunity could be MG (not a PPI call), interest by city of Tampere. OHLC: interest to continue, but need to define the right framework. ATE: good network, good dynamics, interest to continue collecting best practices examples to create a body of knowledge on PPI (funding needed, CSA?), but not to go for actual joint procurement action for now EARDA: learning phase for change management, stage-1 PCP proposal submitted, but not sure about continuation due to company re-organisation in the near future. VL: good networking partnership; no continuation due to re-organisation; Flemish innovation agency could be right partner; push to address procurement aspects in WG in the EU C-ITS platform (knowledge creating / sharing). Send them final recommendations deliverable. Set up an EU project to work as WG in EU C-ITS Platform (like the EIP  European ITS platform, follow-up of EasyWay project, now EIP+ and soon EU-EIP, funded by H2020 and CEF)? NDR: good common understanding achieved on “flexible thinking” about PPI / procurement, hoped to have more legal/procurement expertise in the network  learning limited on these aspects; very positive about continuation with another EU project to provide legal advice on flexible framework to allow C-ITS deployment. ITSB: set up training programme / promotion as next step? Agree with VTT & LIST. ITSS / STA: good learning, continuation to be considered depending on focus (procurement vs. ITS). TOPOS/CEREMA: re-organisation after ITS WC might lead to terminate TOPOS, so possible continuation as CEREMA. CEREMA’s continuation in P4ITS depends role in EU-EIP, where CEREMA is partner and on policy level decision. Indeed a national WG will be set up in coming months to define guidelines and create software for public procurers for implementing new French procurement law. VERONA: support VTT proposal, but need to see possibility of follow up due to entity reorganisation. LIGURIA: support VTT proposal, but feasibility depending on legal frameworks developed at national level, which can be a barriers to common approach (depends on policy level decision). ERTICO: challenge as coordinator to elaborate on legal, procurement, ITS aspects, but good value to work with P4ITS network; a different project structure could have facilitated the work and the contributions of each partner (e.g., vertical axes for specific legal, ITS, etc. aspects and horizontal axis to bring everything together; need to seek EU funding opportunities where VTT proposal for continuation could fit in, provided that this coagulates interest of the ERTICO partnership.