1. Kristel Haiba-Rillo Gabriela Tanase
PRAG Services
Kristel Haiba-Rillo
Gabriela Tanase

2. Kristel Haiba-Rillo Education:
Bachelor in International Business Administration,
currently M.Sc studies in Business Administration
Relevant professional experience:
Ministry of Finance /CFCU, procurement specialist
Ministry of Finance/CFCU, head of department

3. Gabriela Tanase Education Bachelor Degree in Environmental Sciences
Professional management Certificate
Communication and Public Relations –Master
Relevant professional experience
, Ministry of Environment/
Directorate for International Programmes and
Projects-Expert
2004/- East West Consulting, Director

4. Training Objectives
Understanding of PRAG procedures for service component in general
Specific understanding on different service procurement procedures
Identification of problematic steps and finding solutions
The future for procurement of services

5. Agenda (1) Day 1: Introduction to the basics of the PRAG services
10:30 – 11:00 Introduction of participants and training in general
11:00 – 12:30 PRAG through changes, CIS, DIS and EDIS, main principals of PRAG (presentation)
12:30 – 13:30 Lunch
13:30 – 15:00 Preparation and control of forecasts, procurement notices, short-listing (presentation and case studies)
15:00 – 15:15 Coffee/tee break
15:15 – 16:15 Exercise: evaluation of an application form
16:15- 17:00 New procedure: Competitive Dialogue (presentation)
17:00 – 17:15 Round-up of the Day

6. Agenda (2) Day 2: drafting TD
09:00 – 10:30 Planning the tendering, content of the TD (presentation)
10:30-10:45 Coffee/tee break
10:45 – 11:45 Watch-outs for the preparation of TD, clarifications (presentation)
11:45 – 12:30 Exercise on drafting the ToR (objectives, activities and results)
12:30 – 13:30 Lunch
13:30 – 15:00 Cont. drafting the ToR (profile of the experts versus Evaluation Grid, administrative aspects)
15:00 – 15:15 Coffee/tee break
15:15 – 16:45 Cont. drafting ToR and conclusion on compiling ToR
16:45 – 17:00 Round-up of the Day

7. Agenda (3) Day 3: Evaluation
09:00 – 10:30 Evaluation process within different procedures (presentation)
10:30-10:45 Coffee/tee break
10:45 – 12:30 Exercise on the evaluation of bids (CVs for 2 offers)
12:30 – 13:30 Lunch
13:30 – 15:00 Cont. exercise on the evaluation of bids (organisation and methodology; financial proposal)
15:00 – 15:15 Coffee/tee break
15:15 – 15:45 Cont. exercise on the evaluation of bids
15:45 – 17:00 Key Principles of Tender Award,
Cancellation and Modification (presentation)
17:00 -17:15 Round-up of the Day

8. Agenda (4) Day 4: Contract management
09:00 – 10:20 Managing contracts according to PRAG
10:30-10:45 Coffee/tee break
10:45 – 12:30 Exercise on Project Reporting
12:30 – 13:30 Lunch
13:30 – 14:30 Contract modifications
14:30 – 15:00 post PRAG
15:00 – 15:15 Coffee/tee break
15:15 – 17:00 Conclusion, assessment test and course evaluation

9. PRAG through changes
PRAG Practical Guide to Phare, Ispa and Sapard contract procedures
PRAG 2003 – Practical Guide to contract procedures financed form the General Budget of the European Communities in the context of external actions
/financial penalties were introduced, competitive negotiated procedure, complaints, payment terms (60 → 45),/

10. PRAG through changes
PRAG 2006 – Practical Guide to contract procedures for EC external actions
/new procedures, evaluation
criteria more specified, administrative
requirements more flexible/
1.Introduction, 2.Basic rules, 3.Service contracts, 4.Supply contracts, 5.Works contracts, 6. Grants 7.Relations with Int.org…
New! 8.Legal texts + 9.List of annexes

11. Implementation Systems
Centralised Implementation System
Decentralised Implementation System (ex-ante, ex-post) - DIS
Extended Decentralised Implementation system – EDIS

12. CIS
The EC is the Contracting Authority and takes decisions on behalf of the beneficiary country
+ EC responsibility
+ centrally monitored
Different approaches applied
Confuses the beneficiaries

13. DIS Ex-ante: decisions taken by the CA with prior approval from the EC
Ex-post: decisions taken by the CA without prior approval from the EC if stated in the Financing Agreement
+ trainer in place
+ direct link with the system establishers
time-consuming
too many different interpretations

14. EDIS
Full responsibility for processing EU funding is placed with the beneficiary country. The Commission will only have examination role over the programmes
+ local legislation applied
+ faster process?
full responsibility
more reporting to EC

15. PRAG – Guide or Law?
PRAG 2006: : „In case of non-respect of the procedures established in the present Guide, the expenditure related to the operations involved are ineligible in terms of Community financing”
BE AWARE!

16. EU Procurement and services ESSENTIALS ELIGIBILITY (1)
Nationality – open to equal terms to all natural and legal persons to the EU Member States and the countries covered by the Regulation under which the contract is financed
Origin – all supplies and materials purchased under a procurement contract financed from the instrument must originate in a State as defined in the nationality rule

17. cont. Eligibility
Eligible countries
Member states: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, UK
Candidate Countries: Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Turkey
Other countries (CARDS): Albania, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia-Montenegro

18. cont. Eligibility Possible reasons for applying derogation:
- specific nature of projects require involving nationals of ineligible countries (i.e. non-citizens integration projects)
- the needed equipment is only available of non-eligible origin (i.e. compatibility with the existing system etc)

19. Grounds for exclusion (2)
PRAG Article 2.3.3
NEW! Only for contracts with a value of 50,000 EUR and more, the proofs regarding exclusion and selection criteria are still required, optional for contracts with a lower value. In the latter case, no pre-financing or interim payment may be made

20. Administrative and Financial penalties (3)
Tenderers or candidates who have been guilty of making false declarations will receive penalties representing 2-10% of the total value of the contract being awarded
Contractors who have been found t have seriously failed to meet their contractual obligations will receive penalties 2-10% of the value of the contract in question (rate may be increased to 4-20% in the event of a repeat offence within 5 years of the first infringement.
Early warning system!
No penalties for the CA?!

21. Visibility (4) Visual Identity Guidelines
For services: the specific marks on the elaborated materials (public reports, training materials, brochures, internet pages etc), EU flag present at public events (seminars, trainings, conferences etc).
Visual Identity Guidelines should be annexed to the TD and contract – so that the Consultant should take care of respecting the requirements

22. NEW! Conflict of Interest (5)
Any firm or expert participating in the preparation of a project must be excluded from participating in tenders based on this preparatory work, unless they can prove to the Contracting Authority that the involvement in previous stages of the project does not constitute unfair competition

23. Awarding principals (6)
Transparency
Proportionality
Equal treatment
Non-discrimination
The best tender complying with the selection and award criteria must be selected

24. No retroactive awards (7)
Contracts or contract addenda cannot be awarded retroactively (NEW! confusing clarification: “i.e. after the end of execution period”)

25. Use of standard documents (8)
very strict
Complicated/unknown rules, huge amount of documents
Language = less local firms interested
+ clear instructions
+ shared responsibility
+ complicated/unknown rules = less complaints

26. Record keeping (9)
Written records of the entire tendering and contracting procedure must be kept confidential (?) and retained by the CA for 7 years after the final payment
!!! Not respecting this requirement might lead to repayment of funds

27. Service contract award procedures
≥ 200,000€
International restricted tender procedure
< 200,000€ but > 5,000€
1.FWC
2. Competitive negotiated procedure
≤ 5,000€
Single tender

28. New service contract award procedures
Negotiated procedure
Competitive dialogue
Dynamic purchasing system

29. International Restricted Procedure (stage 1)
NEW! No global contract forecast required with PRAG 2006
Publication of individual contract forecast – at least 30 days before publishing the PN
Call for interest based on the Procurement Notice (sent to OJ at least 15 days before the expected publication date + ToR)
Establishing Shortlist Panel
Shortlisting
Approval of Shortlist report/notice
Publication of shortlist notice

30. Contract forecast Obligatory for contracts worth 200,000 EUR or more
Should be published at least 30 days before the publication of procurement notice
Gives brief indication of the subject, value and content of the tender/contract
Publication of forecast does not bind the CA to launch a tender or conclude a contract
No expressing interest by the service providers at this stage

31. Procurement Notice
Sent to OJ at least 15 days before the expected publication date
PN sent for approval to ECD together with draft ToR
Any publication in the local media should be organised by CA – identical to the PN published in OJ, same timing
Minimum deadline for submitting applications is 30 days from the date of the notice’s publication (might be longer)

32. Procurement Notice
Should include information for the would-be-service-providers in order to help them to identify whether their capacity is relevant and sufficient for performing the services
Selection Criteria:
Clearly formulated
Easy to verify on the basis of the information submitted using the standard form
Allow a clear yes/no assessment to be made
Any selection criteria should be of the kind that is possible to be evaluated based on the standard application form

33. Shortlist Panel
Non-voting Chairperson and Secretary + odd number of voting members (min 3)
Voting members must:
Have a reasonable command of language
Have experience in the field in order to be able to give assessment
Composition of Shortlist panel should be approved by ECD
NEW! If no objections received within 5 working days the panel is considered approved

34. Shortlisting
Establishing a long list summarising all applications received
Eliminating candidates who are ineligible
Applying the published selection criteria without modification
Shortlist: 4-8 candidates
If < 4 then cancellation
If > than 8 additional criteria stated in the PN should be applied
SHORTLIST REPORT – approval round + shortlist notice

35. Practical exercises
Based on the given Project Fiche compile the Procurement Notice
Fill in an application form based on the Procurement Notice elaborated

36. NEW! Competitive Dialogue
Definition: CD is a procedure whereby the CA conducts a dialogue with the candidates admitted to that procedure, with the aim of developing on or more suitable alternatives capable of meeting its requirements, and on the basis of which the candidates are invited to tender

37. Competitive Dialogue (dir 2004/18)
For particular complex contracts
If CA cannot define technical and/or legal solution
Combination of restricted and negotiated procedure – enhanced transparency
Aiming at identifying the needs of the CA and finding one or more suitable solutions as a basis for competitive tendering

38. Competitive Dialogue Selection of (at least 3) candidates
Publication of a notice in the EU OJ
Description of needs and requirements in the notice or in descriptive document
Selection of candidates (like in restricted procedure

39. Competitive Dialogue Dialogue with selected candidates
In general separately and confidentially
Successive stages possible in order to reduce number of solutions
In case of a multi-stage dialogue a reduction in numbers may be applied but the number of tenderers after last stage may not be less than three
Records should be made of every dialogue that shall be signed by the participants and that shall be dispatched to everyone

40. Competitive Dialogue Award
After identification of solution: invitation to submit final offer
Most economically advantageous offer according to award criteria stated in the invitation
Fine-tuning possible but no substantial change in the offer

41. Competitive Dialogue
What happens if no suitable solution has been proposed:
A new procedure can be initiated
A negotiated procedure can be initiated (if justified and the original terms of the contract are kept)

42. Competitive Dialogue
For complex projects, the CA does not always know what the market can offer
Restricted procedure: legally right, but too rigid. Risks to prevent innovative solutions to be proposed
Negotiated procedure: not transparent enough
Interest for the CA: to have the possibility to have discussions with service-providers (also the interest of the service-providers)
However, such a procedure is interesting for suppliers only if their ideas are protected!

43. Round-up of the day