Dear Mr X,

On 4 July 2001, you made a complaint against the European Commission. Your complaint concerns a decision by the Commission not to accept your firm for a tender procedure.

On 12 July 2001, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission.

On 5 and 6 September 2001, you sent emails which intended to clarify your complaint.

The Commission sent its opinion on 1 October 2001, and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. No observations appear to have been received from you.

I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

On 4 July 2001, the complainant made a complaint against the European Commission. The complaint concerned a decision by the Commission not to accept the firm for a tender procedure for the Commission's Translation Service.

In its application, the firm had presented details of a team of language revisers. The Commission rejected the application because one of the revisers did not have a university degree. The specifications of the tender states that:

"the minimum level of qualifications for a translator/reviser deemed acceptable by the Commission for the purpose of this invitation to tender is a university degree in any discipline giving access to doctoral studies. [...] As a general guide, a table showing examples of degrees is attached (Annex 2)."

Annex 2 consisted of a table with examples of the university degrees that would be accepted. In regard to most of the countries, including Portugal, the Annex added the term "or equivalent" after the university degree mentioned. In regard to other countries, no such term was added.

The complainant had submitted to the Commission that the term "or equivalent" made it possible to take into account the professional (work) experience of the reviser in question. He stated, by analogy, that this was the practice in the Commission's recruitment competitions for translators.

Thus, the complainant alleged that the Commission had interpreted or applied the tender notice wrongly, by refusing to consider professional experience as sufficient for the requirement of a qualification "equivalent" to a university degree.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

The complaint was forwarded to the Commission. The Commission submitted, in summary, the following points:

The term "University degree with First or Second Class Honours or equivalent" contained in the table in Annex 2 very clearly means that the level of qualifications required by the call for tenders in question is a degree or the equivalent of a degree. The specifications are clear in this respect as they specify "As a general guide, a table showing examples of degrees is attached", and as the table itself is entitled "Examples of degrees required of tenderers".

It is improper to interpret this provision to mean that the minimum qualification required of revisers involved in the work is either a degree or the equivalent experience. If this were the case, the concept of "equivalent experience" would have to be clarified in the tender documents (type of experience, number of years etc.).

The complainant's observations

The Commission's opinion was forwarded to the complainant for observations. The Ombudsman does not appear to have received any observations.

THE DECISION

1 Professional experience as "equivalent" to a degree

1.1 The complainant alleged that the Commission has interpreted or applied the tender notice wrongly, by refusing to consider professional experience as sufficient for the requirement of a qualification "equivalent" to a university degree.

1.2 The Commission has referred to the wording of the tender specifications, which indicate that the term "equivalent" only concerns equivalent degrees, not equivalent working experience.

1.3 After careful examination of the documents submitted by the complainant and the Commission, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission's view appears to be well founded. There has therefore been no maladministration by the Commission.

2 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European Commission. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The President of the European Commission will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

Jacob SÖDERMAN