Strasbourg, 30 July 2007

Dear Mr X,

On 29 June 2006, acting on behalf of Y, you submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission. Your complaint concerns the Commission's handling of ManagEnergy tenders.

On 24 October 2006, I forwarded your complaint to the President of the Commission.

On 5 March 2007, I received the Commission's opinion, which I forwarded to you with an invitation to make observations. No observations have been received from you.

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

THE COMPLAINT

The facts, according to the complainant, can be summarised as follows.

Y ("the complainant") develops online video technology and implements it on web-based applications. It also supplies clients with video streaming services.

In 2004, the complainant supplied video streaming and web-hosting services to the Commission's Directorate-General for Energy and Transport ("DG TREN"). It also set up the "ManagEnergy" portal (http://www.managenergy.tv) under DG TREN's ManagEnergy tender procedure. It also applied for the following year's ManagEnergy tender (hosting, web application developing and wide streaming), but was not selected.

On 27 June 2006, the Commission informed the complainant, by e-mail, that DG TREN was in the process of evaluating the ManagEnergy tender proposals for that year and was surprised that the complainant did not participate.

The complainant replied that it was surprised to learn that the tender was already closed, since it regularly monitored the "Tenders Electronic Daily" supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union ("TED") and did not detect it. The complainant took the view that it was very difficult to get the tender specifications from the TED search database, which is the official gateway to new tenders. It emphasised that it had used keywords such as "webstreaming", "video", "webcast" and "managenergy", but did not obtain any useful hits. The complainant expressed concern that other companies might also have missed the tender. It further took the view that the limited number of bids on this tender could be explained by the fact that the tender was difficult to find in the TED database.

The Commission replied that TED should not have presented any problems and that it had followed all the necessary administrative and legal procedures. It offered, however, assistance with further information concerning the way to find information on DG TREN tenders on the TED and EUROPA websites and invited the complainant, should he so wish, to suggest improvements on the Commission's information services.

On 28 June 2006, the complainant replied to the Commission and emphasised that it was monitoring the TED database regularly and that it did not manage to obtain any information from the TED, or from any other source, about the ManagEnegy tender for 2006. Considering the scope of the tender and the large sums involved in it, the complainant would have expected the Commission to ensure that the tender could be easily found on the TED database. The complainant had partnered in previous tenders with some large broadcasting and satellite companies which could have provided added value to the procedure. However, the complainant and the other potential tenderers failed to find the appropriate information. The complainant further referred to the ManagEnergy tender of the previous year and took the view that its requirements were not visible in the work developed by the tender's winner. The service delivered by the winning tenderer was of less value than the service required by the tender specifications. According to the complainant, there were

"[s]ome graphical changes in the portal while receiving default streams only, i.e. nothing new in terms of innovation, free tools for local energy actors, enhanced stats, flash presentations, metadata or pushing forward the mpeg-4 standard and all the other last official tender requirements. (...) [C]amera shots (...) were often downgraded to single shots, [no] interactive events (chats) (...)".

These facts gave the complainant cause to question the management and implementation of the tender.

On the same day, the Commission replied that nine experts from six highly-qualified companies had participated in the tender information session that took place on 21 March 2006. The number of companies participating in the tender was in line with the number of companies in the tender procedures in which the complainant had also participated previously. These companies were able to find information through the official sources provided by the Commission and did not complain about the available information systems. The complainant should therefore not blame the Commission for its own failure to find the information and, in the future, should consider checking the relevant website regularly.

The complainant was not satisfied with the Commission's reply and, on 29 June 2006, lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman.

The complainant alleged, in summary, that the Commission failed properly to publish the TED version of the 2006/S45-046805 ManagEnergy invitation to tender. In support of this allegation, the complainant made the following arguments:

1. The invitation to tender had a name that indicated nothing about its content. Although the invitation to tender concerned services related to communication, such as audio visual work, web casting (video streaming), video portal maintenance, graphics and mailing lists, it was called "46805-2006 B-Brussels: copywriting agency services". It also differed from the 2005 tender, which had been given the name of "83653-2005 B- Brussels: production of video-on-demand and other online services under the European Commission ManagEnergy Initiative". Other invitations to tender relating to web casting and communication via online video were given a name that reasonably indicated their purpose and which have thus received the complainant's proper attention(1).
2. It had found the invitation to tender under the tag words "managenergy", "streaming" and "on demand", but not under the keywords such as "webcasting", "web casting", "video" or "broadcasting". The invitation to tender was detected in the database only retrospectively after a copy of the invitation was e-mailed to the complainant, upon its request. Without prior knowledge it was impossible to detect the invitation to tender unless every single tender on the TED database was screened.
3. The invitation to tender was published only for 49 days (between 7 March 2006 and 19 April 2006), while the time-limit for applications should be of a minimum of 52 days, as from the despatch of the notice for publication in the Official Journal. This alone rendered the call to tender invalid.

The complainant also alleged that in 2005, the Commission selected a tenderer which did not fully comply with the requirements of the tender. In support of this allegation, the complainant argued that many of the tender requirements did not appear in the project and the overall delivered service was of much lower value than the service originally required by the tender.

The complainant claimed that (i) the retrieval of information from the TED should be improved; (ii) the 2006 ManagEnergy invitation to tender should be cancelled and a new tender published allowing the complainant to participate; and (iii) the complainant should be compensated for the losses incurred.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

The Commission's opinion can be summarised as follows.

The 2006 ManagEnergy tender

The TREN/400/01-2006 tender concerned Framework Contracts relating to support services for the organisation of information, communication and dissemination activities in the fields of energy and transport. The tasks covered by the invitation to tender comprised advice, preparation, implementation and monitoring of information and communication activities of the Commission services in the field of Community policies, and in particular, energy and transport policies. The aim of the invitation to tender was to improve public perception of the EU and to make EU-supported activities in the field of energy and transport more visible. The invitation to tender was published in Official Journal S45 of 7 March 2006.

In the framework of SIMAP ("Système informatique des marchés publiques"), all tenders are named by the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities ("OPOCE") in accordance with the first Common Procurement Vocabulary ("CPV") code, chosen by the contracting authority(2). These CPV codes are used to improve transparency, as they constitute the main tools to publish the procurement notices in 20 official languages of the EU, and to respect the publication deadlines laid down in Directive 2004/17/EC(3) and Directive 2004/18/EC(4). This is particularly important for the contract notices from Member States, the translation for which is completely automated.

The procurement procedure concerned five different lots. Since these lots involved different activities in the same area (information, communication and broadcasting activities), there was no CPV code covering all of them. The first CPV code, used as the title of the contract notice by OPOCE, corresponds to the first lot. Each of the five lots was published individually in the contract notice, under the corresponding CPV code. In addition, the full title of the contract was also published in the contract notice(5). OPOCE leaves the possibility to the contracting authority to use, upon request, a title which does not correspond to the first CPV code, but which describes in more detail the subject of the tender. This is possible only because the contract notices of institutions, unlike to contract notices from Member States, require a translation which is not completely automated. The Commission now makes wider use of this possibility.

The key words "webcasting", "web casting", "video", "broadcasting", "webstreaming" and "video on demand" did not correspond to any CPV codes. The expressions "webcasting" or "web casting" have not been used in the contract notice. However, the expressions "webstreaming", "broadcasting", "video" and "video on demand" were used in the contract notice.

A 'normal search' of the TED database with these key words (under the 'full text' search option), or any other words used in the contract notice such as, for instance, "multimedia" or "internet portal", would thus have enabled the complainant to find the tender notice. The complainant is aware of the terminology used in the tender, as it is the same as the one used in the previous tenders in which it had participated.

The search capabilities of the TED database are numerous. Sophisticated and simple-to-use TED search tools allow tenderers, among other possibilities, to search by 'business sector', 'location', or 'institution', or use free text queries. Even without a precise CPV code, an operator should be able to find a specific tender on TED.

The complainant does not state that he performed a search and did not find the invitation to tender, but that he had found it under different 'tag words'. It would appear that the complainant performed his search retrospectively, when he was already aware of the contract notice. The Commission cannot see how the complainant was affected in any way by this alleged irregularity, particularly given that the call for tender was not only published on TED, but also on DG TREN's website under its full title, and not under a CPV code.

Article 140(2) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities(6) provides that, in open procedures, the time-limit for receipt of tenders shall be no less than 52 days from the date on which the contract notice is dispatched.

The complainant has possibly confused the date of dispatch with the date of the publication in the Official Journal, that is, 7 March 2006. The date of dispatch was 23 February 2006. The final date for receipt of tenders was set at 19 April 2006, thus 55 days after dispatch of the notice, thereby respecting the applicable legal obligations(7).

In view of the above, the Commission concluded that the tender notice was published in accordance with the applicable legislation and good administrative practice and that there are therefore no grounds to cancel the TREN/400/01-2006 tender procedure or to pay any compensation to the complainant.

The previous ManagEnergy tender

The TREN/D3/13-2004 tender concerned the provision of services to the Commission in order to support the implementation of the ManagEnergy Initiative: virtual facilities for energy and transport actors at local and regional levels. This tender was published in Official Journal S128 of 3 July 2004. Although the complainant had provided webstreaming services for the Commission in the past and entered a bid for this tender, it was not selected.

The Commission did not agree with the complainant's negative assessment of the work of the selected tenderer. The Commission stated that the selected tenderer:

(i) implemented a new structure in order to improve the user-friendliness and functions of the "ManagEnergy' portal, and incorporated a new content management system and complete graphical re-design in June 2005 and December 2006, including an imitation of a three-dimensional rich media interface;

(ii) provided all streams for all technologies and bandwidths, as requested by the tender specifications(8), during the whole contract implementation: the status of multistreams can be checked at any time on the ManagEnergy portal for events provided in 'Video on Demand';

(iii) implemented several innovative tools, such as free video cards for web users and web masters, a text-based PowerPoint content search, a CMS-PowerPoint conversion tool, a news pay-out in the rich media interface, ManagEnergy Streaming Tool, an on-demand presentation categorisation tool and a speaker profile management: all of these functions are still available on the ManagEnergy website; and

(iv) organised eight interactive chats(9): on 19 January 2005 (with Commissioner Wallström in Brussels); on 21 September 2005 (FP6 Research Programme Information Day); on 7 October 2005 (EIE Info Day in Brussels); on 28 October 2005 (SEEC Conference); on 7 and 8 February 2006 (ManagEnergy Annual Conference); on 15 May 2006 (ManagEnergy workshop in Stockholm); on 30 May 2006 (IEE Information day in Brussels); and on 31 May 2006 (IEE contract negotiation day in Brussels).

The Commission also emphasised that the tender specifications did not require:

(v) "free tools": the ManagEnergy Streaming Tool was developed during the contract implementation as part of the new Content Management System, and has been used successfully in the development of a virtual event in support of the Commission's Green Paper on Energy Efficiency "What is the Green Paper on Energy Efficiency, how is it implemented and by whom?", available on the ManagEnergy website(10);

(vi) "enhanced statistics": statistics were provided according to the tender specifications on all live and video-on-demand events; the public statistics were provided on the website; based on the usefulness of the statistical structure and content, the same method is still used and is available online on the ManagEnergy website(11);

(vii) flash presentations;

(viii) "push forward the mpeg-4 standard": all the requested services were provided, including systematic provision of MPEG-4 standard streams in two qualities, and additionally, although not expressly required in the tender specifications, "tests on an envivio plug-in for MPEG-4" were implemented between the service provider and the Commission(12); or

(ix) "multi camera angles": as required, fixed cameras were used and, additionally, a high quality camera was used in most of the events, as can be seen in the 'video-on-demand' presentations available on the ManagEnergy website(13);

In view of the above, the Commission concluded that the selected tenderer had not been requested to provide "free tools", "enhanced statistics", flash presentations, "push forward the mpeg-4 standard", or "multi camera angles".

The Commission further went on to state that no portal similar to that of ManagEnergy could function without metadata which, no matter how it is defined, is essential in order to run any electronic information system. The Commission stated that, if the complainant were to define 'metadata', it would describe in detail the use of metadata on the ManagEnergy portal, particularly within the Content Management System(14).

In view of the above, the Commission concluded that the work delivered under the TREN/D3/13-2004 tender corresponded to that required by the tender specifications and to the expected results, including further development of services. The tendering procedure, since the publication of the tender in the Official Journal and up to its implementation and finalisation of the contract, complied fully with the Commission's rules for public procurement and technical and financial management of service contracts.

The complainant's observations

No observations have been received from the complainant.

THE DECISION

1 The allegation of failure properly to publish the 2006 ManagEnergy tender and related claims

1.1 The complainant, who had taken part in the Commission tenders in the past, monitored the 'Tender Electronic Daily' ("TED") database of the Official Journal with a view to applying for the 2006 ManagEnergy tender, but was not able to find it.

1.2 The complainant alleges, in summary, that the Commission failed properly to publish the TED version of the 2006/S45-046805 ManagEnergy invitation to tender. In support of this allegation, the complainant argues that the invitation to tender (i) had a name that indicated nothing about its content; (ii) could not be found under 'key words' such as "webcasting", "web casting", "video" or "broadcasting"; and (iii) did not respect the legal timeframe for tender publications.

The complainant claims that (i) the retrieval of information from the TED should be improved; (ii) the 2006 ManagEnergy invitation to tender should be cancelled and a new tender published allowing the complainant to participate; and (iii) the complainant should be compensated for the losses incurred.

1.3 In its opinion, the Commission stated, in summary, that (i) all tenders are named by the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities ("OPOCE") after the first Common Procurement Vocabulary ("CPV") code chosen by the contracting authority, which in the present case corresponded to the first lot of the tender; (ii) upon request, OPOCE allows the contracting authority to use a title that does not correspond to the first CPV code, but which describes in more detail the subject of the tender; (iii) 'key words' such as "webstreaming", "broadcasting", "video" and "video on demand", or any other words used in the contract notice, should have enabled the complainant to find the tender notice, using the 'full text' option under the 'normal search' tool of the TED database; (iv) the invitation to tender was published also on the website of the Commission's Directorate-General for Energy and Transport ("DG TREN"), under its full title; and (v) the contract notice complied with Article 140(2) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities(15) ("Regulation 2342/2002").

1.4 The Ombudsman first notes that the "B-Brussels: copywriting agency services 2006/S 45-046805" contract notice concerned five different lots of procured services: (i) "Lot 1: designing, drafting and copywriting, in a journalistic style, of information materials"(16); (ii) "Lot 2: multimedia Internet portal, webstreaming, video on demand and related services"(17); (iii) "Lot 3: graphics work"(18); (iv) "Lot 4: audiovisual activities"(19); and (v) "Lot 5: mailing lists"(20).

1.5 In this regard, the Ombudsman notes the Commission's statement that since there was no single CPV code covering all the five different lots, the title given to the contract notice by OPOCE corresponded to the CPV code of the first lot of the procurement procedure.

The Ombudsman examined the TED database by inserting the CPV codes corresponding to Lot 1 of the contract notice in the 'CPV code' column of the TED 'normal search' engine and obtained the following results: "92312211" corresponded to "Writing agency services"; "74831300" corresponded to "Translation services"; and "72224000" corresponded to "Project management consultancy services". In view of the above results, the Ombudsman concludes that, despite an apparently incomplete or inexact correspondence, the contract notice was intended to be named after the first CPV code of Lot 1, namely, "Writing agency services".

1.6 The Ombudsman further notes however that, besides Lot 1, the procurement procedure also concerned another four lots of services, referred to above. It appears that OPOCE assigned the "copywriting agency services" title to this contract notice in accordance with established practice. However, the Ombudsman considers that, in view of the description of the above-mentioned lots, this title cannot be reasonably perceived as appropriate for potential tenderers to get sufficiently acquainted with the overall kind of services procured by the Commission in the contract notice.

1.7 In this regard, the Ombudsman notes the Commission's statement that, in summary, the contracting authority has, upon request, the possibility of using a title which, although not corresponding to the CPV code of the first lot of the contract notice, describes the subject of the tender in more detail. The Ombudsman understands (i) "the contracting authority" in the present case to be the Commission; and (ii) "upon request", as the possibility left open to the contracting authority to request OPOCE change the title of the contract notice to one that it perceives as better describing the subject of the tender.

1.8 In this regard, the Ombudsman notes that the title assigned to the contract by the contracting authority is "[a]ssistance in organising information, communication, and broadcasting activities covering energy and transport"(21). The Ombudsman notes that, in its opinion, the Commission did not provide any explanation as to the reasons for this significant difference between the title of the contract notice and the title it assigned to the contract. Notwithstanding this lack of explanation, the Ombudsman takes the view that the fact that the Commission decided to publish the contract notice on its DG TREN website under the contract's full title, and not under any of the available CPV codes, would appear to indicate that in its view, its title described better the sort of services it procured in the context of this tender procedure.

1.9 In view of the foregoing, the Ombudsman takes therefore the view that, in the present case, the Commission should have requested that OPOCE change the title of the contract notice. This request would appear to be justified for the sake of clarity and completeness of information the Commission made available to potential bidders through the Tenders Electronic Daily ("TED") database, as well as for the sake of consistency with its own decision to post the contract on DG TREN's website under its (significantly different) full title. In this regard, the Commission stated, in summary, in its opinion, that it was making a "wider use" of the possibility of using a title which does not correspond to the first CPV code, but which describes the subject of the tender in more detail. The Ombudsman notes, however, that in the present case the Commission did not make use of such an option.

1.10 Thus, the Commission did not make use of the option to request OPOCE to change the title of a contract notice that cannot be reasonably perceived as appropriate, with an eye to making it possible for potential tenderers to get sufficiently acquainted with the overall kind of services procured by the Commission in that contract notice. The Ombudsman takes the view that this failure on the part of the Commission constitutes an instance of maladministration. The Ombudsman will make a critical remark on this regard below.

1.11 The Ombudsman notes the complainant's statements that, in summary, when it used, among other, 'key words' such as "video" and "broadcasting" on the TED search engine, it could not find the tender. According to the Commission however, those 'key words' had been used in the contract notice and should thus have enabled the complainant to find the contract notice through the TED's 'full text search' option. In this regard, the Ombudsman notes that the present case refers to a tender published in the first quarter of 2006, and takes the view that it is no longer possible for the Ombudsman to verify whether the said tender could, or could not, be found through the mechanisms described above. In view of the foregoing, the Ombudsman considers that no further inquiries into this aspect of the complaint are justified. The Ombudsman considers it useful however to make a further remark in this regard below.

1.12 The Ombudsman further notes the complainant's arguments that, in summary, the deadline for applications to ManagEnergy tenders is of a minimum of 52 days, as from the date of the publication of the tender in the Official Journal.

1.13 In this regard, the Ombudsman notes that (i) the invitation notice was published on 7 March 2006(22); and (ii) the final date for receipt of tenders or requests to participate was 19 April 2006(23).

1.14 The Ombudsman also notes, however, the wording of Article 140(2) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, referred to by the Commission(24), and the date of the dispatch of the invitation notice(25). The Ombudsman takes the view that the Commission's position that it has complied with the legal framework regarding time-limits for receipt of tenders and requests to participate appears to be reasonable. The Ombudsman therefore finds no maladministration as regards this aspect of the complaint.

1.15 As regard the complainant's related claim that the retrieval of information from the TED should be improved, the Ombudsman refers to his finding in point 1.11 above and takes the view that no further inquiries into this aspect of the complaint are justified. The Ombudsman considers it useful however to make a further remark in this regard below.

As regard the complainant's related claim that the 2006 ManagEnergy invitation to tender should be cancelled and a new tender published allowing the complainant to participate, the Ombudsman refers to his finding in point 1.10 above. The Ombudsman takes the view however that, considering that the facts of the present complaint are related to events that have taken place in the past, it is not possible to pursue a friendly solution to this case on the basis of this claim without infringing legitimate interests of third parties.

As regard the complainant's related claim that the complainant should be compensated for the losses incurred, the Ombudsman notes that the complainant has not established that a search with the key words mentioned in its complaint would not have enabled it to find the tender. Thus, the Ombudsman considers that the complainant was not successful in establishing a situation where a loss of opportunity would have justified compensation. In light of the above, and notably of his finding in point 1.11, the Ombudsman takes the view that no further inquiries into this aspect of the complaint are justified. The Ombudsman, however, refers to the further remark made below.

2 The execution of the previous tender by the tenderer selected by the Commission

2.1 The complainant alleged that, in 2005, the Commission selected a tenderer which did not fully comply with the requirements of the tender. In support of this allegation, the complainant argued that many of the tender requirements were not visible in the project and the overall delivered service was of much lower value than the service originally required by the tender.

2.2 The Ombudsman notes that, in its complaint, the complainant considers, in summary, that the work developed by the winner of the previous tender was not satisfactory. The Ombudsman also notes the Commission's opinion, on which the complainant did not submit any observations, that, in summary,

1. the selected tenderer implemented a new structure to improve user-friendliness and functions of the ManagEnergy website (http://www.managenergy.tv); provided streams for all technologies and bandwidths; applied several innovative tools; and organised eight interactive chats;
2. the tender specifications did not require "free tools", "enhanced statistics", flash presentations, "push forward the mpeg-4 standard" or "multi camera angles"; and
3. the ManagEnergy portal could not function without 'metadata'.

In this regard, the Ombudsman notes the articles of the tender specifications quoted in the Commission's opinion(26) and takes the view that the complainant was not successful in providing the Ombudsman with sufficient evidence to cast doubt on the Commission's assessment. In light of the foregoing, the Ombudsman therefore finds no maladministration by the Commission as regards this aspect of the complaint.

3 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, it is necessary to make the following critical remark:

In the Ombudsman's view, the "copywriting agency services" title, although, apparently, assigned by OPOCE in accordance with the established practice, cannot be reasonably perceived as appropriate for potential tenderers to get sufficiently acquainted with the overall kind of services procured by the Commission in the contract notice.

By not using the possibility of requesting that OPOCE change such an inappropriate title of a contract notice, the Commission committed an instance of maladministration.

For the reasons given in point 1.15 above, the Ombudsman considers that (i) it is not possible to pursue a friendly solution to this case on the basis of the complainant's claim that the 2006 ManagEnergy invitation to tender should be cancelled and a new tender published allowing the complainant to participate, and (ii) no further inquiries are justified into the complainant's claims that (a) the retrieval of information from the TED should be improved, and (b) the complainant should be compensated for the losses incurred. On the basis of the foregoing, the Ombudsman closes the case.

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

FURTHER REMARK

The Ombudsman finds it useful to make the following further remark:

Considering the importance of EU public procurement tools both for EU institutions and for the activity of its service providers, the Commission should make sure that the publication of its invitations to tender is made in as clear and as easy to identify a manner as possible.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) The complainant advanced the following examples: "91313-2006 ECB - open tender for the provision of TV services related to the monthly press conferences of the ECB and for the provision of web-cast services (D-Frankfurt-on-Main)"; "99226-2005 B-Brussels: web casting services for the Management Board meetings of the European Food Safety Authority"; and "224605-2005 I-Parma: telecommunications services".

(2) According to the Contract notice provided by the Commission: "II.1.6) Common procurement vocabulary (CPV): 92312211, 74831300, 92112000, 72224000, 78225000, 78223000, 78223000, 72321000, 72314000."

(3) Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134/1).

(4) Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134/114).

(5) According to the Contract notice provided by the Commission: "II.1.1) Title attributed to the contract by the contracting authority: Assistance in organising information, communication and broadcasting activities covering energy and transport."

(6) OJ 2002 L 357.

(7) According to the Contract notice provided by the Commission: "VI.5) Date of dispatch of this notice: 23.2.2006."

(8) According to the Tender Specifications provided by the Commission: "7. Services should ideally be provided in MPEG-4 format including transport in http. Audio streams in different languages must be encoded separately from video, and synchronised at player end using SMIL, BIFS or any other open standard technology. MPEG-4 streams must be accessible using at least two different players from different vendors or using a freely downloadable player or free plug in for existing players. 8. If MPEG-4 cannot be used, at least two different streaming formats with different players must be made available. One of the two formats is to be provided in English only, and the other one with separate audio-only streams in all languages of the event (usually in 2 to 6 languages)."

(9) According to the Tender Specifications provided by the Commission: "23. A chat applet with http tunnelling, or similar technique, must be used in order to pass firewalls. The installation of the chat tool should be transparent and not require administrator's privileges. Towards the end of the contract, the tool should be transferred to the Commission for the use of its possible future service providers. All participants in the chat must be listed in a special purpose area. 24. A chat 'history' must be provided for participants who join a chat in the course of the discussion. The applet must allow the viewing of the complete discussion that has taken place before the new participant joined it, since the beginning of the chat (history). 25. An additional chat window must be included in the existing ManagEnergy interface in order to allow multilingual chats. 26. The chat window should point to the IRC server accessible 24/7. 27. The SSP does not need to run chat discussions or provide chat transcripts. This will be done by ESP."

(10) According to the Tender Specifications (provided by the Commission): "9. Service provider must develop and release a ManagEnergy Streaming Tool (MST) for the use of local and regional energy actors within six months of the commencement date of the contract. The tool should allow energy actors to purchase cost-efficient streaming services from local companies. The tool must include all necessary guide lines, guidance and related documents, source code, technical specifications, tendering templates and other necessary information, in order to be immediately usable for energy actors in their streaming activities. The tool must aim at using open source code and run on multiple platforms (Linux, Macintosh, Windows) in a transparent way. The tool must be conceived so that it can easily be further developed by the Commission or its future service providers. The tool should include audio, video, chat, and an automatic slides recogniser capable of pushing a slide change at the client end, and an online tool in order to allow speakers and event organisers to type information into the ManagEnergy interface (photo, CV, contact details, slides, links etc). (...) 20. Tenderers must propose an online slide uploading tool with standardised interface, which can be used by the ESP and other event organisers and speakers themselves. The tool should automatically convert slides to a suitable format and size, and it must allow the use of slides by speakers in the conference room, and be synchronised with audio and video streams on the Internet. The tool should also automatically stock slides for download and allow input of other necessary information, such as speaker CVs, contact details, polling questions, information slides (i.e. announcing the beginning and end of the event, coffee and lunch breaks, etc.) The tool should provide a management tool functions in allowing verification of the status of event preparations (information on the amount of information completed or missing). The SSP must take care of all tasks necessary for the preparation of streams and VoDs until the uploading tool is available online. Once available, the ESP will take care of uploads for all ManagEnergy events, including the organisation of conventional events, if possible. Live streams must be delivered on a European-wide Content Delivery Network (CND)."

(11) According to the Tender Specifications provided by the Commission: "43. Statistical data need to be collected in a coherent way that allows comparison between different events. The SSP needs to analyse and present statistical data with help of descriptions, conclusions and graphics in a way comprehensible for the users of virtual facilities and that can be published regularly on the ManagEnergy web site. The Commission should also receive full history logs of streaming and chats. 44. Statistics on the use of VoD/AoD must be provided on a monthly basis, and on live events after the event, as follows: Number of virtual participants (users): total language, bandwidth and format, if more than one available; Number of virtual participants per speaker/session; Minimum, average, median, and maximum stay; Domain and/or country from which the streaming/download was requested; Operating system and player used; Viewer's IP address, resolved when possible. 45. During live events, the number of viewers and chatters must be provided every 15 minutes."

(12) According to the Tender Specifications provided by the Commission: "7. Services should ideally be provided in MPEG-4 format including transport in http. Audio streams in different languages must be encoded separately from video, and synchronised at player end using SMIL, BIFS or any other open standard technology. MPEG-4 streams must be accessible using at least two different players from different vendors or using a freely downloadable player or free plug in for existing players."

(13) According to the Tender Specifications provided by the Commission: "21. Streaming can be made by using fixed camera installations from venues, where adequate video quality is available. Should the fixed installation be unsuitable for streaming purposes, additional high quality camera(s) must be provided, either as standalone or with in addition to the fixed installation."

(14) The Commission quoted the definition of 'Metadata' available on the Wikipedia website (http://www.en.wikipedia.org):

"The term [metadata] was introduced intuitively, i.e. without exact definition. Because of that today there is a whole variety of definitions. The most common one is the literal translation: Metadata is data about data. Example: 12345 is data, and with no additional context is meaningless. With the additional "metadata" of giving 12345 a meaningful name of "Zip Code" (at least in the United States, and further assuming Zip Code is within the greater context of a postal address), you can then understand that 12345 represents Schenectady, NY. As for most people the difference between data and information is merely a philosophical one of no relevance in practical use. Existing definitions include: "Metadata is information about data"; "Metadata is information about information". There are also more sophisticated definitions such as: "Metadata is structured, encoded data that describes characteristics of information-bearing entities to aid in the identification, discovery, assessment, and management of the described entities" and "[Metadata is a set of] optional structured descriptions that are publicly available to explicitly assist in locating objects". These are used more rarely because they tend to concentrate on one feature of metadata - in general their usage to find "objects", "entities" or "resources" - and ignore other purposes like using metadata to optimize compression algorithms. The metadata concept has been extended into the world of systems to include any "data about data" - the names of tables, columns, programs, and the like. Different views of this system metadata are described below, but beyond that is the recognition that metadata describe all aspects of systems - data, activities, people and organizations involved, locations of data and processes, access methods, limitations, timing and events, as well as motivation and rules. Fundamentally, then, metadata are "the data that describe the structure and working of an organization's use of information, and which describe the system it uses to manage that information." To do a model of metadata is to do an ' Enterprise model' of the information technology industry itself."

(15) OJ 2002 L 357.

(16) According to the Contract notice provided by the Commission: "Annex B - Information about lots. Lot 1: designing, drafting and copywriting, in a journalistic style, of information materials. 1) Short description: The planned activities cover designing and copywriting information products and promotional material. The objective is to create, with the help of industry professionals, publications, articles and web pages on energy and transport and have them translated into official European Union, and candidate country, languages. Compliance with the stipulations of the Interinstitutional Guide is essential in any copywriting and/or translation work, to ensure information products meet editorial and linguistic quality requirements. 2) Common procurement vocabulary (CPV): 92312211, 74831300, 72224000. (...)".

(17) According to the Contract notice provided by the Commission: "Lot 2: multimedia Internet portal, webstreaming, video on demand and related services. 1) Short description: The purpose of the planned activities is to provide the Commission with online audiovisual services via Internet, primarily involving: 1. provision of multimedia Internet portal for broadcasting information on energy and transport with many new functions not available on the site www.managenergy.tv; 2. real-time webstreaming, video and audio on demand and related services; 3. supply of equipment for the production of small-scale virtual events and interviews, provision of professional interviewer(s) and moderator(s) and related services. (...) 3) Quantity or scope: Broadcasting events using webstreaming in real time or on demand after the event (video on demand). Developing and setting up a streaming tool and portal including interactive and search functions. Integrating existing videos on energy and transport and videos from DG TREN's existing streaming portal (www.managenergy.tv). (...)".

(18) According to the Contract notice provided by the Commission: " Lot 3: graphics work. 1) Short description: The planned work covers the graphic design and production of information products on paper and/or in electronic format (...). 3) Quantity or scope: Graphic design of documents, including finding and storing images, drawing up illustrated reports and producing promotional products. (...)".

(19) According to the Contract notice (provided by the Commission): "Lot 4: audiovisual activities. 1) Short description: The planned activities aim to, amongst other things, encourage European radio stations and TV channels to pass on more information on EU transport and energy activities. (...) 3) Quantity or scope: Audiovisual-sector activities (including liaising with TV channels and radio stations); consulting on communications strategies; drawing up reports (VNR, videos, etc.); data compression for video broadcasting and CD/DVD production; promoting events in the media; monitoring of the impact in the media of EU energy and transport activities. (...)".

(20) According to the Contract notice provided by the Commission: " Lot 5: mailing lists. 1) Short description: The planned activities cover the distribution and circulation of information products and, particularly, the management of the Energy and Transport DG's contacts files. (...) 3) Quantity or scope: Managing contacts databases, organising the dispatch of mail, including e-mail. The contacts files contain, amongst other things, the details of businesses, research centres, professional associations, consumer associations and specialist organisations in the energy and transport sectors in the 25 Member States, the candidate countries, EFTA countries, etc. (...)".

(21) According to the Contract notice provided by the Commission: "II.1.1) Title attributed to the contract by the contracting authority: Assistance in organising information, communication and broadcasting activities covering energy and transport."

(22) OJ 2006 S 45.

(23) According to the Contract notice provided by the Commission: "IV.3.4) Final date for receipt of tenders or requests to participate: 19.4.2006 (16:00)."

(24) According to Article 140(2) of Regulation 2342/2002: "[i]n open procedures, the time limit for receipt of tenders shall be no less than fifty-two days from the date on which the contract notice is dispatched."

(25) According to the Contract notice provided by the Commission: "VI.5) Date of dispatch of this notice: 23.2.2006."

(26) Articles 7-9, 20, 21, 23-27, and 43-45 of the Tender Specifications, provided by the Commission, attached to the Invitation to Tender No. TREN/D3/13-2004 concerning services for the European Commission in order to support the implementation of the ManagEnergy Initiative: virtual facilities for energy and transport actors at local and regional levels.