Background to the complaint

1. In 2021, the Commission launched the call for tenders Horizontal coordination support under the Western Balkans Investment[1] to select a contractor to provide administrative, technical, monitoring and evaluation, visibility and communication support to the Western Balkans Investment Framework (WBIF)[2]. The maximum value of the contract was EUR 15 500 000. The project was set to start on 1 March 2022 and was to last for 48 months.

2. According to the call for tenders, the core team for the project was to be comprised of five full-time “key experts”[3], based in Brussels, who would be vital in terms of achieving the aims of the contract. Each key expert had to be available for the whole duration of the project.

3. The call stated that when the Commission informs the successful tenderer that their tender has won, the successful tenderer has five days to confirm the availability of the key experts. If one or more key experts are not available, the tenderer can propose replacement(s), who must be at least of equal quality to the originally proposed experts: they must meet the minimum requirements for each evaluation criteria and their total score must be at least as high as the score of the key expert proposed in the tender. If no suitable replacement is proposed, the Commission could decide to award the contract to the tenderer that ranked second or to annul the call.

4. The complainant, a Brussels-based consultancy, submitted a tender. On 30 November 2021, the Commission informed it that its tender had won and asked it to confirm the availability of its five key experts.

5. On 1 December 2021, the Commission informed all the unsuccessful tenderers that the evaluation committee had recommended that the contract be awarded to the complainant. It informed the unsuccessful tenderers of their own scores and the scores of the complainant.

6. On 3 December 2021, the complainant informed the Commission that one of its key experts (Key expert 3, WBIF Projects Manager, expert in other infrastructure/public sector investments[4]) would not be available to work on the project because the Commission had just offered him a job, which he intended to accept[5]. On 14 December 2021, the complainant provided the Commission with the CVs of three possible replacement experts. The Commission replied on 17 December 2021 that following the evaluation of the proposed replacements, the Commission’s authorising officer wished to interview one of the three. The Commission stated that the purpose of the interview was “to clarify the qualifications and professional experience as well as the capacity of the proposed replacement expert to carry out the assignment as Key Expert 3”. In its subsequent correspondence with the complainant[6], the Commission stated that the purpose of the interview was to “fine-tune” and “complement” the initial assessment of the evaluation committee. On 20 December 2021 the proposed replacement expert agreed to the interview to take place on 22 December 2021. However, on 21 December 2021, he sent an e-mail to the Commission stating that he did not want to be interviewed. Among other reasons, he pointed to the fact that he was retired, “too old” to participate in an interview and had “his life settled”. He further argued that the initially proposed key experts were evaluated on the basis of their CVs alone, and were not required to undergo an interview.

7. On 23 December 2021, the Commission informed the complainant that it would award the contract to the tenderer that had ranked second because the complainant could not maintain its original offer. It noted that the replacement experts proposed by the complainant were not “equivalent” to the original expert.

8. On 24 December 2021, the complainant wrote to the Commission, arguing that it had not followed the applicable rules[7] and that it had erred when evaluating the replacement experts. Furthermore, it insisted that the Commission should not have sought to interview the replacement expert; it argued that the call for tenders stated that no interviews were foreseen for the proposed experts and that, in accordance with the call for tenders, the originally proposed experts were not interviewed. Rather, they were evaluated on the basis of their CVs only.

9. On 23 December 2021, the second ranked tenderer confirmed that its experts were available and, on 28 December 2021, the Commission signed the contract with it.

10. Between the end of December 2021 and April 2022, the complaint wrote several letters to the Commission. It argued that the Commission had not properly evaluated the replacement experts. It asked the Commission to provide it with the scores of the originally proposed expert and those of the replacement experts. It also argued that the Commission did not make use of a “standstill period” before signing the contract with the second ranked tenderer. It argued that this was not in accordance with the Financial Regulation, which sets out that the contracting authority should refrain from signing the contract with the successful tenderer during a standstill period of at least ten days. It stated that the purpose of the standstill period is to allow unsuccessful tenderers to present relevant information or complaints.[8]

11. The Commission replied that the originally proposed expert received 9.8/10 points (for details on the award criteria, see Annex I to this decision); the proposed replacement who had refused to be interviewed got the best score among the three proposed replacement candidates (9.47/10 points). The Commission stated that the reason for this score was that he “demonstrated limited experience in the environment and transport sectors while his experience in transition economies was limited, as was his experience in the Western Balkans (not more than two years and in two countries only)”. The two remaining (proposed) experts both received 9.17/10 points.

12. The Commission also stated that the proposed replacement expert who had refused to be interviewed did not appear to be fully committed to taking up the job and that the complainant had proposed him even though, by its own admission, he had a pattern of difficult and unpredictable behaviour. The Commission also said that the applicable rules allowed it to interview replacement experts. It added that a standstill period was applied from 1 December 2021, when it communicated the results to the tenderers, until 13 December 2021, and no complaint was received during that period.

13. Dissatisfied with the Commission’s replies, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman on 14 June 2022.

The inquiry

14. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into:

(a) the evaluation of the three replacement experts and

(b) the failure to apply a standstill period after the award of the contract to the second ranked tenderer.

15. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the Commission's file on this case and met with representatives from the Commission. The complainant submitted comments on the inspection meeting report.

Evaluation of the replacement experts

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

Arguments by the complainant

16. The complainant argued that the evaluation of the three replacement experts was not carried out correctly, as all three deserved at least the same score as the original expert.

17. The complainant also contended that the Commission did not respect the applicable rules when evaluating the CV of the replacement expert that received the highest score. In relation to the criterion General Professional experience (the relevant criteria are listed in Annex I to this decision), while the call for tenders required a “minimum 5 years in the energy, digital and/or environment” for Key Expert 3, the Commission also assessed the expert’s experience in the field of transport. However, this aspect was not mentioned in the call in relation to Key Expert 3 (it was mentioned in relation to Key expert 2). The complainant argued that the Commission had thus added a criterion that was not in the call for tenders. The complainant claimed that the Commission had compared his CV with the CV of the original expert, rather than by comparing his CV with the criteria contained in the call.

18. The complainant also argued that the Commission did not properly evaluate his expertise and seniority in relation to criterion Specific professional experience. With ten years of experience in transition economies, his experience cannot be considered to be “limited”. Furthermore, the complainant argued that the Commission incorrectly evaluated his experience in the Western Balkans. As the call for tenders said that experience in the Western Balkans was an “advantage”, and did not set any minimum number of years of experience, he should have been given full marks for this criterion (given he has 680 days of experience).

19. The complainant thus maintained that, in the light of the above, the Commission should reopen the procurement procedure and re-evaluate the CVs of the three replacement experts.

20. The complainant also argued that it was contrary to the applicable rules to interview replacement experts. However, if interviews were allowed for replacement experts, the Commission should have interviewed all three replacement experts.

21. The complainant also contended that its tender had more points than the second-placed tenderer even after taking into account the lower scores awarded for any of the three proposed replacement experts.

 Arguments by the Commission

22. The Commission told the complainant that the evaluation committee had evaluated the originally proposed expert and the proposed replacement experts against the criteria set out in the call for tenders. The Commission said that all the replacement experts fulfilled the minimum requirements of the call and all obtained high scores. However, the scores awarded to the replacement experts were not as high as the scores awarded to the originally proposed expert, because none of them had the same experience on public-funded infrastructure projects in the Western Balkans Region. The Commission also noted that all the proposed replacement experts gained their relevant experience a long time ago, whereas the originally proposed expert was working in the Western Balkans at the time.

23. The Commission provided the complainant with specific observations regarding each award criterion for the proposed replacement expert that received the highest score (the award criteria are listed in Annex I below):

1) Criterion General Professional experience: The originally proposed expert scored 2/2. The Commission claimed that the fact that he had experience across all relevant sectors covered by the call for tenders (Transport, Social Infrastructures, Energy, Environment and Digital) would allow him to interact with the other key experts on the team. The replacement expert scored 1.73/2. He had extensive experience in energy and digital, but had limited experience in environment and transport. However, he was not marked down for not having experience in the field of transport, as this was not among the requirements for Key Expert 3.

2) Criterion Specific professional experience: The originally proposed expert scored 6/6. He had almost 14 years of experience in the Western Balkans. He worked exclusively in transition and fragile economies, with very extensive and recent management of projects based in the Western Balkans and direct interaction with International Financial Institutions (IFIs) and bilateral donors. The replacement expert scored 5.73/6. He mainly had experience with EU-funded projects, with some interaction also with IFIs and bilateral donors. His experience in transition economies and the Western Balkans was a long time ago and was more limited than the original expert.

24. The Commission also contended that the applicable rules[9] allow it to interview replacement experts, in order to verify, in cases where this could not be established by looking only at their CVs, whether they were equivalent to the original experts. It stated that interviews allow the Commission to adjust the experts’ scores (upwards or downwards). However, the proposed replacement expert in question refused to be interviewed.

25. The Commission also noted that a tender cannot be amended after it has been submitted.[10] For this reason[11], the Commission could not replace the expert previously proposed by the complainant by an expert who was not equivalent, because this would imply that the tender would have changed after it has been submitted.

The Ombudsman's assessment

26. Tenderers cannot alter the substantive nature of a tender after the closing date for submission. Thus, if the Commission were to allow a tenderer to replace an expert with a lower quality replacement, after the closing date for the submission of bids, any competing bidder could demand and obtain the annulment of the decision. Thus, if a tenderer cannot guarantee the availability of an expert it has proposed in its bid, it must provide the Commission with a replacement of at least the same quality as the original expert. If it cannot do so, the Commission is legally obliged to award the contract to the second ranked tenderer or, if that is not appropriate, to cancel the call.

27. This is all clearly reflected in point 9 of the Instructions to tenderers, which states that tenderers may amend or withdraw their tenders by written notification prior to the deadline for submitting tenders. Tenders may not be amended after this deadline. Thus, when it emerged that the original key expert would not be available to work on the project, the Commission could only award the contract to the complainant if it proposed a replacement expert that was of at least of the same quality.

28. It is thus irrelevant that the overall score of the complainant’s tender, taking into account the lower scores awarded for the proposed replacement experts, was still higher than the overall score of the second best tenderer.

29. As regards whether there was any error in the assessment of the proposed replacement experts, the Ombudsman notes that the contracting authority has broad discretion in assessing tenders.[12] The role of the Ombudsman is limited to verifying whether there was any manifest error of assessment or a procedural error in the assessment of the proposed replacement experts.

30. The complainant emphasised that the replacement expert had more extensive professional experience than that of the original expert. The Ombudsman notes that calls for tenders regularly establish criteria for work experience based, in part, on the duration of specific types of experience. In this case, the call (see Annex I for more details) stated that Key Expert 3 should have, among other requirements, fifteen years of experience with infrastructure projects. The fact that the replacement may have worked for longer than the original expert does not, however, mean that his experience was better. Both candidates fulfilled the requirement in terms of duration of experience. It is also reasonable to take into account precisely when this experience was obtained; this cannot be regarded as a “new” award criterion. More recent experience can be more valuable as it implies that the expert’s knowledge and skills will be more up-to-date. The location of the experience is also relevant, as explicitly stated in the call for tenders. For example, key experts would work with the Western Balkans. Experience obtained in that specific area could therefore be valued more than experience obtained elsewhere. The replacement expert’s most recent experience in the Western Balkans was approximately fifteen years previously, which is a considerable amount of time, notably given developments in the region. In light of the above, the complainant’s argument that the replacement expert should have been given full marks for the criterion Specific professional experience because of the length of his experience in the Western Balkans cannot be accepted.

31. As regards the Commission’s evaluation of the replacement expert’s General professional experience, the Ombudsman is of the view that it would not have been in accordance with the call to award fewer points to the replacement expert based on the fact that he did not have experience in transport. Transport was not an area where Key Expert 3 was supposed to have experience. If indeed it were important for Key Expert 3 to have knowledge of transport to be able to liaise with the other experts, which the Commission gave as a reason for scoring the original expert higher, the call for tenders should have explicitly mentioned this.

32. The Ombudsman notes that, in its letter of 20 January 2022, the Commission indicated that the reasons for awarding lower points to the replacement expert included the fact that he did not have experience in transport. In particular, it stated that “[t]he evaluation committee noted in particular that he demonstrated limited experience in the environment and transport sectors”. This view was repeated in the letter of 4 April 2022, where the Commission stated that:

“when assessing the overall quality of the general professional experience with infrastructure projects the evaluators noted his experience with environment and transport infrastructure projects was limited”.

33. Documents inspected by the Ombudsman inquiry team, notably correspondence between the evaluation committee and the relevant Commission staff member, also appear to confirm that the evaluation committee took the lack of transport experience into account in awarding the replacement expert a lower score.

34. In light of the above, the Ombudsman finds it difficult to accept the Commission’s subsequent claim that the replacement candidate’s lack of transport experience was not a factor that led to him being awarded lower points.

35. The Ombudsman notes that the evaluation committee identified numerous weaknesses in the replacement expert’s CV that were directly relevant to the criteria set out in the call, not least his lack of experience in the environment sector, the fact that his experience was not recent and the fact that he had more limited experience in the Western Balkans. Furthermore, the Commission did not take into account his attitude towards being interviewed (see paragraph 6 for more details).

36. As such, it is possible that, even if the evaluation committee had not incorrectly taken into account transport experience, the replacement expert would still have scored fewer points than the original expert. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine what the score would have been in such a situation. This can only be assessed by the evaluation committee.

37. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman finds that the fact that the Commission referred to the replacement expert’s lack of experience in the area of transport constitutes maladministration, since this was not listed as a criterion in the call.  

38. The Commission has provided sufficient reasons for why the replacement expert did not score as highly as the original. However, the Ombudsman will make a suggestion to seek to avoid similar shortcomings in future.

39. As regards whether the Commissions had the right to interview the replacement expert, the Ombudsman notes that the PRAG clearly states that ”[t]he contracting authority will verify that the replacement expert's total score in relation to the evaluation criteria is at minimum the same as the scores given in the evaluation to the expert he/she is proposed to replace. The contracting authority may consult the original evaluation committee and may interview one or more replacement experts by videoconference or telephone.” The complainant argues that this rule is sequential, that is, that the contracting authority must first verify that the replacement expert's total score in relation to the evaluation criteria is, at a minimum, the same as the scores given in the evaluation to the expert they are proposed to replace. Only then can the contracting authority interview the replacement expert. However, the Ombudsman considers that there is nothing in the wording of the PRAG that indicates that these rules are sequential. Rather, the contracting authority is entirely free to choose whether or not to conduct interviews with replacement experts.

40. The PRAG states that the Commission may interview one or more replacement experts by videoconference or telephone. It is thus at the discretion of the Commission to choose which replacement experts to interview. As regards how it exercised that discretion, the Commission has explained that the other two proposed replacement experts were deemed to have lower scores than the proposed replacement expert who was invited to an interview. This explanation appears reasonable.  

The need for a second standstill period

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

Arguments by the complainant

41. The complainant argued that the Commission should have run a second standstill period of ten days before signing the contract with the second ranked tenderer. The complainant contended that the Commission did not run a second standstill period because it wanted to sign the contract before the end of 2021, as the financing agreement was scheduled to expire on 31 December 2021.

42. It noted that the Commission was required to apply a standstill period before signing the contract with the “successful tenderer”. It argued that the Commission should have run a new standstill period when the second ranked tenderer became the successful tenderer.

43. The complainant also argued that the Commission did not reply to its letters in a timely manner, and did so only after signing the contract with the second ranked tenderer.

Arguments by the Commission

44. The Commission noted that it ran a standstill period when it proposed to award the contract to the complainant. That standstill period started running on 1 December 2021 and ended on 13 December 2021. It was neither suspended nor extended, because unsuccessful tenderers did not submit any comments or complaints. The decision to award the contract to the second best tenderer did not amount to a new evaluation process, a new award decision or a revision of the initial award decision. As the initial evaluation was not called into question, the initial standstill period still stood: the only open question was the substitution of an expert, which was a process distinct from the evaluation of the tenders. The Commission stated that, if a standstill period were required subsequent to the evaluation of the replacement experts, this would be explicitly required by the applicable rules. However, the Commission stated that the rules in question do not provide for a new standstill period in such circumstances.

45. The Commission stated that the other unsuccessful tenderers were informed that the contract was signed with the second ranked tenderer when the Commission published the contract award notice, on 3 February 2022. None of the other unsuccessful tenderers challenged the award decision. This indicates that there was no material consequence in not running the standstill period before signing the contract with the second ranked tenderer.

46. The Commission said that most unsuccessful tenderers who contact the contracting authority after their offer is rejected do so to know how their offer can be improved for future procurement procedures. Unsuccessful tenderers usually do not have observations on the winning tender as such. Rather, they seek information on the advantages and disadvantages of their specific offer.

The Ombudsman's assessment

47. The Commission’s position appears to be at odds with the applicable rules.

48. Article 170 of the Financial Regulation states:

“Award decision and information to candidates or tenderers

1. The authorising officer responsible shall decide to whom the contract is to be awarded, in compliance with the selection and award criteria specified in the procurement documents.

2. The contracting authority shall notify all candidates or tenderers, whose requests to participate or tenders are rejected, of the grounds on which the decision was taken, as well as the duration of the standstill periods referred to in Articles 175(2) and 178(1).[...].

3. The contracting authority shall inform each tenderer who is not in an exclusion situation referred to in Article 136(1), who is not rejected under Article 141, whose tender is compliant with the procurement documents and who makes a request in writing, of any of the following:

(a) the name of the tenderer, or tenderers in the case of a framework contract, to whom the contract is awarded and [...], the characteristics and relative advantages of the successful tender, the price paid or contract value, whichever is appropriate; [...]"

49. On 1 December 2021, the Commission informed all tenderers that the evaluation committee recommended that the contract should be awarded to the complainant. In the letter to the complainant, it specified that the contract would be awarded upon condition that it could confirm the availability of the key experts. This information was followed by a standstill period in accordance with Article 175 of the Financial Regulation. Some of the unsuccessful tenderers then made use of the possibility under 170.3 of the Financial Regulation to request the information about the characteristics and relative advantages of the successful tender. They were given that information on 10 and 16 December 2021 respectively.

50. After the complainant could not confirm its original experts, the Commission awarded the contract to the second ranked tenderer on 23 December 2021. The second ranked tenderer then signed the contract with the Commission on 29 December 2021. The Commission did not notify all tenderers of the new award decision and the grounds for it at that time. The only companies informed of the award decision and the reasons for it were the second ranked tenderer and the complainant. This failure meant that all the competing tenderers, except the complainant, were not aware until February 2022 that the contract was awarded to the second ranked tenderer. Those who had requested information about the characteristics and comparative advantages of the winning tender were not aware that the information they had received had become obsolete, because it referred to the complainant’s offer, which was no longer the winning tender.

51. Article 170 of the Financial Regulation states that "the contracting authority shall notify all candidates or tenderers, whose requests to participate or tenders are rejected, of the grounds on which the decision was taken”. The Commission stated that the competing tenderers were informed of the name of the winning tenderer when the award notice was published in February 2022 under Article 163 of the Financial Regulation. An award notice serves to inform the public of an award. It is not the equivalent to a communication of an award decision under Article 170 of the Financial Regulation. In any event, the Ombudsman notes that Article 31.1 of Annex I of the Financial Regulation states that the contracting authority shall inform all tenderers, simultaneously and individually, by electronic means of decisions reached concerning the outcome of the procedure as soon as possible after the award decision. Thus, the other tenderers should have been informed of the award decision on 23 December 2021. Furthermore, while the complainant was informed of the identity of the second ranked tenderer, it was not informed of the scores of its proposed replacement experts until after the signature of the contract. This observation applies irrespective of the need for a new standstill period (see below).

52. The Ombudsman notes that the purpose of a standstill period is not only to better protect the rights of competing tenderers. It also helps the contracting authority by ensuring that it is made aware of potential problems with an award decision before it signs a contract with the successful tenderer. The non-application of a standstill period, or the expiry of a standstill period, does not impede unsuccessful tenderers from defending their rights and challenging the award decision.

53. Article 175.2. of the Financial Regulation states that:

"Subject to the exceptions and conditions specified in Annex I to this Regulation, in the case of contracts the value of which exceeds the thresholds referred to in paragraph 1, the contracting authority shall not sign the contract or framework contract with the successful tenderer until a standstill period has elapsed." (emphasis added)

54. The wording of Article 175.2. of the Financial Regulation clearly implies that the "successful tenderer" is the tenderer with whom the contract is eventually signed. Once the Commission took the decision to select the second placed tenderer, and envisaged signing the contract with that tenderer, that tenderer became the "successful tenderer" (on 23 December 2021). Against this background, it would appear that the Commission was required to put in place another standstill period from 23 December 2021.

55. In support of this view, the Ombudsman notes that Article 35.1. of Annex I of the Financial Regulation states:

"The standstill period shall run from either of the following dates:

(a) the day after the simultaneous dispatch of the notifications to successful and unsuccessful tenderers by electronic means;

[...].

If necessary, the contracting authority may suspend the signature of the contract for additional examination if this is justified by the requests or comments made by unsuccessful or aggrieved candidates or tenderers or by any other relevant information received during the period set out in Article 175(3). In the case of suspension all the candidates or tenderers shall be informed within three working days following the suspension decision.

Where the contract or framework contract cannot be signed with the successful envisaged tenderer, the contracting authority may award it to the following best tenderer.”

56. The Commission puts emphasis on the final sentence in Article 35.1 of Annex I of the Financial Regulation. It notes that the sentence refers to a "successful envisaged tenderer", and then calls the next tenderer the "following best tenderer". It argues that only the complainant can be called the "successful tenderer" and that the consortium that eventually signed the contract is not referred to as the "successful" tenderer. It argues, on that basis, that since a standstill period only runs the day after the simultaneous dispatch of the notifications to successful and unsuccessful tenderers, no standstill period is required when the contract is awarded to the second ranked tenderer.

57. This reading of Article 35.1 of Annex I of the Financial Regulation is at odds with Article 175.2, which, as noted above, implies that the "successful tenderer" is the tenderer with whom the contract is signed.

58. The Ombudsman also notes that the fact that Article 35.1 of Annex I of the Financial Regulation refers to an "envisaged" successful tenderer does not imply that there will not be another "successful tenderer". In fact, the use of the term “successful envisaged tenderer” implies that there may be a different eventual successful tenderer.

59. The Ombudsman considers this situation to be very problematic. The Commission could not have concluded, on 23 December 2021, that unsuccessful tenderers would not raise relevant questions or submit complaints if they had known that the contract was awarded to the second ranked tenderer. In particular, unsuccessful tenderers whose score was closer to the eventual successful tenderer may have had greater reason to check whether there may be possible mistakes in the evaluation of their bids (this was the case of the third ranked tenderer, who had a score closer to that of the second ranked tenderer[13]). They would also have an incentive to identify possible problems with the bid of the eventual winning tenderer.

60. By not informing the unsuccessful tenderers of the decision to award the contract to the second ranked tenderer as soon as it took the decision to award the contract to it, and not running a standstill period thereafter, the Commission missed an opportunity to get information that might have identified issues related to the award of the contract.

61. As noted above, the absence of a standstill period does not deprive the tenderers of the possibility to challenge the award, once the contract has been signed. However, it does deprive the Commission of the possibility of identifying errors before a contract is signed.

62. Thus, the Ombudsman believes that the Commission should have carried out a standstill period before signing the contract with the second ranked tenderer. Not doing so was maladministration.

Conclusions

There was maladministration by the European Commission.

Given the reasonable explanations given by the Commission for not considering the proposed replacement expert as equivalent to the original expert, the Ombudsman considers that it is not necessary to make a recommendation on this aspect of the case. Similarly, as regards the standstill period, a recommendation would not serve a useful purpose at this stage. The Ombudsman will nevertheless make suggestions for improvement aimed at addressing the shortcomings identified in this inquiry.

Suggestions for improvement

The Commission should remind evaluation committees that their evaluation of candidates should be based solely on the criteria set out in the call.

In future similar situations, where the Commission decides to award a contract to a lower ranked tenderer due to problems with the highest ranked tender, the Commission should run a second standstill period before signing the contract with the actual successful tenderer. The Commission should amend the applicable Practical Guide to ensure that its staff and tenderers are aware of this requirement.

The European Commission and the complainant will be informed of this decision.

Emily O'Reilly
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 03/10/2023

 

[1] The contract notice is available at https://etendering.ted.europa.eu/cft/cft-document.html?docId=91998.

[2] The Western Balkans Investment Framework (WBIF) is a joint initiative of the EU, financial organisations, bilateral donors and beneficiaries, aimed at enhancing harmonisation and cooperation in investments for the socio-economic development of the region and contributing to the European perspective of the Western Balkans. More information is available on the website:  www.wbif.eu.

[3] (1) Team Leader/Head of Office;

(2) WBIF Projects Manager, expert in sustainable transport infrastructure and investments;

(3) WBIF Projects Manager, expert in other infrastructure/public sector investments;

(4) WBIF Projects Manager, expert in private sector development;

(5) Visibility and Communication Coordinator.

[4] The call for tenders describes the role as follows: “WBIF Projects Manager, expert in other infrastructure / public sector investments (minimum no of days required – 880 days.) The WBIF Projects Manager, expert in other infrastructure/public sector investments will be responsible for ensuring that the necessary assistance is available to beneficiaries for project identification and application as well as development of the necessary terms of reference for the WBIF Secretariat to allow projects approved by the WBIF Steering Committee to be mobilised and monitored.”

[5] The job offer had no connection with the Call.

[6] Letter of 4 April 2021.

[7] Regulation 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (the Financial Regulation) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32018R1046 and the Contract Procedures for the European Union External Action, a Practical Guide (PRAGs) https://intpa-econtent-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/ePrag/2020.0/ePrag-en-2020.0-full.pdf#page=107

[8] Article 175 of the Financial Regulation, Article 35.1 of Annex I to the Financial Regulation and section 2.10.1 of the PRAGs

[9] Section 3.4.12.1 of the PRAGs

[10] Judgement of the Court of 29 March 2012, case C-599/10, SAG ELV Slovensko a.s., point 36, available at https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=121164&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=350663

[11] Point 14.1 of the Instruction to tenderers states: “if the replacement experts are not sufficiently qualified, or if the proposal of the replacement key-expert amends the award

conditions applicable to this call for tenders, the contracting authority may decide to award

[12] See, judgement of the General Court of 8 July 2010, case T-331/06, Evropaïki Dynamiki / AEE, point 61, available at https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=F24098A7C6D03207E9BDECD50822E810?text=&docid=81107&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=35605

 

[13] The score of the first 3 applicants was: 98.9; 97.3; 96.43.