- EN English
Decision of the European Ombudsman on complaint 2633/2006/WP against the European Commission
Decision
Case 2633/2006/WP - Opened on Monday | 02 October 2006 - Decision on Thursday | 07 June 2007
A translator living in Germany submitted a bid in reply to an invitation to tender for translation services into Bulgarian, launched by the Commission. The bid was rejected because, according to the Commission, its linguistic quality had not attained the required minimum mark of 5/10. However, the complainant considered that most of the words and phrases that had been marked as incorrect in the Bulgarian text in question were in fact correct. In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the Commission had wrongly rejected his bid. He claimed that the Commission should annul its decision to reject his bid and that it should admit it to the further selection procedure.
In its opinion, the Commission stated that, further to the complainant's complaint to the Ombudsman, it had decided to convene the inter-institutional evaluation committee once again in order to re-examine the tender and to avoid any possible unfair treatment. The evaluation committee, assisted by two additional Bulgarian linguists, had decided to accept two of the complainant's arguments. The final number of errors contained in the bid had therefore been reduced to five, so that the tender had been admitted to the rest of the selection procedure. The bid had finally been accepted with a quality mark of 12/20. The Commission apologised to the complainant for the inconvenience caused.
The Commission furthermore informed the Ombudsman that the complainant had now been offered a framework contract.
The complainant told the Ombudsman's services that he was entirely satisfied with the way in which the Commission had resolved his problem. He also stated that he was impressed by the short period of time it had taken to settle the matter and thanked the Ombudsman for his intervention.
The Ombudsman welcomed the fact that the Commission had rapidly addressed and resolved the problem raised by the complainant and that it had apologised to him. He concluded that the Commission had taken steps to settle the matter and had thereby satisfied the complainant.
Strasbourg, 7 June 2007
Dear Mr X,
On 6 August 2006, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the European Commission's rejection of your bid in reply to the Call for tenders no AO 2005-BG (translation services into Bulgarian).
On 2 October 2006, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 29 January 2007. On 31 January 2007, I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished, by 31 March 2007. No observations were received from you by that date.
However, in a telephone conversation with the legal officer in charge of your case on 15 May 2007, you stated that you were entirely satisfied with the way in which the Commission had resolved your problem.
I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.
THE COMPLAINT
On 4 January 2006, the complainant replied to the European Commission's Invitation to tender for translation services into Bulgarian no AO 2005-BG(1). On 14 June 2006, he was informed that his bid had been rejected because its linguistic quality had not attained the required minimum mark of 5/10. In reply to the complainant's request for further information on the reasons for the rejection, the Commission, by letter of 23 June 2006, informed him that, in the description of his working method in Bulgarian, he had made "six spelling errors and one grammatical error" and had used wrong punctuation. The Commission stated that it seemed that these errors were predominantly due to the fact that he had been living outside Bulgaria for a long period.
By e-mail of 27 June 2006, the complainant replied that, after a re-examination of his text, he still failed to understand where he could have made mistakes. He asked for more detailed information. By letter of 3 July 2006, the Commission provided him with a list of "five spelling errors and two grammatical errors" that had been found in his text.
In his complaint to the European Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that most of the words and phrases that had been marked as errors were in fact correct. He enclosed a document in which he elaborated on the pertinent rules and referred to relevant entries in several reference books.
The complainant alleged that the Commission had wrongly rejected his bid in reply to the Call for tenders no AO 2005-BG.
He claimed that the Commission should annul its decision to reject his bid and that it should admit it to the further selection procedure.
THE INQUIRY
The Commission's opinionIn its opinion, the Commission referred to point 2.3.3.5 of the tender specifications of its Call for tenders no AO 2005-BG, which provided that
"[t]he tender must be drawn up in Bulgarian, with particular attention being paid to spelling and grammar. Tenders will be subjected to a linguistic quality analysis. Any tender obtaining fewer than 5 points out of 10 will be excluded. Any tender containing more than five spelling and/or grammatical errors in parts other than the supporting documents will be excluded."
The Commission stated that the inter-institutional evaluation committee had detected five spelling and two grammatical errors in the complainant's tender and had therefore decided to reject the bid.
However, further to the complainant's complaint to the Ombudsman, the Commission had decided to convene the evaluation committee once again in order to re-examine the tender and to avoid any possible unfair treatment.
The committee, assisted by two additional Bulgarian linguists, had decided to accept two of the complainant's arguments. The final number of errors contained in the bid had therefore been reduced to five, so that the tender had been admitted to the further selection procedure. It had finally been accepted with a quality mark of 12/20.
The Commission stated that the complainant had already been duly informed about the outcome of the selection procedure. It also informed the Ombudsman that the complainant had now been offered a framework contract.
The Commission concluded by extending its sincere apologies to the complainant for the inconvenience caused.
The complainant's observationsNo observations were received from the complainant.
However, in a telephone conversation with the legal officer in charge of his case on 15 May 2007, the complainant stated that he was entirely satisfied with the way in which the Commission had resolved his problem and that he was very happy to have been awarded a contract. He also stated that he was impressed with the short period of time it had taken to settle the matter and thanked the Ombudsman for his intervention.
THE DECISION
1 Allegedly wrongful rejection of tender1.1 The complainant made a bid in reply to the European Commission's Invitation to tender for translation services into Bulgarian no AO 2005-BG. This bid was rejected because, according to the Commission, its linguistic quality had not attained the required minimum mark of 5/10. However, the complainant considered that most of the words and phrases that had been marked as incorrect in the Bulgarian text in question were in fact correct. In his complaint to the European Ombudsman, he alleged that the Commission had wrongly rejected his bid. He claimed that the Commission should annul its decision to reject his bid and that it should admit it to the further selection procedure.
1.2 In its opinion, the Commission stated that, further to the complainant's complaint to the Ombudsman, it had decided to convene the inter-institutional evaluation committee once again in order to re-examine the tender and to avoid any possible unfair treatment. The evaluation committee, assisted by two additional Bulgarian linguists, had decided to accept two of the complainant's arguments. The final number of errors contained in the bid had therefore been reduced to five, so that the tender had been admitted to the further selection procedure. It had finally been accepted with a quality mark of 12/20.
The Commission stated that the complainant had already been duly informed about the outcome of the selection procedure. It also informed the Ombudsman that the complainant had now been offered a framework contract. The Commission concluded by extending its sincere apologies to the complainant for the inconvenience caused.
1.3 No observations were received from the complainant. However, in a telephone conversation with the legal officer in charge of his case, the complainant stated that he was entirely satisfied with the way in which the Commission had resolved his problem. He also stated that he was impressed by the short period of time it had taken to settle the matter and thanked the Ombudsman for his intervention.
1.4 The Ombudsman welcomes the fact that the Commission has rapidly addressed and resolved the problem raised by the complainant and that it has apologised to him. He is pleased to note that the complainant has now been awarded a framework contract.
2 ConclusionIt appears from the Commission’s opinion and the complainant's comments that the Commission has taken steps to settle the matter and has thereby satisfied the complainant. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
The President of the Commission will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely,
P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS
(1) OJ 2005 S 214.