Background to the complaint

1. In August 2021, the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) organised a procurement procedure for multiple framework contracts for the provision of ‘light post-editing’ services regarding texts translated from English into the EU official languages.[1] The call for tenders was divided into 22 lots, one for each language. The framework contracts for each lot could include up to five contractors, were concluded for an initial period of 12 months, and could be renewed by tacit agreement for another one year period. The deadline to submit offers was 20 September 2021.

2. The technical specifications set out, among other selection criteria, that tenderers should have professional experience in the field. The technical specifications set out that the CdT can take professional experience of tenderers into account, only when it is accompanied by acceptable proof.[2] However, Annex 8 to the technical specifications also stated that tenderers were not required to submit documentary evidence “if it has already been submitted for another procurement procedure” with the CdT, as long as the documents were issued within a year and remain valid.[3]

3. On 17 September 2021, the complainant submitted a tender to provide post-editing services for Spanish (lot 21). In November 2021, the CdT rejected the complainant’s tender because of insufficient evidence of professional experience, as she had not included any documents as proof of her professional experience. The complainant contested this, arguing that she had included in her tender a list of the documentation she had already submitted for another call for tenders[4] and thus, as set out in the call, was not required to resubmit the documents. The CdT said that, while tenderers were not required to resubmit all of the documents that had been previously submitted, they were required to submit supporting documents demonstrating their professional experience in post-editing. It stated that this had been clarified in a reply to a question that it had published on the ‘e-Tendering platform’. The reply referred to documents within the remit of specific annexes.[5] The CdT stated that the complainant should have consulted the reply.

4. Dissatisfied with the CdT’s reply, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman on 29 November 2021.

The Ombudsman's proposal for a solution

5. Annex 8 to the tender specifications stated that tenderers were not required to submit documentary evidence “if it has already been submitted for another procurement procedure” with the CdT. In the documents submitted to the CdT as part of her tender, the complainant provided a cross-reference to an earlier procurement process (within the previous year) in which she had submitted the required documents to the CdT. However, the CdT rejected the complainant’s tender, even though, by the deadline for the call for tenders, the CdT was in possession of all of the supporting documents. The CdT thus did not comply with the procedure described in Annex 8 and, in the reply to the question that it had published on the E-Tendering platform, provided information which contradicted it.

6. In light of the above, the Ombudsman considered that the CdT was wrong to reject the complainant’s tender because she did not resubmit documentary evidence of her professional experience. To address this, the Ombudsman proposed as a solution that the CdT not renew the current framework contract for lot 21 and, instead, carry out a new procurement procedure, providing greater clarity as to what documents tenderers are expected to submit. In particular, she suggested that the CdT should make sure that, in this new procedure and in all future procurement procedures, the terms of the individual annexes, in this case Annex 8, are in line with the technical specifications and that they are internally consistent and clear as regards the documents tenderers are required to submit.

7. The CdT replied that it did not renew the framework contracts for lot 21. However, it decided not to launch a new procedure for the services covered by this framework contract for lot 21 because it no longer needs such services. The CdT added that it has revised the wording of the documentation used in procurement procedures, in order to ensure that tenderers have clarity as regards which supporting documents they have to submit.

The Ombudsman's assessment after the proposal for a solution

8. The Ombudsman commends the CdT’s commitment to ensure that, in future procurement procedures, it will provide greater clarity as to which supporting documents tenderers need to provide and will ensure consistency between different procurement documents in the same procedure.

Conclusion

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion:

The Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) has accepted the Ombudsman’s solution proposal.

The complainant and the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) will be informed of this decision.

 

Emily O'Reilly
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 09/12/2022

 

[1] Call for tenders PN/MTLPE-GEN21-02.

[2] Point 3.2.4 of the technical specifications.

[3] Point VIII of Annex 8 to the tender specifications, called “EVIDENCE FOR SELECTION”.

[4] FL/GEN20-02.

[5] The reply stated: “Tenderers are not required to submit documentary evidence already submitted in the framework of another tender procedure organised by the CdT provided that such documentary evidence has been issued not more than one year before the date for submission of tenders (20 September 2021) and is still valid at that date. In particular, the documents falling under the remit of this question are: Annex 2, Annex 6, Annex 7, Annex 9, Annex 10, Annex 11, Annex 14. Depending on the type of tender, Annex 12, Annex 13, Annex 15 and Annex 16 may also fall under the category of the documentation subject of this question.”