| | 32002R2342: m4-146.1-2Evaluation Committee    
| 32002R2342 - Implementation of Community (4th generation) - Commission M4 | Article 146.1-2 | 1. All requests to participate and tenders declared as satisfying the requirements shall be evaluated and ranked by an evaluation committee on the basis of the exclusion, selection and award criteria announced in advance.
That committee shall be appointed by the authorising officer responsible to give an advisory opinion for contracts with a value above the threshold referred to in Article 129(2).
2. The evaluation committee shall be made up of at least three persons representing at least two organisational entities of the institution concerned with no hierarchical link between them. To avoid any conflict of interests, those persons shall be subject to the obligations laid down in Article 52 of the Financial Regulation.
In the representations and local units referred to in Article 254, if there are no separate entities, the requirement of organisational entities with no hierarchical link between them shall not apply.
The evaluation committee may be composed of the same members as the committee opening the tenders. | | 32005R1261 - First amendment of implementation of Community (4th generation) - Commission M4A1 | Article 1.29.a+b=M4-146.1.1+2.1-2,4 | Article 146 is amended as follows:
(a) in paragraph 1, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:
"All requests to participate and tenders declared as satisfying the requirements shall be evaluated and ranked by an evaluation committee set up for each of the two stages on the basis of the pre-announced exclusion and selection criteria and the award criteria respectively.";
(b) paragraph 2 is amended as follows:
(i) the first and second subparagraphs are replaced by the following:
"The evaluation committee shall be made up of at least three persons representing at least two organisational entities of the institution concerned with no hierarchical link between them, at least one of which does not come under the authorising officer responsible. To avoid any conflict of interests, those persons shall be subject to the obligations laid down in Article 52 of the Financial Regulation.
In the representations and local units referred to in Article 254 or isolated in a Member State, if there are no separate entities, the requirement of organisational entities with no hierarchical link between them shall not apply.";
(ii) the following fourth subparagraph is added: "Outside experts may assist the committee by decision of the authorising officer responsible. The authorising officer responsible shall ensure that these experts satisfy the obligations laid down in Article 52 of the Financial Regulation."; | | 32006R1248 - Second amendment of implementation of Community (4th generation) - Commission M4A2 | Article 1.40=M4-146.1.2 | In Article 146(1), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:
"That committee shall be appointed by the authorising officer responsible to give an advisory opinion on contracts with a value above the threshold referred to in Article 129(1)." | | 32007R0478 - Third amendment of implementation of Community (4th generation) - Commission M4A3 | Article 1.63.a+b=M4-146.1.3+2.5 | Article 146 is amended as follows:
(a) in paragraph 1, the following subparagraph is added:
"However, the authorising officer responsible may decide that the evaluation committee is to evaluate and rank the tenders on the basis of the award criteria only and that the exclusion and selection criteria are to be evaluated by other appropriate means guaranteeing the absence of conflicts of interests."
(b) in paragraph 2, the following subparagraph is added:
"In the case of a procurement procedure launched on an interinstitutional basis, the evaluation committee shall be appointed by the competent authorising officer from the institution responsible for the procurement procedure. The composition of the evaluation committee shall reflect, insofar as possible, the interinstitutional character of the procurement procedure." | | 32001R1687 - Fifth amendment of Implementation of Community (3rd generation) - Commission M32A5 | Article 1.39=M32-104.4.1-2 | Article 104 is replaced by the following:
.....
All tenders declared to satisfy the requirements shall be evaluated by an evaluation committee appointed for this purpose which also carries out a classification among the tenders.
The committee shall have at least three members, representing at least two different departments. The committee may be composed of the same members as the committee opening the tenders. |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | T-148/04
TQ3 Travel Solutions | 49-50 | M4-139.1.1.s1
M4-146.1.1 | 49. Moreover, under Article 139 of the detailed implementing rules, the contracting authority is obliged to allow the tenderer to clarify, or even explain, the characteristics of its tender before rejecting it, if it considers that a tender is abnormally low. The obligation to check the seriousness of a tender also arises where there are doubts beforehand as to its reliability, also bearing in mind that the main purpose of that article is to enable a tenderer not to be excluded from the procedure without having had an opportunity to explain the terms of its tender which appears abnormally low.
50. The application of Article 146 of the detailed implementing rules is therefore inherently connected with that of Article 139 of those rules, since only when a tender is considered abnormally low, within the meaning of the latter article, is the evaluation committee required to request details of the constituent elements of the tender which it considers relevant before, where appropriate, rejecting it. Moreover, contrary to what the applicant claims, where a tender does not appear to be abnormally low for the purposes of Article 139 of the detailed implementing rules, Article 146 of those rules is not relevant. Consequently, given that the evaluation committee had no intention, in this case, of rejecting WT's tender, since that tender did not appear to it to be abnormally low, Article 139 of the detailed implementing rules proves to be irrelevant. |
|
|
