WRITTEN QUESTION E-0142/00 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Clarification of tender award procedures for road reconstruction in Addis Abeba financed by the European Development Fund.
C 330 E/90 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21. 11. 2000 It is not yet possible to provide any information on the future organisation of Eurojust or estimates of its future resources. As soon as the Council has been presented with an initiative regarding a legal instrument, the European Parliament will be duly consulted, in accordance with the Treaty on European Union. (2000/C 330 E/100) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0142/00 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission (31 January 2000) Subject: Clarification of tender award procedures for road reconstruction in Addis Abeba financed by the European Development Fund Salini Costruttori SpA, an Italian construction firm which operates in Ethiopia for the World Bank and the European Development Fund (EDF), building major road links and dams, took part in the tender procedure for the repair of the Addis Abeba-Dessie Woldiya road link, a project financed by the EDF (ET/7020/000- ABA-Tender 4342) and on 6 November 1998 submitted bids for lots 1 and 2. The bid by Salini Costruttori SpA was the lowest received (EUR 6 822 572 lower than the next lowest), The firm provided full information under the assessment procedure for the bid on how it would carry out the work and what materials would be used, in line with the tender specifications. This infomration was forwarded to the Commission services (DG VIII) responsible for deciding on the award of the tender. However, on 22 November 1999, Mr Karl Harbo, the Commission delegate, informed the services of the Ethiopian Government that the only bid which fully met the tender requirements was the second one on the list and this was awarded the contract for the works covered by lot 2, while lot 1 was left pending. The note also stipulated that the companies undertaking the work should not use inert material from rivers and warned the offices of the client and the international consultant paid by the Commission not to request clarification from the companies, since this would breach provisions actually running counter to what was claimed in the note, which in addition set short deadlines for concluding the contract, leaving little time available for Salini Costruttori SpA to challenge the award procedure. In the light of the above: 1. Why did the Commission not award the tender to the lowest bidder? 2. Why were the specifications changed after the completion of the tender procedure, with the second- placed bidder being required to restrict its use of inert matter from rivers, when this request was never previously made to Salini Costruttori SpA, despite the willingness the company had expressed to meet any technical requirements? 3. Why was the tender awarded only for lot 2, with the result that the Commission did not derive the benefits to be obtained from awarding lots jointly? 4. What action will it take to check that the tender procedure was carried out in accordance with the rules? Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission (10 March 2000) Under Articles 36 and 37 of Decision No 3/90 of the ACP-EEC Council of Ministers of 29 March 1990 adopting the general regulations, general conditions and procedural rules on conciliation and arbitration for works, supply and service contracts financed by the European Development Fund (EDF) and concerning 21. 11. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/91 their application (1), the contracting authority/national authorising officer is responsible for taking the final decision on the award of contracts in agreement with the Commission in accordance with Articles 313 and 317 of the fourth LomØ Convention. The Commission checks that the results of the evaluation of the tenders sent by national authorising officers comply with the relevant provisions in both administrative and technical respects. The Commission can provide certain details about the invitation to tender and lots concerned without derogating from the abovementioned general regulations or Convention. According to the Commissionís information, the evaluation procedure relating to lot 1 is still in progress and the contracting authority has taken no decision on the award of the contract. In accordance with Article 33. 7 of the general regulations, therefore, no information relating thereto may be disclosed. The Commission has checked that the procedure was carried out in accordance with the rules and approved the award of lot 2. As soon as the national authorising officer has given official notification of the award of the lot, any request for further information, in accordance with the provisions referred to above and Articles 37. 2 and 37. 3 of the general regulations, must be sent to the contracting authority, as the sole body authorised to provide information in that connection. (1) OJ L 382, 31. 12. 1990. (2000/C 330 E/101) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0146/00 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (31 January 2000) Subject: Commission report on the veterinary mission carried out in Italy On 13 October 1999 the Commission published a report on a veterinary mission to Italy. The report revealed serious breaches in Italy of Council Directive 91/628 (1) on the protection of animals during transport including incomplete route plans for animals imported from third countries and the failure to require animals which have travelled long distances from third countries to be rested for 24 hours on arrival in Italy. Moreover, the requirements for vehicles carrying animals for longer than 8 hours were often not complied with, either by Italian or by third country vehicles. In its previous mission to Italy, the Italian border inspection posts near the Slovenian border. In its new report, the Commission concluded that, since its previous mission in 1997, no substantial progress has been achieved. the Commission found serious shortcomings at What steps is the Commission taking to require the Italian authorities to ensure that the requirements of Council Directive 91/628 are properly complied with? (1) OJ L 340, 11. 12. 1991, p. 17. Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (30 March 2000) The welfare of animals transported by road from Eastern European and Baltic third countries to Italy via the border crossings of Gorizia and Fernetti-Prosecco continues to be a matter of concern to the Commission. In addition to the adverse reports of the Commission veterinary inspectors mentioned by the Honourable Member, the matter has been the subject of complaints from animal welfare organisations. The Commission has intervened with the Italian authorities on a number of occasions concerning the inadequate enforcement of the national legislation transposing the requirements of Council Directive 91/ 628/EEC as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 concerning the protection of animals during transport (1). Although some short-term improvements were noted in respect of earlier interventions, it nevertheless appears that transport of the animals concerned is still frequently being carried out with inadequate respect of animal welfare requirements