Ref. Ares(2018)4423392 - 28/08/2018
Ref. Ares(2019)748406 - 08/02/2019
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDY ON COMMON CHARGERS OF PORTABLE
DEVICES
IMPLEMENTING FRAMEWORK CONTRACT 575/PP/2016/FC
1.
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
1.1
Overall purpose and justification
This study is intended to provide input for the Impact Assessment (IA) accompanying a new
initiative aiming to limit fragmentation of the charging solutions for mobile phones and
similar devices, whilst at the same time not hampering future technological evolution.
1.2
Policy context of the initiative
The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and the common charger1
In June 2009, following a request from the European Commission, major producers of mobile
telephones agreed to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (“MoU”) to harmonise chargers
for data-enabled mobile telephones sold in the EU.
The MoU aimed at guarantying interoperability between chargers and new mobile phones on
the market, therefore reducing the need to buy or continuously exchange chargers and cables
and a consequent reduction of e-Waste in line with the Circular economy and Energy Union
strategies2. At the same time, interoperability was considered key for the development of a
competitive Digital Single Market, at the benefit of both industry and consumers. The MoU
was also to ensure that citizens could benefit from reliable, energy-efficient and safe chargers,
whether they were provided by the smartphones’ manufacturers or they were sold as
standalone products.
Upon signing the MoU, the signatories agreed to develop a common specification based on
the USB 2.0 Micro B (Micro-USB) interface, which would allow full charging compatibility
with mobile phones to be placed on the market. For those phones that did not have a Micro-
USB interface an adaptor was allowed under the terms of the MoU.
Before the MoU, in 2009 there were 500 million mobile phones in use in the EU countries,
but they were only compatible with specific mobile telephone chargers as more than 30
different types of charger were on the market. Other than inconvenience to the consumer, that
situation was estimated to generate more than 51,000 tons of electronic waste per year in the
EU. A progress report provided by the MoU signatories in February 2013 indicated that 90%
of the new devices placed on the market by the signatories and other manufacturers by the end
of 2012 supported the common charging capability.
1
More information relevant to the common charger is available at
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/electrical-engineering/red-directive/common-charger_en
2
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/index_en.htm
1
In 2014, a study3 confirmed that the number of different charging connectors for mobile
phones on the market had declined substantially and the vast majority of handset owners now
had a MoU-compliant phone, which enabled many to charge their phones using chargers of
friends, colleagues, etc. The study also highlighted the improvements in waste reduction and
resource efficiency in line with the circular economy goals and the policy initiatives of the
Commission.
State of Play
The MoU expired after two letters of renewal in 2014, and the Commission started fostering
the adoption of a new voluntary agreement. The new voluntary agreement was aiming to take
into account the new USB Type C technology for the common interface between the charger
and the mobiles, but also further developments in the sector, as for instance that of a wireless
charger.
Still in 2014, the co-legislators, and the European Parliament in particular, called for renewed
efforts to complete the harmonization of chargers. For this purpose, they also included in the
new Radio Equipment Directive (RED), the possibility to mandate a common interface. The
Consumer Associations joined this call, fostering a complete harmonization of chargers.
Several discussions with the manufacturers took place, with the Commission commenting or
suggesting several options aiming to fulfil the spirit of the request of the co-legislators (the
one single common charger solution).
Beginning of 2018, the Commission received from the mobile manufacturers a new voluntary
agreement.
This MoU was made public on 20 March 2018 by DigitalEurope4, but did not guarantee the
possibility to use the same chargers as proprietary solutions were proposed together with the
previous USB 2.0 Micro B and the new USB Type C solutions. More specifically, at least
four technologies would be concurrently available (Apple Lightning5 proprietary solution,
USB 2.0 Micro B and USB Type C on the phone side, and USB Type A and USB Type C on
the external power supply side).
Not only reduction and prevention of the fragmentation of the chargers and consequently the
e-waste reduction policy were not fully addressed, but that proposal would not exclude the
possibility to have other new proprietary solutions in the future. In addition, though under the
first MoU regime adaptors were permitted (therefore allowing proprietary plugs to
interconnect with USB 2.0 Micro B ones), the introduction of the USB Type C socket does
not appear to provide any technical advantages to justify maintaining of proprietary solutions
(in terms of current needs, reversibility of the connection, robustness, data transmission, etc.).
Finally, it has to be noted that the proposal does not make any clause to innovation aspects,
nor it does mention new technologies such as fast charging and wireless charging.
As the proposal was considered not to fulfil the request of the co-legislators in Article 3(3)(a)
of the RED, as allowing different charging solutions and therefore not guaranteeing full
interoperability between mobile phones, there was no endorsement from the Commission.
3
’’Study on the impact of the MOU on harmonisation of chargers for mobile telephones and to assess
possible future options’’
4
http://www.digitaleurope.org/Press-Room/Latest-News/News-Story/newsID/717
5
More details on the Lightning plug is available
at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_(connector)
2
Legal context of the initiative
The safety of chargers, other than wireless chargers, is governed by the Low Voltage
Directive (LVD) 2014/35/EU. Article 1 states that the LVD ‘’is to ensure that electrical
equipment on the market fulfils the requirements providing for a high level of protection of
health and safety of persons, and of domestic animals and property, while guaranteeing the
functioning of the internal market.’’
For electromagnetic compatibility risks, the Electromagnetic Compatibility Directive
2014/30/EU is applicable to chargers.
The safety and electromagnetic compatibility of radio equipment, such as data-enabled mobile
telephones, are governed by the Radio Equipment Directive (RED) 2014/53/EU. In addition
the RED sets essential requirements for the efficient use of the radio and provides the basis
for further regulation governing some additional aspects. One of them, referring to common
chargers, is Article 3(3)(a) of RED, that states: ‘’[…] Radio equipment within certain
categories or classes shall be so constructed that it complies with the following essential
requirements: (a) radio equipment interworks with accessories, in particular with common
chargers […]’’, which empowers the Commission to define the classes or categories of radio
equipment concerned by that provision.. This could provide a legal basis for taking a
regulatory action in relation to ‘common’ chargers, that is, would cover the socket side
interface on the electronic equipment
Alternatively, the use of the ordinary procedure and a new legislation could be adopted in
accordance with Article 114 TFEU (internal market), that enables the EU to adopt measures
to harmonise the legislation of the Member States in order to ensure the establishment and
functioning of the internal market. Such measures must take as a base a high level of
protection of the health and safety of people and of the environment.
2.
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
The contractor shall ensure robustness of information by trying to acquire it from more than
one source. In particular findings from consultations should be complemented when possible
by official statistics and studies.
The contractor must support findings and recommendations by explaining the degree to which
these are based on opinions, analysis and objectively verifiable evidence. Where opinions are
the main source, the degree of consensus and the steps taken to test the opinions should be
given.
The contractor will have a free choice as to the methods used to gather and analyse
information and for making the assessment, but must take account of the following tools for
data collection and data analysis:
The tasks to be delivered shall be fully in accordance with the Commission Better Regulation
Guidelines and Better Regulation Toolbox6. The choice and a detailed description of the
methodology must form part of the offer submitted. Advantages, limitations and risks
involved in using the proposed tools and techniques should be explained.
6 https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/better-regulation-guidelines.pdf and http://ec.europa.eu/smart-
regulation/guidelines/docs/br_toolbox_en.pdf
3
2.1
Tasks of the study
2.1.1
Evaluation of Memorandum of Understanding and refinement of problem
definition
The overarching objective of this task is to assess to what extent the Memorandum of
Understanding achieved its objectives and to analyse the current problems after the expiry of
MoU.
The contractor shall in particular analyse the following issues:
Assessment of the previous memorandums of understanding and voluntary agreements (2009
to 2014).
Market data related to charging solutions:
-
an analysis of the market (main figures and trends) of mobile phones sold in Europe;
- an analysis of the market for chargers sold alone in Europe including the illicit market
for counterfeit chargers,
- an updated analysis of the market (main figure and trends, charging solution used ) of
other small portable electronic devices requiring similar charging capacity, such as tablets,
laptops, GPS receivers, radio controlled toys, smartwatches, etc7.
-
an analysis of the technical evolution of the charging solutions, actual figure and
future trends (in particular in the context of wireless charging);
Environmental impacts:
An analysis of the environmental impact of the MoU and how this would evolve after
the expiry of MoU.
Consumer impact:
- An analysis of consumer detriment stemming from:
Inconvenience related to the need of using different chargers;
Reduction of performance of replacement chargers;
Cost related to replacement chargers.
- An analysis of consumers’ role in the effectiveness of MoU e.g. attachment to
brand and lack of knowledge/ trust to use "non-original" chargers.
Impact of safety:
- An analysis of safety impacts related to chargers mostly related to non-original
replacement chargers.
Benefits for EU industry and employment in the EU:
- An analysis of costs and benefits of the MoU for mobile manufacturers and after
the expiry of MoU.
7 As an indication of the magnitude and type of devices to be taken as reference, the contractor may refer
to the outcomes of the
’Study on the impact of the MOU on harmonisation of chargers for mobile
telephones’’
4
Indirect impacts:
- An analysis of indirect impacts of MoU concerning other similar devices.
2.1.2
Assessment of impacts of policy options
The study is intended to analyse the impacts of the following policy options, their cost-
effectiveness, their impact on consumers, their impact on e-waste and their impact on
industry:
Baseline scenario8 (acceptance of the proposed MoU);
Voluntary approach (implementation of an improved version of the actually proposed
MoU);
Regulatory options, whether under pursuant Article 3(3)(a) of the Radio Equipment
Directive 2014/53/EU or a different legal basis.
At least the following technical scenarios will be taken into account as basis to assess the
policy options:
1. Plug charger with detachable cable.
a. USB Type A socket on plug charger and:
i.
Cable from USB Type A to USB 2.0 Micro B;
ii.
Cable from USB Type A to USB Type C;
iii.
Cable from USB Type A to proprietary socket (e.g. Apple Lightning);
iv.
Cable of the previously defined types plus external adaptor.
2. Plug charger with detachable cable.
b. USB Type C socket on plug charger and:
i.
Cable from USB Type C to USB 2.0 Micro B;
ii.
Cable from USB Type C to USB Type C;
iii.
Cable from USB Type C to proprietary socket (e.g. Apple Lightning);
iv.
Cable of the previously defined types plus external adaptor.
3. Plug charger with no detachable cable:
i.
Cable terminating with USB 2.0 Micro B;
ii.
Cable terminating with USB Type C;
iii.
Cable terminating with proprietary socket (e.g. Apple Lightning);
iv.
Cable of the previously defined types plus external adaptor.
In addition to the technical scenarios defined in 1.a.i., 1.a.ii. and 1.a.iii., the study will
provide an overview of the new charging solutions, with a view to recognise any
limitations to present and future interoperability.
More specifically the technical analysis will take into account (1) fast charging and (2)
wireless charging, and will list the actually used technologies and protocols and
individuate the factors that could limit interoperability of devices using fast and wireless
charging. Specifically for the fast charging, the above options will need to be assessed
against their suitability for the fast charging feature.
8
As ‘’baseline scenario’’ it is considered a situation that corresponds to the proposal received from
manufacturers
5
In that respect, the study should assess the option to set out ad-hoc performance
parameters. In that respect -as previously mentioned under policy options bullet point 3-
other legal basis could be considered other than Article 3(3)(a) of the RED in order to
extend the possibility for radio equipment to interwork with accessories and common
charger by including those additional features. Under that policy scenario, the study will
have to analyse the specific performance criteria (fast charging, wireless charging, etc.),
make assumptions on the technical solutions that may be compatible with themand assess
what legal basis that could better suit their implementation.
.
The study shall compare the policy options and their impact on the market for mobile
telephones and chargers, by specifically providing:
- an analysis of the benefits for consumers in terms of potential savings (the possibility
not to include chargers with new phones, the possibility to reuse owned chargers and to
avoid purchasing additional ones, etc.) ;
- an analysis of the consumers’ role on the potential success of the common charger
solution (attachment to brand, need for information campaigns, etc.);
- an analysis of impacts on economic operators (manufacturers and importers of mobile
telephones, chargers and other accessories interworking with mobile phones and similar
devices, shops, online sales distributors, etc.) and in particular on SMEs that could be
directly or indirectly impacted by any measure in this area (for instance, EU
manufacturer of hi-fi docking stations and portable Digital Audio Converters (DACs));
- an analysis of the impact on the environment in terms of waste reduction, raw materials
and overall environmental impact;
- an analysis of the impact on the safety of chargers;
- an analysis of impacts on innovations and competitiveness of the EU industry and for
EU employment;
- an analysis of the impact on the illicit market for counterfeit chargers (i.e. violation of
intellectual property rights in patents, trademarks, design, etc.).
The analysis shall be quantifiable and in particular deliver cost-benefits values for each of
the identified options.
The analysis shall take into account aspects related to the protection of intellectual
property.
The analysis shall be future-proof by taking into account new trends and innovation
aspects, while still keeping a view to prevent fragmentation of the market.
Lastly and importantly, the analysis shall feed itself from the results of the evaluation of the
low-voltage directive9, insofar these impact chargers, and will make a thorough assessment of
previous memorandums of understanding and voluntary agreement.
9
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2017-5291384_en
6
2.2
Analysis of possible scope of the initiative
Taking into account the possibility to allow chargers to interwork with a variety of electronic
and electrical equipment, the study shall provide an analysis of the possible indirect impact on
the EU market for other small portable electronic devices requiring similar charging capacity,
such as tablets, laptops, GPS receivers, radio controlled toys, smartwatches, etc10. The study
will assess whether under the proposed scenarios it will be possible to extend the scope of any
possible regulatory option beyond smartphones, and the related impacts in particular
costs/benefits.
2.3
Data collection tools
2.3.1
Desk research/ literature review
The contractor should collect data and information from a wide range of publicly available
sources, including, among other:
- Studies and other reports;
- Relevant academic research;
- Other relevant consultations reports/studies on the fields;
- National/international official statistics;
- Qualitative and quantitative analysis of existing data (e.g. market data);
- Structured analysis of the provisions of the legislation and of its implementation;
- Analysis of existing documents;
2.3.2
Stakeholder consultation
On the basis of the consultation strategy agreed by the Interservice Steering Group, the
contractor shall implement the plan that will allow all stakeholders to be duly consulted.
Stakeholders will be consulted either to collect evidence or to test/validate already existing
analysis or evidence coming from different sources.
The relevant parts of the Commiss
ion Better regulation guidelines and Toolbox concerning
stakeholder consultation shall be followed.
The consultation strategy must include a 12-week internet-based public consultation, but should
be complemented by other approaches and tools in order to engage all relevant stakeholders and
to target potential information gaps.
For each proposed consultation tool and for each category of stakeholder the contractor shall
analyse the potential gaps and propose a mitigation strategy. An analysis of possible overlap
between the different tools shall also be put forward (in particular between the public and
targeted consultation).
10 As an indication of the magnitude and type of devices to be taken as reference, the contractor may refer
to the outcomes of the
’Study on the impact of the MOU on harmonisation of chargers for mobile
telephones’’10,10
7
2.3.3
Public consultation
The contractor shall prepare a questionnaire for the mandatory internet-based Public
Consultation which has to be agreed with the Steering Group. Public consultation is open to
all – anyone interested to provide input - and so it is able to reach a broad range and large
number of stakeholders.
The questionnaire will be available in 23 EU languages. Translations will be provided by
Commission’s translation service (DGT).
The consultation will usually be encoded in a Commission tool,
EUSurvey., run on
theCommission web-site and the answers received (in the original language) will be
forwarded to the contractor for analysis.
The minimum time period for public consultation is 12 weeks (additional time should be
given in case they run during major holiday periods).
The contractor shall respect the European Commission standards for data protection when
analysing responses.11
2.3.4
Targeted consultation
The targeted consultations will collect the specialist view of the different categories of
stakeholders. It can take place at any time point during the study. There is no minimum
mandatory period for target consultation, but sufficient time should be given in order to
collect as many replies as possible.
Questionnaires shall be customised to different stakeholder categories such as industry
associations, companies (including SMEs), consumers, enforcement authorities, etc.
– taking
into account their different level of engagement and experience with the measure. The
contractor shall propose mitigation strategies in case of low number of replies.
Targeted stakeholders’ consultations can be organized using the Commission tool EUSurvey.
or any other tool proposed by the contractor and agreed upon by the Steering Group.
Any other operational works related to the survey itself will be the responsibility of the
contractor. The contractor remains the sole responsible for the analysis. The contractor shall
respect the European Commission standards for data protection when analysing responses.
2.3.5
Interviews
The contractor shall carry out a number of structured/semi-structured interviews. Whereas
most interviews could be done via phone or video conference, face to face interviews will be
needed at an early stage to get a better understanding of the sector. Further interviews may be
needed when analysing the information received via the targeted and public consultation.
The Commission may issue a Recommendation Letter that the Contractor will be able to
present to approached stakeholders.
In conducting the interviews the Contractor shall respect data protection and privacy
standards of the Commission. The responses and transcripts of interviews shall be given to the
Commission.
11 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:008:0001:0022:EN:PDF
8
The selection of interviewees should be based on their knowledge of the subject and should be
agreed with the Commission service.
Interviews should be conducted with
Representative from EU
Relevant National Administration, Notified Bodies, Standardisation Authorities
Selected representatives from organisation of stakeholder's categories (Industry and
SMEs, consumers, etc.)
Selected number of Enterprises
NGOs, civil society
The approximate overall number of interviews that the contractor is expected to conduct is
around 30
, either as face-to-face or as remote interviews.
2.4
Data analysis
Considerable emphasis should be placed on the analysis of the information/data collected. The
contractor will have a free choice as to the methods used to analyse information and for
making the assessment, but must, at least, take account of the following:
2.4.1
Identification of the most relevant impacts (intended and unintended)
The contractor shall establish an initial comprehensive list of all potential direct and indirect
impacts that the various options may cause: economic impacts on manufacturers and on users,
including on small and micro-enterprises specifically and including administrative
burden/simplification; impacts on public administration impacts on consumers; impacts on
competitiveness and innovation; safety impacts; environmental impacts.
The selection of the most significant likely impacts shall be based on clear criteria, including
their expected magnitude, relevance to the stakeholders and importance for the EU general
objectives.
2.4.2
Cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit analysis
The contractor is asked to map regulatory and administrative costs and benefits stemming
from different policy options. Costs should be disaggregated to specific actions necessary. For
the quantifications the contractor should follow as much as possible the logic of the cost-
benefits analysis and more generally the methods described in the Better Regulation
Toolbox12. This shall include the identification of the stakeholders' groups impacted and how
they would be affected (this will include the SME test).
The contractor shall try to estimate benefits of the initiative. The contractor shall try to
estimate other benefits of the measure that will emerge during the course of analysis.
2.4.3
Analysis of other impacts and comparison of options
Based on identification of possible impacts, the contractor shall quantify the most significant
impacts in particular impacts on waste and impacts on consumers.
12 12https://ec.europa.eu/info/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en
9
The contractor shall assess the options against the baseline scenario. The assessment will be
quantitative, clearly describing the methodology, any assumptions and their robustness, any
limitations of the approach and carrying out sensitivity analysis. For impacts that cannot be
quantified, the contractor shall explain in details why quantification is not possible and
provide a thorough qualitative assessment.
The contractor shall prepare a comparison of the options which will be based on the
assessment of the various impacts and their distribution across affected stakeholders' groups.
The comparison shall consider effectiveness (the extent to which each option would achieve
the objectives), efficiency (the cost benefit analysis of each option), synergies and trade-offs
in the case of combined options and sub-options.
2.4.4
Case studies
The contractor shall use case studies in order to provide practical examples; these could also
be used to present examples of costs and benefits for manufactures of specific products
(success stories).
The analytical and reporting tasks to be delivered shall be fully in accordance with the
Commission Better Regulation Guidelines and Better Regulation Toolbox.
3.
AVAILABLE INFORMATION AND DATA SOURCES
The following documentation and information is an input for the contractor to develop the
work:
The Commission website on the Electrical and Electronic Engineering Industries13
Legal text of the Radio Equipment Directive 2014/53
/EU: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014L0053
The Commission website on the Radio Equipment Directive website14 including,
the RED Guide,15 documents adopted or endorsed by the Telecommunication
Conformity Assessment and Market Surveillance Committee (TCAM)16, FAQs,
reports, information documents, and Commission's opinions under the framework
of RED:
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/electrical-engineering/red-directive_en
Specific web page on common chargers campaign, with links to main activities and
previous stu
dy: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/electrical-engineering/red-
directive/common-charger_en .
13 http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/electrical-engineering/ec-support_en
14 http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/electrical-engineering/red-directive_en
15 http://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/2332
16 TCAM public documents are also available on
https://circabc.europa.eu/faces/jsp/extension/wai/navigation/container.jsp?FormBanner:_idcl=navigationTitle
&FormBanner_SUBMIT=1&org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.faces.STATE=DUMMY&id=75ddbd4d-d635-4fb8-93cd-
571f720964e4&javax.faces.ViewState=aIk923rFtijsXYBzv52NJxj1FTIcD%2Fz7maFaTJO4OkA3ynYZPKE4jA8A6wp
OwkyBXvKWLOzC%2FcHLERx9Qbivqb8QFh%2FBj4EdchZdS7pRBhvdnn6F1frGPeCRoS8YGY9w1VbbJdPafgGh95g
r5qc1LvdsOAY%3D
10
Website on Administrative Cooperation Groups (AdCos)17, including reports from
the ADCO RED.
ICSMS (Information and Communication System for Market Surveillance) – an
internet-supported information and communication system for the pan-European
market surveillance
: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/icsms
Rapid Alert System for dangerous non-food products (RAPEX database):
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumers_safety/safety_products/rapex/index_en.ht
m.
Background documents:
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) 2009 (Annex 1)
Annex I: List of Signatories (Annex 2)
Annex III: Guide on Implementation of Requirements of the Common external
power supply (Annex 3)
Mandate M/455 on a common charging capability for mobile phones (Annex 4)
Previous evaluations and other reports
A
’Study on the impact of the MOU on harmonisation of chargers for mobile telephones’’18,19 was performed in 2014. The main objective of that study was to evaluate the results achieved
with the MoU in the 2009-2013 period, to analyse how the stated objectives to delivering
benefits for consumers and for industry and to reducing electronic waste were achieved, and
to provide elements in view of considering options for follow-up.
The study assessed the benefits for consumers, for manufacturers of mobile telephones and
chargers following the MoU and analysed its indirect impacts for other small portable
electronic devices requiring similar charging capacity (such as digital cameras, tablets, music
players, GNSS receivers, etc.). The study also provided an ex-ante assessment of the expected
impacts of different future policy options. 3 policy options were considered – 1) no
harmonisation, 2) voluntary approach and 3) EU legislation - and at that time it resulted
mainly suggesting the voluntary approach as the best option, especially in view of the new
announced technology USB Type-C which was expected to allow an extension of the
application of the MoU to other devices than just mobile phones.
17 https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/goods/building-blocks/market-
surveillance/organisation/administrative-cooperation-groups_en
18 Executive summar
y http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/7431/attachments/1/translations
19 Final re
port http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/7432/attachments/1/translations
11
4.
COMMISSIONING BODY AND PUBLICATION
The present Impact Assessment study is commissioned by Unit C3 of DG Internal Market,
Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs.
The steering group contributes to the development of the evaluation project and is part of its
management structure. The steering Committee for the present evaluation is composed by
representative of DG GROW (C3 and 01), SG, DG CNECT, DG COMP, DG ENER, DG
ENV, DG JRC, DG JUST, DG R&I, DG TRADE.
The results may be shared with other interested bodies inside and outside the European
Commission.
5.
REPORTING AND DELIVERABLES
5.1
General reporting requirements
The contractor shall provide the required reports and documents in accordance with the
timetable below.
The contractor must ensure that all deliverables under this contract are clear, concise and
focused on their purpose. All deliverables shall be written in English, reviewed and corrected
by a native speaker before submission.
Electronic files must be provided in (
specify, e.g. Microsoft ® Word) format. Additionally,
besides Word, the Final Report must be delivered in pdf format and in 3 hard copies.
All deliverables are presented as draft documents to be discussed with the Steering group and
finalised based on the comments received from Commission services.
The Commission shall have 30 days to approve or reject the report. The contractor shall have
30 days in which submit additional information or a new report.
5.2
Deliverables
For the purpose of this specific contract, the following deliverables will need to be produced:
Deliverable 1 (DI)
At the latest 1 month after signature
of the contract by the last contracting
party
An
inception report (around 10 pages) will specify the detailed work programme
and planning for the study and describe the methodological approaches and working
assumptions to be used for the tasks defined. The report will also identify any
additional needs.
Deliverable 2 (D2)
At the latest 5 months after
signature of the contract by the last
contracting party
12
An
interim report (10-20 pages) will summarise results reached until that moment
and raise any problems encountered with sufficient information to permit
reorientation if appropriate and required. It will demonstrate what preliminary
conclusions have been drawn and give clear indications and detailed planning of the
work to be carried out during the rest of the period of completion of the tasks. This
report will also include the proposed structure of the final report.
Deliverable 3 (D3)
At the latest 7 months after signature
of the contract by the last contracting
party
A draft final report (around X pages+ Annexes) will be delivered to the
Commission, taking account of the comments made earlier on in the process. It will
cover all points of the work plan and shall include sound analysis of findings and
factually based conclusions and recommendations, in line with the purpose and
objectives described above.
The Commission will accept the draft final report in the definitive form or comment on it
within 20 days of its reception. If the Commission does not react within this period, the final
study shall be deemed to have been approved.
Should the Commission still not consider the final report acceptable, the Contractor will be
invited to amend until the Commission is satisfied within 30 days. In cases of late delivery,
the Commission reserves its right to apply the corresponding liquidated damages according to
the provisions of Article II.15 of the Framework Contract.
The Interservice Steering Group reserves the right to carry out a quality assessment of the
final report and publish it along with the study.
Deliverable 4 (D4)
At the latest 9 months after signature
of the contract by the last contracting
party
The
final report (of around 75 pages + Annexes). Annexes to the final report will
includeany graphical material, the main bibliographic and information sources,
verbatim of interviews.
Deliverable 5 (D5)
At the latest 9 months after signature
of the contract by the last contracting
party (submitted as annex to D5)
An
executive summary (around 3 pages) summarising the purpose, methods used,
key findings and possible recommendations of the study.
13
Deliverable 6 (D6)
At the latest 9 months after signature
of the contract by the last contracting
party (submitted as annex to D5)
All the
data collected under this contract, as well as all the summaries, analyses,
underlying calculations and findings, which will be the property of the Commission
and must be handed over in the agreed format.
The Commission shall have 30 days to approve or reject the reports. The contractor shall have
30 days to submit additional information or a new report.
6.
PUBLICATIONS
The study (including executive summary, abstract, annexes) will be published on the DG
Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs internet site, on the
EU Bookshop
website and on other web-sites in relation to the study.
In view of its publication, the final report must be of high editorial quality.
. In cases where the
contractor does not manage to produce a final report of high editorial quality within the
timeframe defined by the contract, the contracting authority can decide to have the final report
professionally edited at the expense of the contractor (e.g. deduction of these costs from the
final payment) according two Article II.16 of the framework contract.
7.
WORK ORGANISATION
7.1
Meetings with the Commission
The contractor is expected to take part in maximum 4 meetings with the Commission services
which will take place on Commission premises in Brussels:
a kick-off meeting at the beginning of the study;
one interim meeting;
a draft-final meeting;
a final meeting to present the results of the study.
The 'kick-off' meeting will allow for the discussion of the draft outline approach and work
programme elaborated by the contractor for the execution of the contract.
The 'interim' meetings will allow an in-depth discussion of the progress/interim draft reports.
The 'final' meeting will allow an in-depth discussion of the draft final report and requirements
for the completion of the Final report.
7.2
Work Plan
The contract shall enter into force on the date on which it is signed by the last contracting
party.
It is expected to be signed by October 2018. The provision of the services shall not exceed 9
months.
14
Given the time constraints, a correct project planning and resources allocation will be
considered crucial for the successful completion of the project.
Deliverables (D), Meetings (M), and Payments (P)
Deadline
(Month)
M1: Kick-off meeting with the Commission in Brussels
1
D1: Inception report
D2: First interim report
5
M2: Interim meeting with the Commission in Brussels
P1: Interim payment
D3: Draft final report
7
M3: Draft-final meeting with the Commission in Brussels
D4: Final report
9
M4: Final meeting with the Commission in Brussels
D5: Executive Summary of the final report
D6: All data collected
P2: Final payment
7.3
Proposed team
Total days
Task
Role in
Name
Staff Category
Expertise
Languages
Unit price
Man days
the team
Cat. I -
Team Leader
Cat. II -
Senior
Consultant
Cat. III -
Junior
Consultant
Cat. IV
The tender must include a description of the proposed team, its composition, its expertise and
the work effort planned for each member in terms of man/days for each task of the project.
8.
PRICE
The maximum budget available for this project is € 230,000.
15
The offer must include a detailed proposed budget. The tenderer should provide a quote of
the total cost of the services to be provided (fixed price) in its financial tender following the
table below:
Price component
Staff category
Unit price
Quantity
Total
(= daily rate for
(= number of
Human Resources
man days
including the
devoted to the
travel and
project by
subsistence
person XY for
expenses linked to
Human
the five meetings
Resources)
with the
Commission on its
premises in
Brussels)
Human resources
Person X (name and a role)
Person Y (name and a role)
…..
Subtotal (1)
Other
Item X
Item Y
…..
Subtotal (2)
TOTAL (1+2)
9.
PAYMENTS
The payment scheme will consist of
-
one interim payment, corresponding to
a maximum of 30 % (each)
of the price
specified in article 3.1 of the specific contract;
-
a
balance payment corresponding to
70 % of the amount specified in article 3.1 of
the specific contract;
The schedule and the procedure for the approval of payments and the documents to be
submitted are described in Articles I.6, II.21, II.22 and II.23 of the framework contract.
10.
AWARD OF THE SPECIFIC CONTRACT
As specified in the tender specification for this FWC, the offers submitted within the re-
opening of competition must contain:
16
a)
A technical part, detailing the methodology, the composition and skills of the team
and the responsible team leader for the specific agreement;
b)
A financial part detailing the number of man-days to be multiplied by the man-day
price as defined in the Framework Contract, and other cost items.
The Specific Contract will be awarded according:
-
to the qualitative award criteria given below,
AND
- to the price of the financial tenders.
The formula used to rank tenders and to calculate which tender is the most economically
advantageous tender is displayed in section b) below.
A)
TECHNICAL QUALITATIVE AWARD CRITERIA
17
No
Qualitative award criteria
Weighting
(maximum points)
1
Clarity, relevance and coherence
This criterion will assess whether the offer is written in a
5
clear language, whether it is well and logically structured,
whether all the information requested in the specific
contract is duly covered.
2
Quality of the proposed mechanisms for
project
management,
including
quality
control, risk management and reporting
This criterion will assess the quality control system
proposed for the services foreseen in the offer concerning
15
the quality of deliverables, the language quality check,
continuity of the service in case of absence of a member of
the team, as well as the overall project management
(organisation of work, contacts with the contracting party
etc.). This quality control system should be detailed. A
generic quality control system will result in a low score.
3
Balance of profiles and breakdown of tasks
This criterion will assess how the roles and
responsibilities of the proposed team and of the different
economic operators (in case of joint tenders, including
20
subcontracting if applicable) are distributed for tasks
specified in individual Terms of Reference for specific
contracts. The tender should provide details on the
rationale behind the choice of this allocation.
4
Relevance and quality of the methodologies to
carry out data collection
25
This criterion will assess how the tenderer will collect
data.
5
Quality of the proposed methodology to carry
out data analysis
35
This criterion will assess how the tenderer will analyse the
available and collected data.
Total number of points
100
The award criteria cannot be further supplemented during the evaluation procedure.
Only tenders that have reached a total score of a minimum of 60% and a minimum score of
50% for each criterion will be taken into consideration for awarding the specific contract.
18
B) AWARD METHOD
The contract will be awarded to the tender which is the most cost-effective (offers the best
value for money) on the basis of the ratio between the total points scored and the price using
the following formula:
Lowest
Total quality
price(*)
Quality
Price
score (out of
Score for
criteria
=
*
100
*
weighting
+
100) for all
*
tender X
weighting
Price of
(30%)
award criteria
(70%)
tender X
of tender X
(*) Only tenders passing minimum quality levels are ranked. The lowest price refers to the
lowest price among the tenders that have passed the minimum quality levels.
19
Document Outline