EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Ref. Ares(2020)3130203 - 16/06/2020
Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union
Directorate D – Bank and Insurance
Unit D1 - Bank regulation and supervision
Brussels, 30/01/2020
fisma.ddg.d.1(2019)8061488
TENDER N° FISMA/2019/024/D
MINUTES OF THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE
1.
CONTRACT REFERENCES
Title of contract: “
Development of tools and mechanisms for the integration of
environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors into the EU banking prudential
framework and into banks”
Reference: FISMA/2019/024/D
Contracting authority: European Commission, Directorate-General for Financial
Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union
Type of procedure: Open procedure
Total maximum amount: 550 000 EUR
2.
WORKING METHOD
The evaluation was performed by an evaluation committee appointed by the responsible
authorising officer – Ares(2019)6057257 on 24/09/2019.
The members of the evaluation committee have held meetings according to the following
schedule:
Date
Place
Topic discussed
21/10/2019 DG FISMA
First discussion on the different offers – non-exclusion,
selection criteria
06/11/2019 DG FISMA
Assessment of minimum requirements and award
criteria
20/11/2019 DG FISMA
Assessment of award criteria (final)
3.
ACCESS TO MARKET
The evaluation committee examined whether the tenderers have access to the market of
the European Union pursuant to Articles 176 and 177 of the Financial Regulation (2018).
All of them were found to have access to EU public procurement contracts.
No
Name
Place of
Access to
Comments
establishment or
market
domicile
1
1.
Spain
Yes
2.
Belgium
Yes
3.
Belgium
Yes
4.
Belgium
Yes
5.
BlackRock Investment
United Kingdom
Yes
Management (UK) Limited
6.
Hungary
Yes
7.
United Kingdom
Yes
8.
Belgium
Yes
9.
Germany
Yes
4.
OFFERS SUBJECT TO EXAMINATION
The offers below were considered as admissible by the opening committee from the
formal point of view, and will therefore be subject to examination:
Offer n°
NAME OF TENDERER
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Limited
6.
7.
8.
9.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
The tenderers have/have not included the documents requested in Section 1.9 of the
tender specifications:
Documents
Offer
Offer
Offer
Offer
Offer
Offer
Offer
Offer
Offer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Letter of submission of tender (Annex 2 of Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
the tender specifications) completed and
2/40
signed
Price and Breakdown of Costs (Annex 4 of Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
the tender specifications) completed and
signed
Signed Legal Entity Form with its Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
supporting evidence :
1) a copy of VAT registration document if
applicable and if the VAT number does not
appear on the document under 2)
2) Official document showing name,
address, head office and registration number
given to it by the national authorities
If not included with the Legal Entity Form :
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
For legal persons, a legible copy of the
notice of appointment of the persons
authorised to represent the tenderer in
dealings with third parties and in legal
proceedings, or a copy of the publication of
such appointment if the legislation which
applies to the legal entity concerned requires
such publication. Any delegation of this
authorisation to another representative not
indicated in the official appointment must be
evidenced.
For natural persons, where applicable, a
proof of registration on a professional or
trade register or any other official document
showing the registration number.
Signed Financial Identification Form with its Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
supporting evidence
In case of joint offers : a power of attorney N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N
Y
N/A
signed by the authorised representatives of
each of the other parties designating the
company and/or the person who will
represent the consortium for the signature of
the contract and for all contacts with the
Commission during the execution of the
tasks.
In case of subcontracting : a letter of intent Y
N/A N/A N/A N/A Y
Y
Y
Y
by each subcontractor above 10% stating its
unambiguous undertaking to collaborate
with the tenderer if he wins the contract and
the extent of the resources that it will put at
the tenderer's disposal for the performance
of the contract.
Y : document has been enclosed.
N : document has not been enclosed.
NA : not applicable.
5.
VERIFICATION OF EXCLUSION CRITERIA (DECLARATION)
3/40
The provision of declarations on honour, dated and signed, stating that the tenderers are
not in one of the exclusion or rejection situations referred to in Articles 136-140 and 141
of the Financial Regulation, has been verified.
The Early Detection and Exclusion System has been checked by the Resources unit, after
the opening of tenders – ARES(2019)6431138 of 17/10/2019.
The results of the verification of exclusion criteria are as follows:
No
Name
Declaration
Further request
Accepted,
Comments
received in
(date + ARES
rejected
due form
reference)
or
excluded
1
Yes
Accepted
2
Yes
Accepted
3
Yes
Accepted
4
Yes
Accepted
5
BlackRock Investment Yes
Accepted
Management (UK) Limited
6
Yes
Accepted
7
Yes
Accepted
8
Yes
Accepted
9
Yes
Accepted
6.
VERIFICATION OF SELECTION CRITERIA (DECLARATION)
The provision of declarations on honour, signed and dated, stating that the tenderers and
subcontractors, as provided in the tender specifications, fulfil the selection criteria, has
been verified.
The results of the verification of selection criteria are as follows:
No
Name
Declaration
Further request
Accepted,
Comments
received in due
(date + ARES
rejected
form
reference)
or
excluded
1
Yes
Accepted
2
Yes
Accepted
3
Yes
Accepted
4/40
4
Yes
Accepted
5
BlackRock Investment
Yes
Accepted
Management (UK) Limited
6
Yes
Accepted
7
Yes
Accepted
8
Yes
Accepted
9
Yes
Accepted
All 9 (none) offers were considered to be compliant with all the applicable selection
criteria, and could therefore be analysed in the light of the compliance with the technical
specifications and the award criteria.
7.
COMPLIANCE WITH TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
Compliance of tenders with the tender specifications was checked.
7 (seven) out of the 9 (nine) tenders received were found to be compliant with the
minimum requirements of the tender specifications. The results of the compliance check
with the minimum requirements are as follows:
Tender
Name
Compliant
Comments
No
1
YES
2
YES
3
YES
4
YES
5
BlackRock Investment
YES
Management (UK) Limited
6
YES
7
NO
Minimum requirement set in art. 2.3.3 (2) not
respected – minimum geographical coverage
(only three out of at least 4 major non-EU
jurisdictions)
8
NO
Minimum requirement set in art. 2.3.3 (2) not
respected – minimum geographical coverage
(only three out of at least 4 major non-EU
jurisdictions)
9
YES
5/40
2 (two) offers – offer n° 7 and offer n° 8 – were found not in compliance with minimum
requirement set in art. 2.3.3 (2) – minimum geographical coverage (only three out of at
least 4 major non-EU jurisdictions), and so were discarded from further evaluation.
8.
EVALUATION OF THE SELECTED OFFERS IN THE LIGHT OF THE AWARD CRITERIA
No requests for correction of obvious clerical errors have been sent.
The evaluation committee proceeded with an assessment of the 7 (seven) above-
mentioned tenders in the light of the award criteria set out in the tender specifications
(Section 2.4) accompanying the invitation to tender.
The results of this analysis are presented in the following consolidated tables.
TECHNICAL SCORE (QUALITY):
Criterion
Max.
Off
Off
Off
Off
Off
Off
Off
number
er
er
er
er
er
er
er
of
1
2
3
4
5
6
9
points
1.1 Quality and relevance of the proposed
30
21
22
27
24
28
21
24
methodology - state of play on the way banks at
EU and global level currently deal with ESG
risks, on national supervisory frameworks and
practices for the integration of ESG risks into the
banking prudential supervision
1.2 Quality and relevance of the proposed
30
23
23
27
25
28
20
26
methodology - Identification and development of
principles/best practices on arrangements,
processes, mechanisms and strategies to be
implemented by EU banks to adequately map,
assess and manage ESG risks; and development
of principles/best practices for the integration of
ESG risks into the EU banking prudential
supervision
1.3 Quality and relevance of the proposed
20
10
15
17
15
20
8
17
methodology – A) Analysis of current state of
play of banks' strategies to integrate
sustainability factors into lending and
investement activities; B) analysis of the global
and EU markets for green finance and for
responsible/sustainable investements, and C)
Identification of potential initiatives to support
green finance and markets for sustainable
investment including possible regulatory
incentives
2
Organisation of the work
10
8
7
9
8
9
7
9
3
Quality control measures
10
8
7
9
8
9
6
8
TOTAL SCORE 100
70
74
89
80
94
62
84
The details of each evaluation and the results of the compliance check with the minimum
requirements are shown in the evaluation form per tenderer in annex.
6/40
The evaluation committee considered further only those tenders that have obtained at
least a technical score of 60 points.
FINANCIAL SCORE (PRICE):
The evaluation committee proceeded with the financial comparison of the tenders
retained for further consideration according to the following procedure.
The retained tender with the lowest total price received a financial score equal to the
highest score awarded for the technical award criteria. The other retained tenders were
awarded points by means of the following formula:
Financial score = (lowest total price/total price of the tender being considered) x
(maximum score received for the technical quality award criteria).
The most economically advantageous tender was established by means of the
computation of a final score according to the following formula:
Final score = (Technical score X 70%) + (Financial Score X 30%).
Offer 1
Offer 2
Offer 3
Offer 4
Offer 5
Offer 6
Offer 9
Price (EUR)
514.000 524.000
530.050
400.000
280.000
545.040
507.240
Score
51.21
50.23
49.66
65.80
94
48.29
51.89
Tenders considered abnormally low: no tender was found as abnormally low.
Clarifications on the price structure was requested in relation to offer n° 5 –
Ares(2019)7352039 of 28/11/2019 and Ares(2019)7643799 of 12/12/2018, and a
satisfactory reply has been received from the tenderer on 16/12/2019 –
Ares(2020)376710.
Total Score:
Offer
n°
Technical
Financial
Offer
Score
Score
Total Score
1
70
51.21
64.36
2
74
50.23
66.87
3
89
49.66
77.20
4
80
65.80
75,74
5
BlackRock Investment Management (UK) 94
94
94
Limited
6
62
48.29
57.89
9
84
51.89
74.37
7/40
The details of each evaluation are included in the
evaluation forms in annex.
9.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE AUTHORISING OFFICER
The evaluation committee decided in favour of
BlackRock Investment Management
(UK) Limited proposal, which was ranked the highest in the light of the quality award
criteria, as well as offered the best relation quality-price.
The evaluation committee recommends that the authorising officer signs the
corresponding decision to award the contract to:
BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Limited
12 Throgmorton Avenue
London EC2N 2DL
Registration number 2020394
VAT registration GB 888 4204 87
for
“Development of tools and mechanisms for the integration of environmental, social
and governance (ESG) factors into the EU banking prudential framework and into
banks.”
(e-signed)
(e-signed) (e-signed)
(e-signed) (e-signed)
Chairman
Member
Member Member Member
Annexes: evaluation forms per tenderer.
8/40
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union
Directorate D – Bank and Insurance
Unit D1 - Bank regulation and supervision
CALL FOR TENDERS FISMA/2019/024/D
EVALUATION FORM OF TENDERER
Tenderer :
Date offer: 08/10/2019
Verification of supporting documents requested in Section 1.10 of the Tender
Specifications
File complete:
Yes
No
Verification of cases for exclusion as per declaration requested in Section 2.2 of
the Tender Specifications
accepted
rejected
If rejected, detail reason:
Verification of selection criteria as per declaration requested in Section 2.3 of the
Tender Specifications
accepted
rejected
If rejected, detail reason:
Verification of compliance with the minimum requirements requested in Section
3.2.3 of the Tender Specifications
Criterion 1: Comply with the applicable environmental, social
and labour law obligations established by Union law, national
Yes
legislation, collective agreements or the applicable international
social and environmental conventions listed in Annex X to
Directive 2014/24/EU
Criterion 2: The geographic coverage of the tasks set out in
section 2.2.2 should cover all EU Member States (United
Yes
Kingdom included) and at least 4 major non-EU jurisdictions
Justification: (if no)
Verification of award criteria mentioned in Section 2.4 of the Tender
Specifications
9
Maximum
Number of
number of
points
Criterion
points that
awarded
can be
(Technical
awarded
Score)
Quality and relevance of the proposed methodology - state of play on the way banks at
30
21
EU and global level currently deal with ESG risks, on national supervisory frameworks
and practices for the integration of ESG risks into the banking prudential supervision
Quality and relevance of the proposed methodology - Identification and development of
30
23
principles/best practices on arrangements, processes, mechanisms and strategies to be
implemented by EU banks to adequately map, assess and manage ESG risks; and
development of principles/best practices for the integration of ESG risks into the EU
banking prudential supervision
Quality and relevance of the proposed methodology – A) Analysis of current state of
20
10
play of banks' strategies to integrate sustainability factors into lending and investement
activities; B) analysis of the global and EU markets for green finance and for
responsible/sustainable investements, and C) Identification of potential initiatives to
support green finance and markets for sustainable investment including possible regulatory
incentives
Organisation of the work
10
8
Quality control measures
10
8
Total technical score ……………………...........................
100
70
Justification concerning the points awarded to each criterion :
Quality and relevance of the proposed methodology
1.1.
Comprehensive overview of the state of play on the way banks at EU and global
level currently deal with ESG risks, on national supervisory frameworks and
practices for the integration of ESG risks into the banking prudential
supervision
Overall, this part of the offer is considered acceptable. The offer does not show a clear
understanding of the study objectives. The definition of ESG risks remains high level and
the definition of social risks is not properly developed.
The offer provides a clear overview of the state of play on the way banks and supervisors
integrate ESG risks. It provides a detailed preliminary analysis on how banks deal with
ESG risks with an in-depth description of the situation of several major banks; however,
the objective 1, whose aim is explicitly to bring some insight on the ESG risks integration
into EU banks’ risk management processes, is not structured in an understandable manner
(it rather addresses the state of the play on supervision). With regard to supervision
practices, the offer shows a comprehensive understanding of the functioning of the
supervisory mechanisms, explaining all the different steps of banking supervision and
how this could better integrate ESG risks.
The offer considers four non-EU jurisdictions (Switzerland, United States, Mexico and
China for the non-EU area. However the rationale for these choices (mainly based on
Emission Trading Systems) appears not to be fully consistent with the objectives of the
study.
10/40
The sample of stakeholders to be involved is quite large . However it appears to be not
adequately targeted in relation to the objectives of the tender.
1.2. Identification and development of principles/best practices on arrangements,
processes, mechanisms and strategies to be implemented by EU banks to
adequately map, assess and manage ESG risks and development of
principles/best practices for the integration of ESG risks into the EU banking
prudential supervision.
Overall, this part of the offer is considered good.
The analysis of the state of play on the way several major banks deal with ESG risks is
interesting but the offer does not indicate whether these could be considered as best
practices. In addition, the offer provides lists of metrics and questions that “could be
used” to identify the best practices. It is unclear if and how these questions will be
addressed in the study. With regard to supervision, the offer clearly explains how ESG
risks can be incorporated into supervision.
The methodology for the three tasks is comprehensive. In particular the offer provides for
at least 15 interviews for each aspects of the offer, in addition to an online survey.
However, the way interviews will be conducted is not clear as it is mentioned that they
could be “delivered physically or through phone or electronic platforms”, the latter being
insufficiently defined. The presence of a preliminary questionnaire is useful.
1.3.
A) Analysis of current state of play of banks strategies to integrate
sustainability factors into lending and investment activities; B) analysis of the
global and EU markets for green finance and for responsible/sustainable
investment, and C) Identification of potential initiatives to support green
finance and responsible/sustainable investments including possible regulatory
incentives.
Overall, the offer provides a basic analysis of the current state of play of banks strategies
to integrate ESG, the markets for green finance and identification of possible supports for
green finance. The objective 3 which seems to be dedicated to this aspect of the tender
(even though the title is the same as objective 2), only partially covers the topic. The offer
is not sufficiently developed, with regard to the analysis of markets for green finance and
identification of potential initiatives to support green finance. The preliminary conclusion
on the barriers/impediments to the development of green finance is insufficient and does
not demonstrate a mature reflection on the topic.
Overall, this part of the offer is considered barely satisfactory.
Organisation of the work
The description of the organization of the work is clear, explaining the distribution of
roles and detailing the profiles and expertise of the project team. The allocation of tasks is
clear and extensively explained. Finally, the project timeline is clear and detailed,
providing a good overview of the way the offer could be conducted.
This part of the offer is considered good.
11/40
Quality control measures
The offer provides a credible quality control system, presenting the Quality Assurance
Team, with both a monitoring of the process and the technical quality control. The offer
could have been be more specific on addressing more precisely how the Quality
Assurance Team will intervene in the different steps of the tender.
This part of the offer is considered good.
Offer considered to be further evaluated
on the basis of price
Minimum number of points
necessary for further
60
evaluation
Yes
No
Price
514 000
Financial Score
51.21
Technical Score
Financial Score
Total score of this
Total score of the
offer
offer selected
70
51.21
64.36
94
12/40
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union
Directorate D – Bank and Insurance
Unit D1 - Bank regulation and supervision
CALL FOR TENDERS FISMA/2019/024/D
EVALUATION FORM OF TENDERER
Tenderer :
Date offer: 07/10/2019
Verification of supporting documents requested in Section 1.10 of the Tender
Specifications
File complete:
Yes
No
Verification of cases for exclusion as per declaration requested in Section 2.2 of
the Tender Specifications
accepted
rejected
If rejected, detail reason:
Verification of selection criteria as per declaration requested in Section 2.3 of the
Tender Specifications
accepted
rejected
If rejected, detail reason:
Verification of compliance with the minimum requirements requested in Section
3.2.3 of the Tender Specifications
Criterion 1: Comply with the applicable environmental, social
and labour law obligations established by Union law, national
Yes
legislation, collective agreements or the applicable international
social and environmental conventions listed in Annex X to
Directive 2014/24/EU
Criterion 2: The geographic coverage of the tasks set out in
section 2.2.2 should cover all EU Member States (United
Yes
Kingdom included) and at least 4 major non-EU jurisdictions
Justification: (if no)
Verification of award criteria mentioned in Section 2.4 of the Tender
Specifications
13
Maximum
Number of
number of
points
Criterion
points that
awarded
can be
(Technical
awarded
Score)
Quality and relevance of the proposed methodology - state of play on the way banks at
30
22
EU and global level currently deal with ESG risks, on national supervisory frameworks
and practices for the integration of ESG risks into the banking prudential supervision
Quality and relevance of the proposed methodology - Identification and development of
30
23
principles/best practices on arrangements, processes, mechanisms and strategies to be
implemented by EU banks to adequately map, assess and manage ESG risks; and
development of principles/best practices for the integration of ESG risks into the EU
banking prudential supervision
Quality and relevance of the proposed methodology – A) Analysis of current state of
20
15
play of banks' strategies to integrate sustainability factors into lending and investement
activities; B) analysis of the global and EU markets for green finance and for
responsible/sustainable investements, and C) Identification of potential initiatives to
support green finance and markets for sustainable investment including possible regulatory
incentives
Organisation of the work
10
7
Quality control measures
10
7
Total technical score ……………………...........................
100
74
Justification concerning the points awarded to each criterion :
Quality and relevance of the proposed methodology
1.1.
Comprehensive overview of the state of play on the way banks at EU and
global level currently deal with ESG risks, on national supervisory
frameworks and practices for the integration of ESG risks into the banking
prudential supervision
The offer covers all the main aspects requested in the tender specifications, while the
preliminary assessment of the state of play varies in the level of detail and coverage. It
shows an understanding of the different risk classifications and the linked challenges to
defining ESG in broad terms. The offer provides some indication on how ESG risks are
currently integrated in banks risk management processes and what are the governance
arrangements. On disclosure and governance, the offer refers extensively to the
, and outlines the general elements of the
existing field and main challenges. The proposed methodology cuts across the three
objectives and provides a clear view of the planned workflow (see point 1.2 below). This
aspect of the offer is considered acceptable.
The offer confirms coverage of 4 non-EU jurisdictions in general terms, without
describing the rationale underpinning the selection. It mentions five specific 3rd countries
in the context of the preliminary list of stakeholders, which includes Canada, USA,
Norway, Russia and Switzerland. For case studies, the offer proposes Australia. In light
of the flexibility on the selection, this is considered reasonable although the selection is
not confirmed and excludes some of the third countries that are the most advanced in the
field.
The offer mentions in general terms that stakeholder identification would be done to
ensure balance between different categories, without providing a method for selection or
clear categorisation. The offer also provides a preliminary list of the different
stakeholders, which lacks coherence and appropriate coverage of the different relevant
14/40
stakeholders.
1.2. Identification and development of principles/best practices on arrangements,
processes, mechanisms and strategies to be implemented by EU banks to
adequately map, assess and manage ESG risks and development of
principles/best practices for the integration of ESG risks into the EU banking
prudential supervision.
The offer provides a sufficiently detailed description of the structure of the work for the
preparation of the 3 reports (inception, interim, final) and includes the breakdown of the
different techniques in each phase and for each task. The work under each phase is split
in different activities. The study would identify principles/best practices in the final
report, and has a clear approach to gather input on both banking and supervision. The
methodology covers all required elements and includes desk research, online surveys
with focus groups (15 for each task from 10 EU Member States, 5 from non-EU
jurisdictions), case studies (3) and two workshops. The offer provides a description of all
of the techniques and their use throughout the contract. Elements of the topics for the
surveys and desk research are identified in the general methodology, and there is a
statement that questions would be tailored to the specific stakeholder groups. However,
the offer relies heavily on online surveys with focus groups and proposes very limited use
of interviews. Overall, this part of the offer is considered good.
1.3.
A) Analysis of current state of play of banks strategies to integrate
sustainability factors into lending and investment activities; B) analysis of the
global and EU markets for green finance and for responsible/sustainable
investment, and C) Identification of potential initiatives to support green
finance and responsible/sustainable investments including possible regulatory
incentives.
The offer provides a general overview of the current state of play on sustainable financial
products, including the absolute and relative weight of the green bond market and also the
mapping of other selected sustainable financial products. The offer considers that
mapping of all products would not be feasible and proposes to develop a classification of
groups of sustainable products. The offer covers barriers only in a cursory manner, and
includes a general analysis of incentive mechanisms on the market for green finance. The
proposed methodology cuts across the three objectives and provides a clear view of the
planned workflow (see point 1.2 above). Overall, this part of the offer is considered good.
Organisation of the work
The offer provides a clear description of the team’s intended work processes and roles of
team members, the allocation and cost of resources to each deliverable and the project
plan timetable. At the same time, the offer does not clearly present resource allocation by
task listed in the tender specifications, but focusses on activities and deliverables, which
are mapped to the tasks. This part of the offer is considered acceptable.
Quality control measures
The offer identifies two key challenges and mitigation measures, key challenges and
mitigating measures for each phase of work and, also, includes a quite generic quality
control and risk management section. This part of the offer is considered acceptable.
Offer considered to be further evaluated
on the basis of price
15/40
Minimum number of points
necessary for further
60
evaluation
Yes
No
Price
524 000
Financial Score
50.23
Technical Score
Financial Score
Total score of this
Total score of the
offer
offer selected
74
50.23
66.87
94
16/40
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union
Directorate D – Bank and Insurance
Unit D1 - Bank regulation and supervision
CALL FOR TENDERS FISMA/2019/024/D
EVALUATION FORM OF TENDERER
Tenderer :
Date offer: 09/10/2019
Verification of supporting documents requested in Section 1.10 of the Tender
Specifications
File complete:
Yes
No
Verification of cases for exclusion as per declaration requested in Section 2.2 of
the Tender Specifications
accepted
rejected
If rejected, detail reason:
Verification of selection criteria as per declaration requested in Section 2.3 of the
Tender Specifications
accepted
rejected
If rejected, detail reason:
Verification of compliance with the minimum requirements requested in Section
3.2.3 of the Tender Specifications
Criterion 1: Comply with the applicable environmental, social
and labour law obligations established by Union law, national
Yes / No
legislation, collective agreements or the applicable international
social and environmental conventions listed in Annex X to
Directive 2014/24/EU
Criterion 2: The geographic coverage of the tasks set out in
section 2.2.2 should cover all EU Member States (United
Kingdom included) and at least 4 major non-EU jurisdictions
Justification: (if no)
Verification of award criteria mentioned in Section 2.4 of the Tender
Specifications
17
Maximum
Number of
number of
points
Criterion
points that
awarded
can be
(Technical
awarded
Score)
Quality and relevance of the proposed methodology - state of play on the way banks at
30
27
EU and global level currently deal with ESG risks, on national supervisory frameworks
and practices for the integration of ESG risks into the banking prudential supervision
Quality and relevance of the proposed methodology - Identification and development of
30
27
principles/best practices on arrangements, processes, mechanisms and strategies to be
implemented by EU banks to adequately map, assess and manage ESG risks; and
development of principles/best practices for the integration of ESG risks into the EU
banking prudential supervision
Quality and relevance of the proposed methodology – A) Analysis of current state of
20
17
play of banks' strategies to integrate sustainability factors into lending and investement
activities; B) analysis of the global and EU markets for green finance and for
responsible/sustainable investements, and C) Identification of potential initiatives to
support green finance and markets for sustainable investment including possible regulatory
incentives
Organisation of the work
10
9
Quality control measures
10
9
Total technical score ……………………...........................
100
89
Justification concerning the points awarded to each criterion :
Quality and relevance of the proposed methodology
1.1.
Comprehensive overview of the state of play on the way banks at EU and
global level currently deal with ESG risks, on national supervisory
frameworks and practices for the integration of ESG risks into the banking
prudential supervision
The offer provides a very comprehensive preliminary analysis starting from an accurate
overview of ESG risks (classified by type of risk) and of the main challenges with regard
to designing an ESG risk taxonomy. A very accurate description of the main initiatives at
supervisory and regulatory level - both at EU and global level – is also provided. The
offer also gives a quite comprehensive description of the state of play with regard to the
way ESG risks are currently integrated into banks' risk management processes and of the
governance arrangements to ensure ESG risks are properly dealt with by the Board. An
accurate list of the main challenges for the management of ESG is also provided. A table
of the current methodologies used by Credit Rating Agencies to measure ESG risks is
included in the offer as a potential benchmark for banks.
As far as the disclosure of ESG risks is concerned, the offer provides a sufficiently
accurate initial analysis of the various requirements at global level (TCFD) and national
level. A specific section on the interaction between Pillar III requirements and other
disclosure requirements is also included.
The proposed methodology – which is common to the three objectives – is very detailed
and comprehensive (see point 1.2 below).
The offer proposes to cover four countries (Norway, Canada, Singapore, and South
Africa) and describes the rationale in terms of diversification (geographical and level of
progress with regard to the initiatives concerning ESG risks) underpinning the selection.
18/40
A first analysis of the state of play with regard to the management of ESG risks in each of
the four countries is also included.
The tender provides a comprehensive long list of the different stakeholders to be involved
in the Study together with the rationale underpinning the categories included. In some
cases (e.g. national authorities), it proves not being sufficiently accurate.
The offer is rated as very good with regard to this sub-criterion.
1.2. Identification and development of principles/best practices on arrangements,
processes, mechanisms and strategies to be implemented by EU banks to
adequately map, assess and manage ESG risks and development of
principles/best practices for the integration of ESG risks into the EU banking
prudential supervision.
The offer sets out a detailed methodology to achieve the two components included in this
sub-criterion. The methodology is comprehensive and includes desk research, focus
groups; interviews, case studies and group workshop. The offer provides a detailed
description of each of the techniques including the indicative categories of stakeholders
that each technique should target and the strategy to maximise the outcomes of each
technique in relation to the objectives of the study and the specific phase of the study. At
least 15 interviews per task are foreseen.
A preliminary and quite detailed list of topics/questions for the focus groups and for the
interview is also provided. The tenderer proposes the establishment of an advisory expert
group to be consulted during the project. For each of the techniques, advantages and
limitations are clearly identified together with potential difficulties/risks and
correspondent mitigation strategies. The tender further provides a detailed description of
the structure of the work for the preparation of the 3 reports (inception, interim, final) and
how the different techniques will be articulated in each of the 3 phases. The work under
each phase is split in different activities and an indicative summary for each of the report
is also outlined.
The offer is rated very good on this sub-criterion.
1.3.
A) Analysis of current state of play of banks strategies to integrate
sustainability factors into lending and investment activities; B) analysis of the
global and EU markets for green finance and for responsible/sustainable
investment, and C) Identification of potential initiatives to support green
finance and responsible/sustainable investments including possible regulatory
incentives.
The offer provides an extensive and comprehensive analysis of the current market for
green finance and sustainable financial products which demonstrates an extensive
knowledge of the state of play with regard to this component. Particular prominence is
given to the available data on green bonds. This is complemented by an exhaustive
description of the other sustainable finance products in the three ESG areas. However no
data on issuance/performance is provided for these products.
The offer also includes an initial analysis of the barriers/impediments to the development
of green finance and sustainable financial products which are categorised by stakeholders'
groups (investors, issuers, regulators). For each barrier a very detail description is
provided covering the relative impact on the market and the corresponding. A list of
examples of potential initiatives to overcome some of the barriers is also included.
19/40
The offer also identifies the criteria on the basis of which potential initiatives to develop
the market for green finance should be based (stakeholders impacted, feasibility and
relevance, suitability, cost) and provides a comprehensive description of each of the
criteria.
The proposed methodology – which is common to the other two objectives – is very
detailed and comprehensive (see point 1.2 above).
The offer is rated very good with regard to this sub-criterion.
Organisation of the work
The offer provides an accurate description of the team’s intended work processes and
resource allocation by task. This detailed description exhibits an effective fit for each task
to be performed. The Project plan timetable and the allocation and cost of resources to
each task are exhaustive. It displays both person/days by task and the overall cost
breakdown per team member.
The offer is rated very good on this sub-criterion.
Quality control measures
The offer comprises credible and detailed quality control systems with risk assessments
of the different tasks/activity including impact analysis and mitigation strategy. For each
of the risks convincing mitigation options and solutions are proposed. A specific section
also provides a detailed description of the methodological approach to project
management and quality assurance.
The offer is rated very good with regards to this sub-criterion.
Offer considered to be further evaluated
on the basis of price
Minimum number of points
necessary for further
60
evaluation
Yes
No
Price
530 050
Financial Score
49.66
Technical Score
Financial Score
Total score of this
Total score of the
offer
offer selected
89
49.66
77.20
94
20/40
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union
Directorate D – Bank and Insurance
Unit D1 - Bank regulation and supervision
CALL FOR TENDERS FISMA/2019/024/D
EVALUATION FORM OF TENDERER
Tenderer :
Date offer: 09/10/2019
Verification of supporting documents requested in Section 1.10 of the Tender
Specifications
File complete:
Yes
No
Verification of cases for exclusion as per declaration requested in Section 2.2 of
the Tender Specifications
accepted
rejected
If rejected, detail reason:
Verification of selection criteria as per declaration requested in Section 2.3 of the
Tender Specifications
accepted
rejected
If rejected, detail reason:
Verification of compliance with the minimum requirements requested in Section
3.2.3 of the Tender Specifications
Criterion 1: Comply with the applicable environmental, social
and labour law obligations established by Union law, national
Yes
legislation, collective agreements or the applicable international
social and environmental conventions listed in Annex X to
Directive 2014/24/EU
Criterion 2: The geographic coverage of the tasks set out in
section 2.2.2 should cover all EU Member States (United
Yes
Kingdom included) and at least 4 major non-EU jurisdictions
Justification: (if no)
Verification of award criteria mentioned in Section 2.4 of the Tender
Specifications
21
Maximum
Number of
number of
points
Criterion
points that
awarded
can be
(Technical
awarded
Score)
Quality and relevance of the proposed methodology - state of play on the way banks at
30
24
EU and global level currently deal with ESG risks, on national supervisory frameworks
and practices for the integration of ESG risks into the banking prudential supervision
Quality and relevance of the proposed methodology - Identification and development of
30
25
principles/best practices on arrangements, processes, mechanisms and strategies to be
implemented by EU banks to adequately map, assess and manage ESG risks; and
development of principles/best practices for the integration of ESG risks into the EU
banking prudential supervision
Quality and relevance of the proposed methodology – A) Analysis of current state of
20
15
play of banks' strategies to integrate sustainability factors into lending and investement
activities; B) analysis of the global and EU markets for green finance and for
responsible/sustainable investements, and C) Identification of potential initiatives to
support green finance and markets for sustainable investment including possible regulatory
incentives
Organisation of the work
10
8
Quality control measures
10
8
Total technical score ……………………...........................
100
80
Justification concerning the points awarded to each criterion :
Quality and relevance of the proposed methodology
1.1.
Comprehensive overview of the state of play on the way banks at EU and
global level currently deal with ESG risks, on national supervisory
frameworks and practices for the integration of ESG risks into the banking
prudential supervision
The offer provides a good analysis of the state of play with regard to the way ESG risks
are currently integrated into banks' risk management processes and of the governance
arrangements to ensure ESG risks are properly managed by the Board. The analysis is
based on some examples extracted from the reports of a few selected EU banks of
different size and from different geographical areas. The initial overview of the state of
play with regard to the incorporation of ESG risks into banks' risk management is not
sufficiently comprehensive. The offer also lacks an adequate initial identification and
categorisation of ESG risks classified by type of risk.
The offer includes a sufficiently accurate overview of the main regulatory initiatives at
EU and global level while the current supervisory practices, both at EU and international
level, are not adequately covered being limited to the detailed description of the approach
of one single EU supervisor.
As far as the disclosure of ESG risks is concerned, the offer focuses only on some of the
main requirements developed at global level (TCFD- Task Force on Climate-related
Disclosures) and national level.
The offer adequately describes the proposed methodology which is very detailed and
comprehensive and includes a preliminary list of research/academic studies.
The offer proposes to cover 4 non-EU countries without describing in detail the criteria
22/40
underpinning the selection. The choice regarding the third countries is not reflected in a
consistent manner throughout the offer.
An indicative list of the categories of stakeholders to be involved is provided for each
activity. However, the list is rather generic and not sufficiently detailed.
On the whole the offer can be judged good with regard to this sub-criterion.
1.2. Identification and development of principles/best practices on arrangements,
processes, mechanisms and strategies to be implemented by EU banks to
adequately map, assess and manage ESG risks and development of
principles/best practices for the integration of ESG risks into the EU banking
prudential supervision.
The offer provides a very detailed description of the methodology to achieve the tasks
included under this sub-criterion. The methodology is comprehensive and includes desk
research, structured interviews, focus groups and multi-stakeholder workshops. Each of
the techniques is adequately described. The indicative categories of stakeholders that each
technique should target are also included. At least 20 interviews per task are planned.
However, the contents of the workshops/interviews are not sufficiently detailed.
The offer provides already a tentative list of the principles for the incorporation of ESG
risks into the bank's risk management.
The tender provides a detailed description of the structure of the work for the preparation
of the 3 reports (inception, interim, final) and a well-structured approach based on the
sequence and complementarity of the different activities.
The overall appraisal of the offer against this sub-criterion is good to very good.
1.3.
A) Analysis of current state of play of banks strategies to integrate
sustainability factors into lending and investment activities; B) analysis of the
global and EU markets for green finance and for responsible/sustainable
investment, and C) Identification of potential initiatives to support green
finance and responsible/sustainable investments including possible regulatory
incentives.
The offer provides a clear analysis of the possible approaches to the integration of ESG
objectives into banks' strategies and investment policies with some concrete examples of
'ESG initiatives' and investment policies featured by EU and non-EU banks.
As far as the state of play of the EU market for green finance and sustainable financial
products is concerned, the focus is mainly on green bonds. This is complemented by
some example of other sustainable finance products in the 3 areas (ESG). However, a
comprehensive overview and data on issuance/performance of these products are lacking.
Moreover, the tenderer doesn't provide any detailed analysis of the barriers/impediments
to the development of the EU market for green finance and sustainable financial products.
The proposed methodology is comprehensive and well-structured although no detailed
contents/indicative agenda are included for the workshops, focus groups and interviews.
The offer on this criterion is good
Organisation of the work
23/40
The offer provides a summary table of the resource allocation by task and a work plan for
each of the phases of the study. Roles and responsibilities of the different team members
are adequately described.
The offer can be judged good on this point.
Quality control measures
The offer contains a detailed matrix of the most relevant risks identified for the main
activities and methodological tools together with the planned mitigating actions which
seem logic and proportionate. A specific section also provides a detailed description of
the roles and responsibilities in quality control.
This aspect of the offer is considered good.
Offer considered to be further evaluated
on the basis of price
Minimum number of points
necessary for further
60
evaluation
Yes
No
Price
400 000
Financial Score
66.50
Technical Score
Financial Score
Total score of this
Total score of the
offer
offer selected
80
65.80
75.74
94
24/40
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union
Directorate D – Bank and Insurance
Unit D1 - Bank regulation and supervision
CALL FOR TENDERS FISMA/2019/024/D
EVALUATION FORM OF TENDERER
Tenderer :
BlackRock Investment
Date offer: 09/10/2019
Management
Verification of supporting documents requested in Section 1.10 of the Tender
Specifications
File complete:
Yes
No
Verification of cases for exclusion as per declaration requested in Section 2.2 of
the Tender Specifications
accepted
rejected
If rejected, detail reason:
Verification of selection criteria as per declaration requested in Section 2.3 of the
Tender Specifications
accepted
rejected
If rejected, detail reason:
Verification of compliance with the minimum requirements requested in Section
3.2.3 of the Tender Specifications
Criterion 1: Comply with the applicable environmental, social
and labour law obligations established by Union law, national
Yes
legislation, collective agreements or the applicable international
social and environmental conventions listed in Annex X to
Directive 2014/24/EU
Criterion 2: The geographic coverage of the tasks set out in
section 2.2.2 should cover all EU Member States (United
Yes
Kingdom included) and at least 4 major non-EU jurisdictions
Justification: (if no)
Verification of award criteria mentioned in Section 2.4 of the Tender
Specifications
25
Maximum
Number of
number of
points
Criterion
points that
awarded
can be
(Technical
awarded
Score)
Quality and relevance of the proposed methodology - state of play on the way banks at
30
28
EU and global level currently deal with ESG risks, on national supervisory frameworks
and practices for the integration of ESG risks into the banking prudential supervision
Quality and relevance of the proposed methodology - Identification and development of
30
28
principles/best practices on arrangements, processes, mechanisms and strategies to be
implemented by EU banks to adequately map, assess and manage ESG risks; and
development of principles/best practices for the integration of ESG risks into the EU
banking prudential supervision
Quality and relevance of the proposed methodology – A) Analysis of current state of
20
20
play of banks' strategies to integrate sustainability factors into lending and investement
activities; B) analysis of the global and EU markets for green finance and for
responsible/sustainable investements, and C) Identification of potential initiatives to
support green finance and markets for sustainable investment including possible regulatory
incentives
Organisation of the work
10
9
Quality control measures
10
9
Total technical score ……………………...........................
100
94
Justification concerning the points awarded to each criterion :
Quality and relevance of the proposed methodology
1.1.
Comprehensive overview of the state of play on the way banks at EU and
global level currently deal with ESG risks, on national supervisory
frameworks and practices for the integration of ESG risks into the banking
prudential supervision
The offer provides a very clear and comprehensive preliminary analysis, starting from an
accurate and very granular overview of all three categories of ESG risks classified by
type of risk, including a description of banks’ exposure to these risks.
The preliminary analysis also provides a rich overview of observed bank practices and
clusters them into three different categories of strategic behaviour - “wait and see”,
“middle of the pack”, “leading players”. The study also maps ESG risks to financial and
non-financial risk types, provides a detailed overview of the market for ESG investments
as well as an outline of a framework for climate risk scenario analysis and stress testing
ESG risks. Furthermore, with regard to disclosure, the study presents an analysis of the
state of play of banks’ implementation of the TCFD’s recommendations based on a
limited sample of banks, including the identification of best practices.
The offer provides a useful description of potential challenges associated to the
integration of ESG within banks risk management frameworks.
The offer also presents a comprehensive and detailed preliminary analysis of the current
supervisory and regulatory activities in the area of ESG risk, in particular in relation to
the mapping of ESG risks, the integration of ESG risks in the Pillar 2 process, Internal
Capital Adequacy Assessment Process (ICAAP) and Supervisory Review and Evaluation
Process (SREP), guidance on disclosure of ESG risks and supervisory engagement with
26/40
entities.
The proposed methodology is laid out for this objective very detailed and comprehensive,
conceptually sound and likely to produce genuine and original results.
The offer proposes to cover supervisory authorities from four or more non-EU countries
(at least from Brazil, Japan, China and Switzerland) as well as banks from five or more
non-EU jurisdictions (China - Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, Norway, United States).
The offer does not provide a clear motivation for the choice made regarding geographical
coverage.
The offer provides a comprehensive and targeted list of the different stakeholders to be
involved in the study. In relation to banks, the choice is based on a combination of the
size of banks and the MSCI ESG rating and for supervisory authorities on their activities
in the field of ESG risk.
his is somewhat counterbalanced by a diverse expert panel
assembled by the tenderer.
The offer is rated as good to very good with regard to this sub-criterion.
1.2. Identification and development of principles/best practices on arrangements,
processes, mechanisms and strategies to be implemented by EU banks to
adequately map, assess and manage ESG risks and development of
principles/best practices for the integration of ESG risks into the EU banking
prudential supervision.
The offer sets out a very detailed methodology to achieve the two components included in
this sub-criterion. The comprehensive methodology includes desk research (based on
public information and the tenderer’s proprietary research), questionnaires, focus groups,
interviews, internal expert validation based on proprietary research, internal quality
assurance, and workshops.
The offer provides a detailed description of each of the techniques including the
indicative categories of stakeholders that each technique should involve and the strategy
to maximise the outcomes in relation to the objectives of the study and the specific phase
of the study. At least 15 interviews with banks and at least 15 interviews with supervisory
authorities are planned. A preliminary and very detailed list of topics/questions for the
focus groups and for the interview is also provided. In addition to that, a preliminary
agenda illustrating the content of the planned workshops is included.
The tender provides a detailed description of the structure of the work for the preparation
of the 3 reports (inception, interim, final) and how the different techniques will be
articulated in each of the 3 phases.
The proposed methodology laid out for this objective is very detailed and comprehensive,
conceptually sound and likely to produce genuine and original results.
The offer is rated as very good with regard to this sub-criterion.
1.3.
A) Analysis of current state of play of banks strategies to integrate
sustainability factors into lending and investment activities; B) analysis of the
global and EU markets for green finance and for responsible/sustainable
investment, and C) Identification of potential initiatives to support green
finance and responsible/sustainable investments including possible regulatory
incentives.
The offer provides an extensive and comprehensive analysis of the current market for
green finance and sustainable financial products, which demonstrates thorough
knowledge of the state of play with regard to this component. In this respect, the offer
27/40
provides data on the development of the labelled bond market in 2018, detailing the types
of bonds mostly traded in that market.
A noteworthy aspect of the study is its clear focus on banks, outlining their strategies to
integrate sustainability factors into lending and investment activities, including a graph
outlining the integration of ESG into bank lending and investment decisions.
The offer also includes an initial analysis of the barriers/impediments to the development
of green finance and sustainable financial products including a list of instruments and
strategies to promote scaling up of green finance.
The proposed methodology – which is common to the other two objectives - is very
detailed and comprehensive, conceptually sound and likely to produce genuine and
original results.
The offer is rated as excellent with regard to this sub-criterion.
Organisation of the work
The offer provides a very good description of the team’s intended work processes and
resource allocation by task. This detailed description exhibits an effective fit for each task
to be performed. The Project plan timetable and the allocation and cost of resources to
each task is exhaustive. It displays both person/days by task and the overall cost
breakdown per team member.
The offer is rated as very good with regard to this criterion.
Quality control measures
The offer comprises good, credible and detailed quality control systems with risk
assessments of the different tasks/activity including impact analysis and mitigation
strategy, including a peer review process. The offer also details back-up members to
ensure continuity in case of unplanned leaves of team members. Furthermore, the offer
contains a dedicated chapter in relation to the avoidance of conflicting interests. The offer
is rated as very good with regard to this criterion.
Offer considered to be further evaluated
on the basis of price
Minimum number of points
necessary for further
60
evaluation
Yes
No
Price
280 000 (*)
Financial Score
94
(*) Clarifications on the price structure has been requested in relation with the offer –
Ares(2019)7352039 of 28/11/2019 and Ares(2019)7643799 of 12/12/2018, and a
satisfactory reply has been received from the tenderer on 16/12/2019 –
Ares(2020)376710.
28/40
Technical Score
Financial Score
Total score of this
Total score of the
offer
offer selected
94
94
94
94
29/40
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union
Directorate D – Bank and Insurance
Unit D1 - Bank regulation and supervision
CALL FOR TENDERS FISMA/2019/024/D
EVALUATION FORM OF TENDERER
Tenderer :
Date offer: 09/10/2019
Verification of supporting documents requested in Section 1.10 of the Tender
Specifications
File complete:
Yes
No
Verification of cases for exclusion as per declaration requested in Section 2.2 of
the Tender Specifications
accepted
rejected
If rejected, detail reason:
Verification of selection criteria as per declaration requested in Section 2.3 of the
Tender Specifications
accepted
rejected
If rejected, detail reason:
Verification of compliance with the minimum requirements requested in Section
3.2.3 of the Tender Specifications
Criterion 1: Comply with the applicable environmental, social
and labour law obligations established by Union law, national
Yes / No
legislation, collective agreements or the applicable international
social and environmental conventions listed in Annex X to
Directive 2014/24/EU
Criterion 2: The geographic coverage of the tasks set out in
section 2.2.2 should cover all EU Member States (United
Kingdom included) and at least 4 major non-EU jurisdictions
Justification: (if no)
Verification of award criteria mentioned in Section 2.4 of the Tender
Specifications
30
Maximum
Number of
number of
points
Criterion
points that
awarded
can be
(Technical
awarded
Score)
Quality and relevance of the proposed methodology - state of play on the way banks at
30
21
EU and global level currently deal with ESG risks, on national supervisory frameworks
and practices for the integration of ESG risks into the banking prudential supervision
Quality and relevance of the proposed methodology - Identification and development of
30
20
principles/best practices on arrangements, processes, mechanisms and strategies to be
implemented by EU banks to adequately map, assess and manage ESG risks; and
development of principles/best practices for the integration of ESG risks into the EU
banking prudential supervision
Quality and relevance of the proposed methodology – A) Analysis of current state of
20
8
play of banks' strategies to integrate sustainability factors into lending and investement
activities; B) analysis of the global and EU markets for green finance and for
responsible/sustainable investements, and C) Identification of potential initiatives to
support green finance and markets for sustainable investment including possible regulatory
incentives
Organisation of the work
10
7
Quality control measures
10
6
Total technical score ……………………...........................
100
62
Justification concerning the points awarded to each criterion :
Quality and relevance of the proposed methodology
1.1.
Comprehensive overview of the state of play on the way banks at EU and
global level currently deal with ESG risks, on national supervisory
frameworks and practices for the integration of ESG risks into the banking
prudential supervision
Overall, the quality of the offer on this first sub-criterion can be judged as acceptable.
The offer provides a very broad definition of the risks which covers all aspects of ESG
risks. The offer also includes a preliminary analysis of the state of play on the way banks
deal with ESG risks. However, the analysis proves being somewhat superficial and
referring only to existing external studies. It does not provide a sufficient analysis of
current practices of banks in their different activities and remains incomplete. In addition
to that, no reference to concrete examples is made.
The section dedicated to supervisory practices and regulatory frameworks is more
detailed and reflects the main ongoing international work-streams. It also provides some
concrete examples of ESG factors' integration into supervision and regulation. The offer
proposes to conduct a real ESG stress test scenario calculation but does not provide any
detail on which portfolio, methodology, scenario, etc.
The proposed methodology is quite comprehensive and clear with regard to the planned
workflow (inception report, desktop research, interviews, workshops). However, the
description remains high level and not detailed enough to provide a clear understanding
31/40
of the deliverables for each step/technique.
As detailed in the tender, the offer indicates that all EU Member States and at least 4
major non-EU jurisdictions should be covered, but does not specify which countries are
considered. For the analysis of prudential regulation policies, the offer only lists 3 non-
EU countries (China, Brazil and Bangladesh) and no other countries are specified in the
rest of the study. The rationale for selecting these three jurisdictions is not detailed.
Regarding the stakeholders mapping, the offer provides several lists of possible
interviewees depending on the step/technique. However, the entities are identified in very
generic terms (i.e. by category) and in most cases fall in the perimeter of public
authorities. The offer also mentions “selected banks” or “banks leading in ESG risk
management”, but there are no concrete examples of which banks, experts or other
organizations will be contacted.
1.2. Identification and development of principles/best practices on arrangements,
processes, mechanisms and strategies to be implemented by EU banks to
adequately map, assess and manage ESG risks and development of
principles/best practices for the integration of ESG risks into the EU banking
prudential supervision.
Overall, the offer is barely satisfactory on this sub-criterion.
As in sub-criteria 1.1., the analysis of best practices mainly focuses on supervisors and
regulation, but there is very little information on banks’ best practices. A lot of work is
left to the future study, even though the methodology is insufficiently detailed.
The proposed methodology covers all the required techniques and the sequencing of
activities/steps is sufficiently clear. However, like for sub subcriterion 1, the description
of the different techniques is too generic and doesn't provide the elements necessary to
have a clear understanding of the deliverables for each step/technique.
1.3.
A) Analysis of current state of play of banks strategies to integrate
sustainability factors into lending and investment activities; B) analysis of the
global and EU markets for green finance and for responsible/sustainable
investment, and C) Identification of potential initiatives to support green
finance and responsible/sustainable investments including possible regulatory
incentives.
Overall, the offer provides a poor and superficial analysis of the current state of play of
the integration of sustainability in lending and investment activities, analysis of the
market for green finance and analysis of potential initiatives to support green finance. The
offer lists a few practices, barriers and international initiatives. However, these elements
are insufficient to show a preliminary good level of understanding on how sustainability
factors are factored in lending and investment activities. The analysis of markets for
green finance is totally absent.
Organisation of the work
The overall description of the responsibilities and allocation of time and resources is clear
The allocation of time and resources details the role of the experts in the different
dimensions of the study. However, the offer does not include the breakdown of costs per
team member.
32/40
The offer is acceptable on this criterion.
Quality control measures
The offer provides an overview on quality control measures with additional details on the
quality for deliverables. However, the other items listed in the tender, such as the
verification of the compliance with the rules on citation and intellectual property are not
sufficiently developed.
The offer is barely satisfactory on this criterion.
Offer considered to be further evaluated
on the basis of price
Minimum number of points
necessary for further
60
evaluation
Yes
No
Price
545 040
Financial Score
48.80
Technical Score
Financial Score
Total score of this
Total score of the
offer
offer selected
62
48.29
57.89
94
33/40
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union
Directorate D – Bank and Insurance
Unit D1 - Bank regulation and supervision
CALL FOR TENDERS FISMA/2019/024/D
EVALUATION FORM OF TENDERER
Tenderer :
Date offer: 08/10/2019
Verification of supporting documents requested in Section 1.10 of the Tender
Specifications
File complete:
Yes
No
Verification of cases for exclusion as per declaration requested in Section 2.2 of
the Tender Specifications
accepted
rejected
If rejected, detail reason:
Verification of selection criteria as per declaration requested in Section 2.3 of the
Tender Specifications
accepted
rejected
If rejected, detail reason:
Verification of compliance with the minimum requirements requested in Section
3.2.3 of the Tender Specifications
Criterion 1: Comply with the applicable environmental, social
and labour law obligations established by Union law, national
Yes
legislation, collective agreements or the applicable international
social and environmental conventions listed in Annex X to
Directive 2014/24/EU
Criterion 2: The geographic coverage of the tasks set out in
section 2.2.2 should cover all EU Member States (United
No
Kingdom included) and at least 4 major non-EU jurisdictions
Justification: (if no)
Minimum requirement set in art. 2.3.3 (2) not respected – minimum geographical coverage (only three
out of at least 4 major non-EU jurisdictions)
Verification of award criteria mentioned in Section 2.4 of the Tender
Specifications
N/A
34
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union
Directorate D – Bank and Insurance
Unit D1 - Bank regulation and supervision
CALL FOR TENDERS FISMA/2019/024/D
EVALUATION FORM OF TENDERER
Tenderer :
Date offer: 09/10/2019
Verification of supporting documents requested in Section 1.10 of the Tender
Specifications
File complete:
Yes
No
Verification of cases for exclusion as per declaration requested in Section 2.2 of
the Tender Specifications
accepted
rejected
If rejected, detail reason:
Verification of selection criteria as per declaration requested in Section 2.3 of the
Tender Specifications
accepted
rejected
If rejected, detail reason:
Verification of compliance with the minimum requirements requested in Section
3.2.3 of the Tender Specifications
Criterion 1: Comply with the applicable environmental, social
and labour law obligations established by Union law, national
Yes
legislation, collective agreements or the applicable international
social and environmental conventions listed in Annex X to
Directive 2014/24/EU
Criterion 2: The geographic coverage of the tasks set out in
section 2.2.2 should cover all EU Member States (United
No
Kingdom included) and at least 4 major non-EU jurisdictions
Justification: (if no)
Minimum requirement set in art. 2.3.3 (2) not respected – minimum geographical coverage (only three
out of at least 4 major non-EU jurisdictions)
Verification of award criteria mentioned in Section 2.4 of the Tender
Specifications
N/A
35
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union
Directorate D – Bank and Insurance
Unit D1 - Bank regulation and supervision
CALL FOR TENDERS FISMA/2019/024/D
EVALUATION FORM OF TENDERER
Tenderer :
Date offer: 04/10/2019
Verification of supporting documents requested in Section 1.10 of the Tender
Specifications
File complete:
Yes
No
Verification of cases for exclusion as per declaration requested in Section 2.2 of
the Tender Specifications
accepted
rejected
If rejected, detail reason:
Verification of selection criteria as per declaration requested in Section 2.3 of the
Tender Specifications
accepted
rejected
If rejected, detail reason:
Verification of compliance with the minimum requirements requested in Section
3.2.3 of the Tender Specifications
Criterion 1: Comply with the applicable environmental, social
and labour law obligations established by Union law, national
Yes
legislation, collective agreements or the applicable international
social and environmental conventions listed in Annex X to
Directive 2014/24/EU
Criterion 2: The geographic coverage of the tasks set out in
section 2.2.2 should cover all EU Member States (United
Yes
Kingdom included) and at least 4 major non-EU jurisdictions
Justification: (if no)
Verification of award criteria mentioned in Section 2.4 of the Tender
Specifications
36
Maximum
Number of
number of
points
Criterion
points that
awarded
can be
(Technical
awarded
Score)
Quality and relevance of the proposed methodology - state of play on the way banks at
30
24
EU and global level currently deal with ESG risks, on national supervisory frameworks
and practices for the integration of ESG risks into the banking prudential supervision
Quality and relevance of the proposed methodology - Identification and development of
30
26
principles/best practices on arrangements, processes, mechanisms and strategies to be
implemented by EU banks to adequately map, assess and manage ESG risks; and
development of principles/best practices for the integration of ESG risks into the EU
banking prudential supervision
Quality and relevance of the proposed methodology – A) Analysis of current state of
20
17
play of banks' strategies to integrate sustainability factors into lending and investement
activities; B) analysis of the global and EU markets for green finance and for
responsible/sustainable investements, and C) Identification of potential initiatives to
support green finance and markets for sustainable investment including possible regulatory
incentives
Organisation of the work
10
9
Quality control measures
10
8
Total technical score ……………………...........................
100
84
Justification concerning the points awarded to each criterion :
Quality and relevance of the proposed methodology
1.1.
Comprehensive overview of the state of play on the way banks at EU and
global level currently deal with ESG risks, on national supervisory
frameworks and practices for the integration of ESG risks into the banking
prudential supervision
The offer provides a sound and thorough preliminary analysis of the state of play and
clearly describes the context of the study. This includes a clear and concise definition of
ESG risks. The preliminary analysis provides a comprehensive overview of how banks
define, identify, assess and manage ESG risks, the main challenges related to ESG
integration, as well as the integration of ESG risks in banks’ public disclosure. While the
list of literature on which this preliminary analysis is based is not very diversified, the
analysis is further enriched by citing examples of banks’ practices from different
geographical regions.
The offer proposes to cover four non-EU countries and tentatively mentions the USA,
China, Brazil and Japan. No clear justification is given as regards the selection of the four
countries, rather further information would be given in the inception report. The offer
also mentions that the EU-28 Member States will be studied.
The tender provides preliminary lists of stakeholders and potential focus group members,
while stating that further proposals will be made as part of the inception report. A first
tentative list of focus group members is given in the context of task 1 (and according to
the offer the same stakeholders would be relevant for tasks 2 and 3), including
supervisors and banks from EU and non-EU countries. The stakeholder mapping is of
preliminary nature and little justification is provided in the offer for the choices made at
37/40
this stage.
The offer is rated as good with regard to this sub-criterion.
1.2. Identification and development of principles/best practices on arrangements,
processes, mechanisms and strategies to be implemented by EU banks to
adequately map, assess and manage ESG risks and development of
principles/best practices for the integration of ESG risks into the EU banking
prudential supervision.
The offer sets out a highly elaborated and detailed methodology to achieve the two
components included in this sub-criterion. The structure of the methodological approach
is the same across the three tasks, but depending on the task, the individual steps may
entail differences, which are clearly described. The methodology is comprehensive and
includes desk research, data gap analysis, focus groups, interviews and surveys, and two
stakeholder workshops. A preliminary list of examples of possible data and literature
sources is provided but remains rather limited. A first tentative list of focus group
members is given, including supervisors and banks from EU and non-EU countries,
though with little justification for the choices made. At least 15 interviews per task are
planned. The interviews are to be conducted via a 'web conference' software. In addition
to interviews, the questionnaire will be made available to a larger audience by setting up
online surveys, which is considered a useful additional element offered by the tenderers.
The offer does not provide a preliminary list of interview questions, but describes clearly
the approach of how the questionnaire will be designed.
The offer is rated as good to very good with regard to this sub-criterion.
1.3.
A) Analysis of current state of play of banks strategies to integrate
sustainability factors into lending and investment activities; B) analysis of the
global and EU markets for green finance and for responsible/sustainable
investment, and C) Identification of potential initiatives to support green
finance and responsible/sustainable investments including possible regulatory
incentives.
The offer provides a very sound and thorough preliminary analysis, providing details on
types of ESG products and integration approaches differentiated according to
business/service categories as well as a clear overview of sustainable products and
services offered by financial institutions. A clear description of the state of the market is
also provided.
The description of the barriers and impediments to the development of green finance is
rigorous and mentions the most relevant aspects.
The offer gives a very clear and comprehensive description of existing instruments and
strategies to scale up the green finance and market, citing the importance of the
regulatory environment, operational targets defined by banks, as well as specific
instruments/tools/incentives that would help to scale the ESG market. The section is
enriched by examples throughout.
The offer is rated as very good with regard to this sub-criterion.
Organisation of the work
The description of the composition of the consortium is clear and highlights the added
value that the different consortium members will bring. A clear asset is access to data and
to international networks by consortium members.
The tenderers propose to present the project findings at up to three meetings organised by
38/40
the Commissions with targeted stakeholders.
The allocation of resources is spelled out in detail, per project phase and consortium
partner as well as per task and team member and broken down to the different steps per
task. The allocation of resources appears appropriate for the tasks requested.
The key responsibilities per team member are outlined in a quite detailed way.
The offer is rated as very good with regard to this sub-criterion.
Quality control measures
The offer describes credible quality control systems. These address aspects of quality of
deliverables, citation and intellectual property rights, language quality and continuity of
the service. The offer also describes in a sufficient way some challenges that may arise in
the course of the project and proposed mitigation actions.
The offer is rated as good with regard to this sub-criterion.
Offer considered to be further evaluated
on the basis of price
Minimum number of points
necessary for further
60
evaluation
Yes
No
Price
507 240
Financial Score
52.44
Technical Score
Financial Score
Total score of this
Total score of the
offer
offer selected
84
51.89
74.37
94
39/40
Name of the evaluation committee members (date and signature recorded in ARES):
(e-signed)
(e-signed) (e-signed)
(e-signed) (e-signed)
Chairman
Member
Member Member Member
40/40
Document Outline