Traduction de «dépouillement non public des soumissions » (Français → Anglais) :

41. Points out that contracting authorities should take greater advantage of the possibilities of dividing public contracts into lots, thus giving SMEs a better chance, in qualitative and quantitative terms, of participating in public procurement, and improving the level of competition; encourages SMEs to make use of joint procurement and contract pooling, which would allow them to make economies of scale in areas such as logistics and transport; encourages public authorities to be flexible when considering these modern and voluntary forms of arrangement; calls on the Commission ...[+++] to investigate all the possibilities for encouraging the temporary or permanent grouping of SMEs and small businesses in order to enable them to take part in invitations to tender that are not split into lots, without having to operate as subcontractors; asks the Commission, in this regard, to examine in particular the current practice of subcontracting to SMEs – often on conditions inferior to those applicable to the main contractor – of parts of contracts not split into lots, which are too big to enable SMEs to participate in the procurement procedure;

9. Endorses the concerns voiced by many local authorities in response to the interpretation of the rulings of the Court of Justice in the field of urban development; firmly believes that the operationally and legally strict application of public procurement rules might hinder urban development; calls on the Commission to draw up, in close cooperation with Parliament, the Council and regional and local authorities, the corresponding public procurement rules with sufficient clarity to enable contracting authorities clearly to identify ...[+++] which public works contracts and concessions are subject to the procurement rules and thus distinguish between such contracts and concessions and urban development projects which are not subject to those rules, so that land agreements can be facilitated between the public and private sector without the unnecessary requirement of having to issue a call for tenders and without jeopardising the powers and right of local authorities to decide how they want to develop their territory; awaits with great interest the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-451/08; endorses the view of the Advocate-General of the Court of Justice delivered on 17 November 2009 in Case C-451/08: ‘These broad and ambitious aims must be borne in mind when interpreting the Directive but it should not be assumed that, by appealing to the purpose of the measure, its scope can be extended indefinitely’ (paragraph 35); otherwise there is the risk ‘that all town planning activities are subject to the Directive since, by definition, provisions on the possible execution of building works substantially alter the value of the land in question’.

(Return tabled) Question No. 68 Ms. Kirsty Duncan: With respect to the Canadian HIV Vaccine Initiative (CHVI) and the Level 5 Laboratory (L5L): (a) what are the details of the initial request for proposals for the CHVI; (b) what amount were the government and the Gates Foundation planning to invest in the CHVI and what were the scheduled dates for investment; (c) how many bids for the CHVI were submitted and by which organizations; (d) what are the details of the CHVI process for determining suitable award winners; (e) what were the selection criteria for awarding the CHVI bid and who was responsible for identifying the criteria; (f ...[+++]) how many people made up the independent evaluation committee for the CHVI bids, how were they selected, and from which disciplines and geographic areas were they drawn; (g) were representatives from the pharmaceutical industry invited to be part of the independent evaluation committee for the CHVI bids and, if so, on what date did each representative serve and, if not, why not; (h) what were the results for each of the selection criterion for each of the organizations bidding on the CHVI and how were the bids ranked; (i) did the independent evaluation committee for the CHVI bids reach a recommendation, and, if so, on what date, and to whom was the information conveyed in the government; (j) was there a steering committee for the CHVI bids and, if so, who were the members, who was the chair and what was its mandate; (k) were there changes to the steering committee for the CHVI bids and, if so, on what dates and for what reasons; (l) was any organization bidding on the CHVI informed, formally or otherwise, that it had been chosen to host the facility and, if so, how and on what date; (m) did the federal government put up a notice on its Web site to announce that the CHVI project had been cancelled or would not proceed and, if so, on what date; (n) was the notice in (m) removed from the Web site and, if so, on what date and fo ...

We may, therefore, wonder whether the requirement to use a special coffin for the transport of mortal remains - whatever the distance to be covered - simply because the journey involves the crossing of a frontier, corresponds to the principle of proportionality and is justified from the point of view of public order or public health, the only derogations approved by the Court and, even then, only with serious reservations.

And a formal process for evaluating unsolicited public-private partnership submissions must be developed.

During the proceedings of a commission on public works and government services, I asked a question to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services (1825) My question was: ``Minister, are you prepared to confirm and to pledge to this commission that you will make public tenders in the newspapers, prepare a public notice and adequate specifications, review the tenders, and then accept the lowest qualified bid?'' You will not believe the minister's answer. He said: ``I will not pledge to accept the lowest qualified bid''.