Page tree

Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.
Cloak

Logframe Management

What indicators are suggested in the system?

The system suggests lists of indicators that have been quality controlled by the relevant methodological and thematic units.

These lists include:

  • Indicators that the European Commission reports on;
  • Sector indicators suggested by thematic Units;
  • Sustainable Development Goals.

The goal is to suggest ready-to-use indicators to the users who are creating a logframe of a new intervention. The use of existing indicators increases the overall quality of the results, and allows the possibility to aggregate them when relevant.

The lists are managed by the Indicators Managers: DG INTPA 04, FPI.1 and DG NEAR A4.

Why can’t I add a value?

It is possible to add values to indicators only when the Logframe has been approved. If the "Access indicator's page" button is not displayed, check the status of the Logframe that it is "Approved". 

What are the statuses of a Logframe?

The status of the Logframe can be:



















  • New - No data have been yet encoded;
  • Draft - Sections of the Logframe are encoded, but it has not been completed and approved;
  • Pending for approval - The Logframe has been submitted by the Lead Implementing Partner or Contractor, and still has to be approved by the Operational Manager;
  • To be revised - The Logframe has been reviewed by the Operational Manager, but still has to be revised by the Lead Implementing Partner or Contractor;
  • Approved - The Logframe has been approved by the Operational Manager, and it is now possible to add values.

If the Logframe is modified (e.g. change to the wording of an indicator), its status will go back to "Draft", and it will have to be re-approved.


Implementing Partners, Contractors or Experts Management

What is the difference between a Lead Implementing Partner or Contractor, and an Implementing Partner or Expert?

The Operational Manager grants access to the Lead Implementing Partner or Contractor, who can then grant access to the other Implementing Partners or Experts taking part in the Intervention. 

While Lead Implementing Partners or Contractors and Implementing Partners or Experts have the same access and edit rights, only Lead Implementing Partners or Contractors can submit information officially to the European Commission. 

If an Operational Manager revokes the access to the Lead Implementing Partner or Contractor, all Implementing Partners or Experts are automatically removed.

How many Implementing Partners or Experts can I add?

You can add as many Implementing Partners or Experts as required.

Can I change the Lead Implementing Partners or Contractors?

No, only Operational Managers can grant access to a new Lead Implementing Partner or Contractor, or promote an Implementing Partner or Expert to the role of Lead Implementing Partner or Contractor. 

Why don't I have access?

If you are a Lead Implementing Partner or Contractor and you don't have access, it means that the Operational Manager hasn't granted you access yet. Please contact your Operational Manager directly to request access.

If you are a Lead Implementing Partner or Contractor and you don't have access anymore, it means that your Operational Manager has revoked your access. If you think it is an error, please contact your Operational Manager directly.

If you are an Implementing Partner or Expert and you don't have access, it means that the Lead Implementing Partner or Contractor hasn't granted you access yet. Please contact your Lead Implementing Partner or Contractor directly to request access.

If you are an Implementing Partner or Expert and you don't have access anymore, it means that your Lead Implementing Partner or Contractor has revoked your accesses, or that the Operational Manager revoked the access to your Lead Implementing Partner or Contractor. If you think it is an error, please contact your Lead Implementing Partner or Contractor directly.

Why can't I add an Implementing Partner or Expert?

Only Lead Implementing Partners or Contractors can provide access to the intervention for Implementing Partners or Experts.


Actions and Interventions

What is an Action?

Action, as per the Financial Rules and the Common Implementing Rules, is a generic term describing the content (or part of the content) of a Commission Financing Decision. An action corresponds to one or several budgetary commitments.

It usually takes the form of an Action Document or of a similar document. In some cases (such as for administrative expenditure), it is reduced to core information.

What is an Intervention?

The term "Intervention" comes from the Better Regulation Package, where it refers to EU activities for the purpose of assessing performance. In the External Action context, Interventions are usually referred to as "programmes" or "projects". In the EAMR, Interventions correspond to what is currently called "projects", which can be either an Action or a Contract.

Intervention has been defined in the note Ares(2018)831615 -

An Intervention is a coherent set of activities and results, which constitutes an effective level for the operational follow-up by the European Commission of its operations:

  • Monitoring of results and indicators;

  • Monitoring the quality of deliverables;

  • Monitoring of missions and site visits;

  • Evaluations;

  • Annual reporting on KPIs in the EAMR.

The scope of an Intervention can correspond to an Action or an Action Component. It can group more than one Contract.

The scale of an Intervention and its level (Action, Action Component, Contract) is determined in function of:

  • The coherence of the planned activities and results; and

  • The responsible entity (e.g. Delegation in charge).

The Delegation will define the intervention's level in the action document.

Interventions inherit the logframe (or part of the logframe) from the corresponding action(s).

What are the types of intervention?

An intervention can be Primary Intervention (PINTV), a Support entity (SENT) or Other General Interventions (INTV)

Primary Intervention (PINTV)

Primary Interventions are Interventions with business rules. This has been defined below. 

Support entity (SENT)

Individual operation that does not produce direct and reportable development results and, as such, does not need a logframe

Other General Interventions (INTV) 

Interventions of free creation for operational needs that do not need to respect the business rules, such as evaluations, monitoring, programming, contract components, analyses...


Definition of the Primary Intervention (PINTV)

What we currently refer to as programmes and/or projects are in fact primary interventions. Primary interventions respond to the institutional needs to define a complete portfolio of operations and are related to ensure proper operational management, internal monitoring and annual reporting, results collection and to the definition of the operational perimeter for external monitoring and evaluations. They are created in an institutional and formal manner with hierarchical validation through the Action Document approval process.

A Primary Intervention, more specifically, is an intervention to take into account for institutional reporting. It responds to the three following defining principles:

Exhaustive coverage of the entire portfolio: the totality of result-bearing activities under a given AOSD's responsibility is covered. 

  • Projects/Programmes producing results should be part of only one PINTV.

Non-duplicity: activities within actions and contracts under the responsibility of different AOSDs must be reported only once.

  • Projects/Programmes should be reported only once.

  • If a PINTV is defined at the level of Action, none of the contracts of that Action can be part of any other PINTV

AOSD single responsibility: there is no INTPA activity authorized by multiple AOSDs. Actions under the responsibility of different AOSDs must be reported broken down at the proper level.

  • Accountability falls under the scope of one Authorising Officer (AOSD) at the Commission.


Within the 2020 Results Reporting Exercise which covers the 2014 - 2020 MFF, Primary Interventions can be created at one of the below levels:

  • Group of Actions (e.g.: top-up cases, phases)

  • Action (e.g.: Budget Support, Guarantees, Blending)

  • Contract (e.g. most common case)

  • Group of contracts (e.g.: sequence of Programme Estimates

Four case types are presented below in order to clarify the concept of "intervention" through examples that are representative of the business processes followed by actors in the external action area:

Case type 1

An intervention covering more than one action

Case type 2

An intervention corresponding to a single action

Case type 3

An intervention at the level of an action component or a contract

Case type 4

Several interventions covered by a single contract

The four case types are followed by a remark about aggregated levels of reporting. Each case types below represents the scope of an intervention.


Case type 1: An Intervention covering more than one Action

In some particular cases, a new action (Action 2013 in the example below) may contribute to an existing intervention previously created in the framework of an older action.

  • Action 2011/23101 – Special Measure for Belarus: Open Europe Scholarship Scheme

3 999 981 €, Delegation in charge: Belarus

1 intervention, Delegation in charge: Belarus

- Contract 2011/269645 – Open Europe Scholarship Scheme, NORDISK MINISTERRADS SEKRETARIAT, 3 999 981,00 €


  • Action 2013/024447 – Special Measure: Open Europe Scholarship Scheme – Phase II (OESS II)

8 000 000 €, Delegation in charge: Belarus

→ Contributes to the same intervention, created in 2011

- Contract 2013/331137 – Open Europe Scholarship Scheme, Phase II, NORDISK MINISTERRADS SEKRETARIAT, 7 924 934,67 €

 

Case type 2: An Intervention corresponding to a single Action

  • Action 2017/39769 - Support to Decentralisation in Ghana 11th EDF

45 000 000 €, Delegation in charge: Ghana

1 intervention

Budget support (Sector Reform Contract)   

40 000 000

Technical Assistance to Inter-Ministerial Coordinating Committee on Decentralisation (Including communication and visibility for € 200 000)

4600 000

Monitoring and reporting

300 000

Evaluation and audit

100 000


Case type 3: An Intervention at the level of an Action Component or Contract

  • Action 2016/38787 – Contribution to the African Investment Facility in support of regional economic integration in West Africa,

100 000 000 €, Delegation in charge: Nigeria (regional)

- Contract 2017/386495 – Construction du pont de Rosso, BANQUE AFRICAINE DE DEVELOPPEMENT, 20 500 000,00 €


→ 1 Intervention, Delegation in charge: Senegal

- Contract 2017/386607 - Projet de réhabilitation de la route Lomé-Cotonou (phase 2) et de protection côtière (Benin – Togo)”, BANQUE AFRICAINE DE DEVELOPPEMENT, 20 525 400,00 €


→ 1 Intervention, Delegation in charge: Togo

3 other contracts in 3 other countries: 3 other interventions


Case type 4: Several Interventions covered by a single Contract

In some cases, reporting may be necessary on several Interventions which are below the contract level when, for example, the contract consists in a contribution to International Financial Institutions. In the example below, the contract is a contribution to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) / European Investment Bank (EIB), who are in charge of managing different "projects" (corresponding to interventions in the context of OPSYS) in different countries:

  • Action 2015/038055 – Western Balkans – Multi-country Action Programme for Connectivity for the years 2015-2016- allocation 2015

    119 254 000,00 €, Delegation in charge: none

- Contract 2016/375830 – EC Contribution Arrangement with respect to the European Western Balkans Joint Fund under the Western Balkans Investment Framework, EUROPEAN BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT
102 100 000,00 €, Delegation in charge: none


→ Several Interventions could be needed in order to monitor the infrastructure projects behind this contract:

KfW_WB-IG00-MNE-ENE-01 Trans-Balkan Electricity Corridor (I): Grid Section in Montenegro
12 000 000,00 € (IG 11 750 000,00 €; TA 250 000,00 €)
→ 1 intervention

WBIF CF 1002 MKD ENE MEPSO Power Interconnection (II): Grid Section in the fYRoM
→ 1 intervention

MULTI-ENE-001-PRJ, Preliminary and Main Design of the Ionian Adriatic Gas Pipeline – Montenegro and Albania sections
→ 1 intervention

....

However, in this example it may also be suitable, as an alternative, to consider that the three (or more) grant agreements constitute a single intervention (instead of the three interventions shown above), subject to single reporting and monitoring by European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. In case this alternative is chosen, this example will correspond to case type 3.

Reporting at an aggregated level

Apart from the External Assistance Management Report (EAMR) list of 'monitored interventions' (currently "project list"), on which each Delegation is regularly reporting, a higher level of consolidated reporting will also be possible, e.g. reporting by a Headquarters unit at the level of an Investment Facility or of a global (or regional) call for proposals.

Reporting at a disaggregated level

On a similar basis and when necessary, a lower level of reporting will also be possible, e.g. reporting on a geographical basis at national or sub-national level.




English

250

Download the document


French 

250

Download the document


Spanish

250

Download the document


6.     Do Implementing Partners have to report against PINTVs linked to closed contracts?

·       All Lead Implementing Partners (LIPs) of contracts for which PINTVs are identified as on going in 2021 are asked to update the values of the indicators necessary to report on results in OPSYS – following the structure of the logframe If you have a doubt, please contact the Operational Manager (OM) of your contract in the Commission

·       PINTVs closed before 2021 with unreported final results and that were part of last year’s exercise of Results Data Collection (2020-2021) need to report results in OPSYS

·       If the LIP is no longer available to encode the logframe with related results and indicators, this function will be performed by the OM

Div
CLASSpage-title eu-orange

FAQs - OPSYS

...

1.     What is the function of OPSYS for monitoring and reporting results? Does the reporting in OPSYS apply to all types of contractual commitments?

·       OPSYS is an IT system developed by the Commission services of the Relex family (DG FPI, DG INTPA, DG NEAR). Among other functions, OPSYS is used to monitor and report results for the entire portfolio

·       OPSYS allows all Implementing Partners to store the logframes of their interventions and update the values of the indicators.

·       The use of OPSYS to report on results has been introduced gradually for closed and on-going contracts/agreements and will be done systematically for new ones. The provisions of each contract/agreement gives indication on whether its related documents (including the logframe) are to be processed via OPSYS (=the System)

·       As a general rule, the use of OPSYS to report on results applies to all types of contractual commitments that produce results and have a logframe

·       For the time being, Trust Funds are not processed in OPSYS and they are not part of the results monitoring and reporting in OPSYS

2.     What is a Primary Intervention (PINTV)? How does it relate to a logframe?

·       A PINTV refers to what is commonly called project or programme. It is an entity linked to one or more contractual commitments that serves the purpose to host a Logical Framework Matrix (=logframe). PINTVs exist only in relation to a logframe that defines in a logical manner the strategy of the intervention to contribute to a desired change, allowing to monitor and report results

·       From an Implementing Partner point of view, a PINTV is the place where the logframe to be reported against regularly is going to be stored

3.     Who decides what is a Primary Intervention (PINTV) and who creates it in OPSYS?

·       A PINTV in OPSYS is created by the European Commission, via the Operational Manager (OM) in charge (the person in charge of managing the contract within the EU)

·       PINTVs related to recently closed and ongoing contractual commitments have been created

·       For confidential and sensitive PINTVs there are special arrangements. Please, check with the OM if you are not sure if your PINTV falls in this category

4.     As Implementing Partner, which actions do I have to take for the creation of a PINTV?

·       Implementing Partners do not have to perform any task related to the creation of a PINTV

·       Following contracting, once the PINTV is created by the European Commission, the Implementing Partner is granted access to it to encode the structure of the logframe and for results monitoring and reporting purposes

5.     What is the difference between a primary and non-primary intervention?

·       Primary Interventions (PINTVs) are created by the European Commission as linked to a logframe

·       Non-PINTVs are created by the European Commission against internal business rules – not entailing any implication for Implementing Partners

6.

     Do Implementing Partners have to report against PINTVs linked to closed contracts

     The results data collection 2023 is concerned with which interventions?

This year the annual results data collection is being done in OPSYS entirely for interventions that meet the criteria below:

  • MFF 2014-2020
  • Started before 01/01/2022
  • EU contribution above EUR 750,000

In other words, the results data collection campaign will cover primary interventions funded under MFF 2014-2020 that started before 01/01/2022 and which have an EU contribution above EUR 750,000.This year’s sample will still not include interventions from the EU Trust Funds (EUTF).

By 30 April 2023, the Operational Managers and Implementing Partners have to submit the latest results indicator values included in the logframe

...

22.     Will the updating of the logframe online in OPSYS substitute the standard financial and narrative report?

  • No. All reporting obligations as per signed contract/agreement are still valid. Updating the logframe will be required to be performed off-OPSYS too

  • For new contracts/agreements a provision will be included to make sure that updating the logframe in OPSYS will be an additional reporting requirement

  • In order to avoid double work and potential inconsistencies, it is advised to update the logframe in OPSYS, use the print function, and attach it to the narrative report

23.     Is it possible to modify/change the Logframe after its validation in OPSYS?

·       Changes to the contract/agreement, including logframe changes, are possible within the scope allowed by the type of contract/agreement and its provisions

·       As a general rule, non-substantial changes in a logframe (not changing the overall objective/impact and specific objectives/outcomes of the intervention) are possible provided the relevant procedure is followed in agreement with the Operational Manager (OM)

·       Please check with the OM which are the rules applying to your contract/agreement – those are the same to be used also using OPSYS as the tool to update the logframe

 

Contribution Agreements


I am new to this field. Can you kindly indicate some material for Beginner Project Managers? 

If we need to create an account to log into the Portal, can you confirm this will not impact the account created with the LEAR and PIC related?

Many user accounts can be linked to one PIC (organisation). Creating a new account and linking it to a PIC will not impact existing accounts (including the LEAR) already linked to a PIC.
The search for contracts does not work for specific contracts under the umbrella of the Framework Contract. We can see the contracts, but the search engine does not work for specific contracts.

When creating the account, should we use the name of the PCoCo or the CoCo?

For Contribution Agreements, the first name, surname and email address used when creating the EU Login account should be communicated to the Contracting Authority by the representative of the organisation during the negotiation stage (i.e. therefore before contract preparation). The PCoCo is then assigned to the contract by the EC Operational Manager during the contract preparation.

Our (Primary) Coordinator Contact (PCoCo) is our Managing Partner, I am acting as the Project Manager.

The Person to act as PCoco is to be identified within your Organisation, keeping in mind that this PCoco role is a Project-level role. As Project Manager, it makes sense that you be identified as Coco. You therefore need to coordinate with your PCoco to be granted the role in the Portal.

Can you please confirm how long it will take to receive access to the portal as I have just created an account?

 There is just a waiting time between registering and having access to the portal. Whoever is the PCoCo for a specific Contribution Agreement can only assign another person as a CoCo for that contract.

You mentioned that the OPSYS onboarding does not apply for onboarding Contribution Agreements encoded in CRIS, so what is the cut-off date in terms of signature to consider?

For any ongoing contracts and contracts signed before February 2024, these remain outside OPSYS. From 2025, there will be a migration of contracts signed outside the system into OPSYS.

With regards to roles, in our case LEAR and the Legal Signatory (LSIGN*) at organisation level are the same person. When we have new projects in OPSYS, is this person assigned as Legal Signature as default or do we need to assign specific Legal signatories for each project?

Your LEAR can appoint several LSIGNs* and they have the implicit ability to sign any contract for Contribution Agreements within the organisation.

*Please note that the LSIGN has been replaced with Procurement LSIGN since February 2024. For more information on the role, please read more.

Should the Contracting Authority in each case be the one informing us of the workflow that needs to be followed?

Indeed, the Contracting Authority will look at the case and the workflow to be used (based on certain criteria) will be communicated during a negotiation phase. This will be decided by the Contracting Authority.

We understand that using OPSYS applies to EU external actions. Is there any expectation to make it extensive to other type of actions any time soon? Because we will have to prepare guidance for our colleagues, given the volume of contracts the OECD has.

The Contribution Agreements that are going to be signed in OPSYS are applicable for DG’s INTPA, NEAR and FPI. For any Contribution Agreements signed outside of these DGs; there is no timeline to incorporate them into the system.

The OECD has already agreed with the European Commission on certain templates to use. Is it mandatory to apply the templates to all contracts, provided that only a few may be required to be processed via OPSYS?

The OECD does indeed use the Contribution Agreement template, although there is an NFPA included with the OECD, so some adjustments are needed, but we will work internally to have a version that is usable for ACM.

Will the  slides be available after the webinar?

Recording and presentations on the Contributions Agreements Webinars are available at the INTPA Academy.

November 2023 session: EN

February 2024 sessions:

If my organisation manages grants as part of a project funded by the EU, does this count as CAFI?

A grant issued under indirect management is a standard contribution agreement. Whether it is a Contribution Agreement for Financial Instruments depends on the action being implemented. Financial instruments are regulated in Title X (Articles 208-214 and 215-217) of the FR.

Is PIC registration done at country office level or HQ level?

At the HQ level. Each office will use the same PIC, the LEAR can then appoint one or many LSIGNs* from your country office.

*Please note that the LSIGN has been replaced with Procurement LSIGN since February 2024. For more information on the role, please read more.

If OPSYS would be a system from another Institution and the Commission would be asked to designate a single LEAR, who would you propose?

The LEAR is appointed from within the partner organisation. Normally the LEAR is a person with legal authority quite 'high-up' within the organisation (ie. CEO or equivalent). Your LEAR stays the same no matter which DG you are signing an agreement with.

Uploading indicators takes a long time because the system seems to be slow. If you have many indicators this is very time consuming. Is it only me having this problem?

  • The slowness of the IT system depends on many different factors. We recommend that you check the technical issues that you encounter with your dedicated Helpdesk: EC-FUNDING-TENDER-SERVICE-DESK@ec.europa.eu
  • To identify Indicators as smoothly as possible, it is very handy to first check the Excel list of Indicators on CAPACITY4DEV and then, when you are in the Log frame, spotting the Indicators by using the SEARCH FILTERS and key words.

Will DG HOME become part of the system too for Contribution Agreements?

There is no plan for DG HOME to onboard Light Contract Management (LCM) to manage Contribution Agreements.

I registered my SME at the end of January 2024 and received the PIC ID. Is there a need to submit by now, any other validation procedure, such as bank account, official certificate of the managing team, equity capital?

The best thing to do is to reach to the relevant PIC MANAGEMENT team. See contact emails:

I am working for UNIDO on the PAIDAR programme in Pakistan (INTV-10822). We are managing a grant portfolio with funding from the EU. This contribution agreement was signed two years ago, so would not be managed on OPSYS. However, would similar projects in the future fall under CAFI?

  • Normally if you signed a Contribution Agreement (CA) in this instance then it will be a standard Contribution Agreement in the future, not a CAFI.
  • CAFI stands for Contribution Agreement for Financial Instruments, it is therefore signed when the entity is implementing Financial Instruments. In your case, we understand a standard CA was signed. Signing a CA or a CAFI does not rely on the IT environment but on the action itself. The launch of LCM will not impact the type of contract to be signed.

From when will it be mandatory to move the Contribution Agreements contracts with pillar-assessed organisations to OPSYS?

 It has become mandatory since 1 February 2024 to sign new contribution agreements in OPSYS.

The contract implementation period is shown in days. It would be easier for us to calculate this in months. Would this be possible?

The screenshot in the presentation showed the example of a contract where the duration is in days. If contracts are encoded into the system in months, they will show in months and not days.

Should Contribution Agreements, for which certain exemptions/supervisory measures have been applied to their special conditions, be encoded outside OPSYS or is there a possibility of integrating these exemptions/measures into the OPSYS models?

Existing supervisory measures for an organization can be found in the Pillar Assessment Automated Workflow (PAAW) found in the ‘Legal Entites’ tab within MyWorkplace.  The user should always encode the exception in the Deviations/Prior Approvals Module in CRIS, even if the contribution agreement is encoded in OPSYS.

How to upload documents and submit them to REA Central Validation Services?

You can do so by following the steps below:

  1. Log in to the Funding & Tenders Portal: https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/home
  2. Click on LOGIN. You will be prompted to authenticate through the EU Login screen.
  3. Go to the ‘Manage my area’ heading, and then click on the ‘My organisation’ tab.
  4. Open the ‘ACTIONS’ menu corresponding to the entity for which you have to modify data, and then click on the ‘Modify Organisation’ option to request updates to the data of your organisation.
  5. Therein, go to the ‘Documents’ tab and click on ‘Add Documents'. You can upload document files with sizes of up to 6 Mb per file. There is no limitation on the overall size of all the uploaded documents for an organisation. You must provide the 'Description', 'Type', (and other details, such as the ‘Year’, if applicable) for each document you upload as these fields are mandatory. Please select the checkbox if the document is in the original language of the organisation (for example, the place of establishment of the organisation).

You can also read and download all the uploaded documents for your respective organisation. However, you may not delete a document once uploaded in the system, even if it was you who uploaded it.

For more information, you may consult:https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/funding-tenders-opportunities/display/IT/Documents

For more information on Contribution Agreements:

Managing a Framework Contract in the Funding and Tenders Portal 


Why do Framework Contracts not follow the same procedure as for eGrants? LEAR assign’s role of (Procurement) LSIGN (at organisation level) and the CoCo/PaCo assigns role of PLSIGN/ContractLSIGN.

eGrants are not managed in OPSYS at the moment.

Is the Procurement Legal Signatory (PLSIGN) nomenclature already in place, or is it something we have to change?

The Procurement Legal Signatory is already in place and it has by default been assigned to the organizational role which used to be known as Legal Signatory (LSIGN). So, there is no action that is required from your side for the PLSIGN.

Can the Account Administrator be an employee or does it need to be a manager with special proxy?

The LEAR is a role at the organizational level so the account Administrator, who is a back-up of the LEAR, would have an organizational overview in the Funding and Tenders Portal. Most of the tasks that the LEAR can do, this role can perform as well.

We can no longer access OPSYS since yesterday because we wanted to change our password and the validation process uses a phone number that we no longer use. Who can help us?

Normally, you cannot change your password if the PIC has not yet been validated due to security reasons. To unblock the situation, please contact the Helpdesk, and they will provide you with the steps to continue with the validation process. You may be required to create a new PIC if you cannot access the account. You can contact the following helpdesks:

When do we need to specify the consortium structure? Maybe on the last day one of the partners can find a good expert and get involved?

The eSubmission tender procedure is divided into multiple steps to facilitate the submission of the offers/tender in the Funding and Tenders Portal, one of the steps involves the identification of the participant(s). At this stage you can specify the consortium structure. Please consult this documentation URL: https://wikis.ec.europa.eu/display/ExactExternalWiki/Manage+My+Submissions#ManageMySubmissions-3.3.2.1Parties

'My invitation' tab does not appear on my screen, even though I am Primary Coordinator Contact (PCoCo). Will this open when the first invitation comes? 

Contract management for Calls for Proposals are not managed in the Funding and Tenders Portal. For contracting procedures for Specific Contracts under Framework Contracts PSF 2019, EVA 2020, EVENTS 2020, EOM 2021, SEA 2023 and AUDIT 2023, the “invitation” tab should become available to you when the first invitation is received. However, just to be sure, please check that your credentials are properly configured with the helpdesk: EC-FUNDING-TENDER-SERVICE-DESK@ec.europa.eu

Is there a diagram showing the relationships between the different roles and their prerogative?

You can check the following links:

We understand that for the global price contracts CVs should not be uploaded. Could you confirm that the team of experts with their names and their bio should only be presented in the methodology? Or should the names of experts not be mentioned at the stage of submission and only profiles of intended experts should be described?

Questions about the Tender Specifications or technical content can be sent to the functional mailbox (FMB) of the Framework Contract Owner:

Each Framework Contract comes with different annex requirements, depending if they are "Fee-based" or "Global price".

Regarding the deliverables and the size limit allowed by the system. Currently we have a limit of 100 MB. Under the new FWCs we may have very technical studies where report files exceed this size. Is there any alternative to allow us to upload files bigger than 100 MB?

Currently, this is the maximum size allowed in the system. For any documents that exceed this limit, would recommend uploading a document in the deliverables section explaining this and send the document via email.  

We are working on implementing this request, because it is not enough, particularly for documents that include images, etc.

Which roles can consult the awarded letter?

The awarding letter can be read by the PCoCo and the CoCo, or the procurement LSIGN and LEAR. They will receive the notification for the Awarding.

We understand that for the Global Price contracts, CVs should not be uploaded. Could you confirm that the team of experts with their names and their bio should only be presented in the methodology, or should the name of experts not be mentioned at the stage of submission and only profiles of intended experts should be described?

This should be a question for the Framework Contract owner. It depends on the Framework Contract because there are Global Price contracts with structured data and non-structured data. Normally, if you don’t see any mandatory document in the submission part for CVs (with the red asterisk), it shouldn’t be mandatory to submit.  But of course, please check with the framework contract owner. 

Can experts send CV to all the Consortium Members to be considered in case we are fee-based contractor?

This is a question for the framework contractor owner.

 

THANK YOU



Div
IDline-seperator


...