ENPROTEX 10th December 2015

Transcription

1 ENPROTEX 10th December 2015 Christophe Veys Project Director & Procurement legal advisor Innovation Agency of Flanders (IWT)

2 Partners 1 Confederation 2 Innovation Agencies 1 Notified body 5 Procurers 1 University 1 innovation management company 2

3 Objectives Develop innovative Personal Protective Systems to reduce risks inherent to firefighting. Create a commonly agreed approach for precommercial procurement (PCP) that can be deployed and duplicated in the EU. Project duration: 01/2013 till 12/2016 3

4 PPI-PCP- Innovation friendly Innovation - friendly PPI Public procurement Innovation Pre-commercial procurement 4

5 Definitions 1 Innovation-friendly procurement encourage procurers to leave room for innovation in their purchasing proces (mindset and procedural aspects) 2 Public Procurement of Innovation (PPI): purchase of innovative solutions available (or partly available) on the market (new for the procurer) 3 Pre-commercial procurement is a phased approach of purchasing R&D services by procurers for the development of innovative products, services or processes (not yet available on the market) by enterprises/ research centres with as goal: To solve socio-economic challenges To improve the performance, functionality of public services 5

6 Risks Risks vs distance to market PCP R&D PPI Innovation - friendly Distance of the solutions (to be developed) to the market

7 PCP Phase 1: Needs assesment of firefighters & state-of-the-art Febrary 2013 till June 2013 Phase 2: Market consultations Phase 3: Pre-commercial procurement Development of prototypes Phase 4: Commercial purchasing Purchase of a final product September December 2013 July 2014 December 2015 Januray

8 Needs assessment Phase 1: Needs assesment of firefighters & state-of-the-art How can I increase my safety and reduce risks undertaking fire fighting and other civil protection work?

9 Market Consultation Phase 2: Market consultations > 450 participants (enterprises/universities/procurers) attended the different market consultation sessions September November 2013 Feasability check & Risks assessment Summary of the findings both innovation expectations vs technological feasability. Prioritization! Preparation of the tender documents and submitted in February 2014 for approval to the EC 9

10 Prototype priorities Prototype Scope: value vs. risk H DO DERISK Added Value Innovation potential from end-user perspective Priorities on prototype roadmap Innovative for end-user = + Significant technological risk L Off-the-shelf L Avoid if possible H Risk Innovation potential from technological perspective

11 Market consultations Belgium (Brussels, 10 & 11/9/2013) Localisation systems Integration of ICT solutions in PPE France (Marseille, 17 & 18/9/2013 Data transfer & visualisation systems Integration of ICT solutions in PPE Germany (Dortmund, 1 & 2/10/2013) Sensors Integration of ICT solutions in PPE Wrap-up session (10/10/2013)

12 Overall participants per country Germany 13% Norway 1% Netherlands 7% Lithuania 3% Greece 1% Slovenia 2% Spain 3% France 21% Switzerland 2% UK 4% USA 1% Finland 2% Belgium 37% Australia 1% Austria 2% Czech Republic Estonia 1% Denmark 2% Total number of participants: 470/170 different/18 countries 1%

13 PCP in 4 phases Phase 2: Market consultations September October

14 Pre-commercial procurement phase Phase 3: Pre-commercial procurement Stage 1 Solution Exploration Stage 2 Prototyping & Demo Stage 3 Testing first batch of complete products 14

15 Scope of the Precommercial tender: 15

16 6

17 State of play Tender launched in OJEU 11 June 2014 (2014/S ) + Information day 1st of July (65) : Challenge brief Invitation to Tender Framework agreement Bids submitted in October, Award on the 26 of November 4 consortia were selected Stage 1 Solution Exploration 17

18 Consortium Submitted date Partner Correspondent Prevent Deloza Ltd. Andreja Oder Titera Ltd. Daniela Zavec Pavlinic Consortium 1 Biotech Knowledge 10/06/2015 Center, Obuda Miklos Kozlovszky Kozlovszky.miklos@nik.uni-obuda.c 16:54 Bioteklab Ltd. Krisztina Szarvas Contact@bioteklab.com ITP Gmbh-Geselschaft für Intelligente Textile Klaus Richter richter@itp-gmbh.de Consortium 2 Consortium 3 Consortium 4 10/06/ :57 10/06/ :00 8/06/ :22 e-bo Enterprises NV Christophe Dhaene Christophe.dhaene@ebo-enterpris Seyntex NV Thomas Seynaeve tse@seyntex.be Texport Uwe Heinemann U.Heinemann@texport.at Markus Valle-Klann Markus Valle-Klann <markus@klann BHT Solutions Herman Oberwalder hoberwalder@bht-solutions.at ICON Ronald Van Kampen ronald@iconprotect.com IOS International nv Mr. Leon Rousseau Leon.rousseau@iosint.be Omnisense Andy Thurman andy.thurman@omnisense.co.uk Applycon s.r.o. Milan Baxa baxa@applycon.cz Elitronic s.r.o. Roman Kotrc kotrc@elitronic.cz Holik International Tomas Pekar pekar@holikinternational.cz Vochoc s.r.o. Petr Loukota petr.loukota@vochoc.cz University of West Bohemia Ales Hamacek hamacek@ket.zcu.cz Dune s.r.l. (subcontranctor) Enrico De Marinis demarinis@dunesistemi.com

19 Stage 1 Solution Exploration Submit deliverables Solution Design & End of Phase 1: On April , after 4 months of preparing their solution design, all 4 consortia submitted the following 4 deliverables: 1. End of Phase Report 2. Detailed solution Design 3. Request for clarification 4. List Background IPR In order to evaluate the quality of all submitted deliverables, a jury was appointed o 2 representatives of the end-users (SDIS13 IBZ) o 1 IWT advisor o 2 independant external experts

20 Solution Exploration The Jury Criteria evaluated the satisfactory completion The jury evaluated the deliverables in order to see if the execution of phase 1 was in line with the work submitted in the bids. Detailed assessment of the solution design and the request for clarification were evaluated by scoring these deliverables on 4 evaluation criteria. For Successful completion of phase 1 and to obtain the access to phase 2, the following minimum scoring requirements had to be attained. The end of phase report should be evaluated as satisfactory The average score over all 4 criteria, taking the different weightings into account, should be min. 50%. The contractors should score min. 60% on criteria I and criteria IV. Results: All four participating consortia completed their first phase in a satisfactory way. As a result, all four participating consortia received their requested payments for phase 1 1/ Applycon 2/ Texport: 3/ E-Bo enterprises: 4/ Prevent & Deloza

21 Prototyping Invitation To Tender phase 2 (ITT2): Prototyping & Demonstration Based on the original Invitation to Tender (ITT 1), a new Invitation to Tender (ITT2), with specific requirements for Phase 2, was produced by IWT in cooperation with Addestino and appointed partners. A lot of efforts went to the development of a more accurate description of the Evaluation Process at the end of phase 2 and a list of expectations regarding the results to be achieved at the End of Phase 2. On May 18, 2015 all 4 consortia were invited to submit a bid for phase 2. All eligible bids had to be submitted before June 11, After evaluation 3 Tenderers with the highest ranking were selected

22 Christophe Veys Project Director & Procurement legal advisor