Independent Evaluation Report

Contract No Beremska 32

Distribution list:

Name Organisation
Ms Ralitsa Papazova Phare CFCU
Mr Joeri Buhrer-Tavanier Task Manager in the EC-Delegation to Bulgaria

1. General information
Supply Tender Phare Project BG 2004/016-711.08.05 “Establishment of mobile units for border
control and surveillance on the Bulgarian western border and implementation of the EU best
practices for integrated border control in the border area – third stage” was carried out in Sofia,
Bulgaria from April 26 till May 12, 2006. This report is to provide description and conclusions
from my work as an independent evaluator in the tender evaluation procedure of this tender.

2. Preparatory meeting and tender opening session

The Preparatory meeting was started in Phare CFCU premises (Rakovsky Street, Sofia,
Bulgaria) on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 15.30 and finished at 16.00 local time.
On the meeting Chairperson Ralitsa Papazova presented each member of evaluation
committee:
Ralitsa Papazova - Contracting Manager, Chairperson –nonvoting member
Vladimir Inkov - Contracting Manager, Secretary –nonvoting member
Evaluators:
Valentin Kolev -voting member
Botyo Stoimenov -voting member
Kircho Kirov -voting member
Maya Petkova -voting member
Dimitar Georgievski -voting member
Observers:
Joeri Buhrer Tavanier - EU Delegation to Bulgaria
Yanita Ilieva - CFCU, Ministry of Finance
After that Chairperson and Secretary checked the documentation for the proper approval of all
members and observers. The Chairperson informed the Evaluation Committee of the scope of
the proposed contract, identified the organizations responsible for preparing the tender dossier,
and summarized the essential features of the tender procedure to date.
All members of the Evaluation Committee (and observers) signed Declarations of Impartiality
and Confidentiality.
After that Ms Ralitsa Papazova invite the representatives of the tenderers to come in, and start
with the Tender opening session at 16.00 local time. Within deadline 11 tenders were
received. All essential documents required in the tender documentation were included in the
tenders received and all 11 tenders were accepted for evaluation; 5 tenders were for Lot 1, 8
tenders for Lot 2 and 5 tenders for Lot 3.

1
3. Formal and Eligible Compliance
Chairperson and Secretary checked the documentation of the tenders: registration number on
the envelope, name of tenderer, time and date of receiving, condition of envelope, has the
tenderer duly completed a tender submission form, the total financial offer and any discounts
applicable, is the tender guarantee provided. They also initial the first page of every copy of the
tender and all pages of financial offer. After this checking it was clear that 11 tenders are
eligible: 5 bids for Lot 1, 8 bids for Lot 2, 5 bids for Lot 3.
I consider that this part of evaluation process was carried out in professional correct manner
according to PRAG rules.

4. Administrative Compliance
The Evaluation Committee used the administrative compliance grid included in the tender
dossier to assess the compliance of each of the tenders with the essential requirements of the
tender dossier. With the agreement of the other Evaluation Committee members, the
Chairperson wrote to the following enterers whose tenders required clarification, offering them
the possibility to respond by fax within a maximum of 48 hours, Sagem Defense (France),
Cimcoop Trading Ltd. (Bulgaria), Aselsan (Turkey), Samel 90 PLC (Bulgaria), Consortium CE
(Bulgaria). The received clarification answers were accepted with an exception of one
company: Aselsan, Turkey. In this case the Evaluation Committee decided that that the tenderer
did not accepted fully provisions of the Tender Dossier and proposed to accept its own company
conditions. Therefore Aselsan tender was considered as administratively not compliant
because the tenderer clearly violated his tender declaration.
I consider that this part of evaluation process was carried out in correct manner according to
PRAG rules.

5. Technical Compliance
Technical compliance evaluation of this tender was carried out in a fair and transparent manner,
independently and following the relevant Phare rules and procedures. In this procedure was
check all details in technical specifications provided by tenderers and compared with
parameters stated in technicall evaluation grid. In cases ware there where not clear evidence,
evaluation committee send large number of technical questions to clarify open questions.

1 Lot no 1
1.1 OIP Sensor Systems
OIP Sensor Systems, did not specify the exact countries of origin of every part of the system
and the respective manufacturer, did not provide all ISO certificates required and did not prove
that his service point is authorized by the manufacturers of the proposed equipment. Also
stated standards in the technical offer were different from the required, and EC members
decided to seek additional confirmation as a statement. This confirmation was required from all
tenderers because same situation were found by all of them. Some parameters of the
equipment were not exactly specified, and some of the parameters required additional technical
details in order to be assessed as complaint or not. The clarification questions have been sent
to the tenderer, and reply was received within deadline. The tenderer declared that he should be
considered as the only manufacturer of all items and did not specify any countries of origin as
required and that his ISO certification will be valid for the assembled system. However, in the
technical offer almost every item is specified as manufactured by separate company, the name
and the countries of the respective manufacturers are mentioned with some exceptions as the
pan/tilt head for example. The Evaluation Committee members discussed the issue and

2
decided that this position is not acceptable, as the parts of the system are not subject of
substantial modifications enough to be considered as manufactured by OIP. The same
statement was provided for the authorization of the service point – the tenderer stated that he,
as a manufacturer of the system is the only company that shall authorize the service point
proposed. The members of the EC decided not to accept this answer and the tender was
considered as not compliant technically in respond to the Selection criteria 2 b) and 3 b). In
addition this tender was not compliant to the Technical Specifications in the part where
authorized by the manufacturer service point is required. Next, some technical parameters of
the proposed system were not in compliance with the Technical Specifications:
p.1.15 The time for initial cooling of the camera-not longer then 360 sec. at 25°С but according
to manufacturer data sheet, initial cooling time is 7 min (420 sec). After discussion the EC
members decided to accept it as a minor deviation that has no significant influence of
performance of the whole system. The same conclusion was applied on to tenders of Carl
Zeiss, and Samel 90 PLC.
p.2.1 The required “Distance measured using the laser range finder” was from 50 to 20 000 m
but the offered laser range finder was from 100 to 20 000 m. After discussion the EC members
decided to accept it as a minor deviation that has no significant influence of performance of the
whole system. The same conclusion was applied on to tender of Carl Zeiss.
p.4 Nine portable computers must be included in the offer. These computers must meet specific
requirements. All supplied tenders do not meet these requirements, but EC members decided to
accept it as a minor deviation that has no significant influence of performance of the whole
system. The same conclusion was applied on all tenders.
In my opinion the EC decided correctly because the mobile surveillance systems consists from
a separate devices clearly stated in the tender specification: all-terrain vehicle, thermal camera,
laser range finder, pan/tilt device, monitor, video recorder, storage batteries, communication
equipment, composed in one assembly. In the tender documentation it is clear indicated that
whole surveillance system is created from independent components. Functionally, there are no
substantial modifications done from manufacturer on these components. All so above devices
can be used as fully independent functional systems. In this situation ISO certificates and
certificates of origin for all separate devices listed in the tender specification must be required.

1.2 Carl Zeiss

Carl Zeiss did not specify the exact countries of origin of every part of the system and the
respective manufacturer, did not provide all ISO certificates required and did not prove that his
service point is authorized by the manufacturers of the proposed equipment. Also stated
standards in the technical offer were different from the required, and EC members decided to
seek additional confirmation as a statement. Some parameters of the equipment were not
exactly specified, and some of the parameters required additional technical details in order to be
assessed as complaint or not. The clarification questions have been sent to the tenderer, and
reply was received within deadline.The tenderer confirmed all unclear issues in their technical
proposal and provided the required technical data. The tenderer specified the countries of origin
and provided the required ISO certificates and authorization letters, with one exception –
Authorization letter for the company Rea, which is supposed to maintain Webasto products. EC
members decided to accept the answers with the missing document and to accept such missing
documents in the other two offers providing almost complete documentation. The tender was
considered as technically compliant.

1.3 Consortium OPTIX CO

Consortium OPTIX CO did not specify the exact countries of origin of every part of the system
and the respective manufacturer, did not provide all ISO certificates required and did not prove
that his service point is authorized by the manufacturers of the proposed equipment. The stated

3
standards in the technical offer were different from the required, and the EC members decided
to seek additional confirmation as a statement. Some of the parameters of the equipment were
not exactly specified. Some of the parameters required additional technical details in order to be
assessed as complaint or no.
The clarification questions have been sent to the tenderer, and reply was received within
deadline.
The tenderer confirmed all unclear issues in their technical proposal, provided the required
technical data and regarding question 12 confirmed that this is a technical mistake and that the
Portable computers will be 9 as required. The tenderer specified the countries of origin and
provided the required ISO certificates and authorization letters, with one exception –
Authorization letter for the company, which is supposed to maintain Philips products. Evaluation
Committee members decided to accept the answers with the missing document and to accept
such missing documents in the other two offers providing almost complete documentation. The
tender was considered as technically compliant.

1.4 Samel 90 PLC

Samel 90 PLC did not specify the exact countries of origin of every part of the system and the
respective manufacturer, did not provide all ISO certificates required and did not prove that his
service point is authorized by the manufacturers of the proposed equipment. Since the tenderer
did not provide the technical data sheets proving the technical parameters of the equipment
proposed during the administrative compliance check the EC members decided to ask him
again, specifying the parts of the equipment.
The clarification questions have been sent to the tenderer, and reply was received within
deadline.
The tenderer provided the countries of origin and the respective manufacturers, together with
the ISO certificates and authorization letters with one exception – authorization letter for the
company Ranina, which is supposed to maintain three of the parts of the system. In addition he
provided most of the descriptive materials. Yet, those descriptive materials were not enough to
cover all items and points in the technical proposal, so laser range finder and pan/tilt head were
considered non-compliance. EC members find that there is a clear non-compliance in tender
with technical requirements at p. 1.11. “Magnification - at least 2 Fields of View”. Narrow FOV
not more than 2° and wide FOV not less than 15°” but the tenderer offered a thermo vision
camera with narrow FOV 3.05° and wide FOV 8.75°. The EC decided that this is significant non-
compliance.
In my opinion proposed equipment from Samel 90 PLC is technically not compliant and they
spend too little time and make too small affords in preparation of the offer and negative
evaluation result is correct.

2 LOT No 2
2.1 Sagem Defence
In case of Sagem Defence some of the parameters of the equipment were not exactly
specified., some of the parameters required additional technical details in order to be assessed
as complaint or not. The authorization of the service point was not very clear.
The clarification questions have been sent to the tenderer, and reply was received within
deadline.
The tenderer provided the technical details required and confirmed one more time his
statements. He confirmed that the service point presented in his tender is authorized. The EC
members accepted the answers, and considered the tender as technically compliant.

4
2.2 OIP
OIP did not provide the ISO certificate of the manufacturer required, did not prove that his
service point is authorized by this manufacturer, some of the parameters of the equipment were
not exactly specified, and some of the parameters required additional technical details in order
to be assessed as complaint or not.
The clarification questions have been sent to the tenderer, and reply was received within
deadline.
The tenderer provided the technical details required and confirmed one more time his
statements. The Evaluation Committee members accepted the answers regarding the
compliance with the Technical Specifications parameters.
The tenderer declared one more time that his ISO certification will be valid for the manufacturer
as well. The manufacturer of the hand-held thermo-vision cameras is explicitly stated in the
tender – Optronica Ltd. The Evaluation Committee members discussed the issue and decided
that this position is not acceptable, as the cameras are actually not manufactured by OIP. The
same statement was provided for the authorization of the service point – the tenderer stated
that he, as a manufacturer of the cameras is the only company that shall authorize the service
point proposed. The members of the EC decided not to accept this answer. The tender was
considered as not compliant technically in respond to the Selection criteria 2 b) and 3 b). In
addition this tender was not compliant to the Technical Specifications in the part where
authorized by the manufacturer service point is required.
In my opinion here we have the same situation as in Lot1, OIP is only selling thermal cameras,
provided from Optronica Ltd Lithyania without any substantional modification, so EC decision is
correct.
2.3 Bereta Trading Ltd.
Bereta Trading Ltd. presented projects completed by the manufacturer of the equipment. As
there were no projects completed by the tenderer, which can be found to respond to Selection
Criteria, the members of the Evaluation Committee decided to find out wether they can accept
the tenderer as compliant to the Selection Criteria on the base of Article 2.4.8.1.4 of the PRAG,
and stated compliance with all requirements of the Technical Specifications, yet some of those
needed to be further explained in details or one more time confirmed.
The clarification questions have been sent to the tenderer, and reply was received within
deadline.
The tenderer provided the technical details required and confirmed one more time his
statements. The Evaluation Committee members accepted the answers regarding the
compliance with the Technical Specifications.
Regarding answer to question 1, the tenderer stated that he is authorized to represent the
manufacturer and sell his products in the country, yet this is only a regular commercial
agreement and can not be accepted in the sense of Article 2.4.8.1.4 of the PRAG. Thus the
tenderer was not considered as compliant to Selection Criteria 2 a), b) and 3 a).
In my opinion, EC decision is correct because authorization to represent the manufacturer and
sell his products is typical commercial agreement that cannot be accepted in sense of PRAG
recommendations.
2.4 Consortium OPTIX CO
In case of Consortium OPTIX CO some of the parameters of the equipment were not exactly
specified, some of the parameters required additional technical details in order to be assessed
as complaint or not. The tender provided list of completed projects proving the technical
capacity required for Lot 2, yet no type of supplies was specified in the table.
The clarification questions have been sent to the tenderer, and reply was received within
deadline.

5
The tenderer provided the technical details required and confirmed one more time his
statements. Type of supplies delivered under the described references was specified. EC
members accepted the answers, and considered the tender as technically compliant.

2.5 CIMCOOP TRADING Ltd.

In case of Cimcoop Trading Ltd some of the parameters of the equipment were not exactly
specified, some of the parameters required additional technical details in order to be assessed
as complaint or not. No authorization letter from the manufacturer was attached to the offer. The
clarification questions have been sent to the tenderer, and reply was received within deadline.
The tenderer provided the technical details required and confirmed one more time his
statements. The Evaluation Committee members accepted the answers regarding the
compliance with the Technical Specifications. Also, the tenderer provided the authorization letter
required. Further to his answer to question 5, the Evaluation Committee members decided to
seek more clarification regarding the remote display, as some issues regarding the power
supply were not clear and because the tenderer was referring to a clarification answer provided
for different evaluation procedure. Also, one more statement, omitted in the first clarification
letter needed to be confirmed.
The clarification questions have been sent to the tenderer, and reply was received within
deadline.
The Evaluation Committee members accepted the answers regarding the compliance with the
Technical Specifications and considered the tender as technically compliant.

2.6 Consortium CE
In case of Consortium CE It was not quite sure, who exactly is the manufacturer of the
equipment, and which company shall authorize the service point proposed. The tenderer stated
compliance with all requirements of the Technical Specifications, yet some of those needed to
be further explained in details or one more time confirmed.
The clarification questions have been sent to the tenderer, and reply was received within
deadline.
The tenderer submitted exhaustive explanation on the planning of the execution of the contract
and the respective obligations of each of the partners in the consortium, thus explaining why
InfraTec ISO certificate is not necessary to be provided. Also, the manufacturer was confirmed,
together with the authorization structure for the service point proposed. The technical details
required were provided and the statements were confirmed one more time. The EC members
accepted the answers and considered the tender as technically compliant.

2.7 Draeger Safety AG.

In case of Draeger Safety some of the parameters of the equipment were not exactly specified,
some of the parameters required additional technical details in order to be assessed as
complaint or not. The tender provided a statement of origin, where it is stated that the product
has 95% EU origin. The eligible origin needed to be confirmed one more time.
The clarification questions have been sent to the tenderer, and reply was received within
deadline.
The tenderer provided the technical details required and confirmed one more time his
statements. The EC members accepted the answers regarding the compliance with the
Technical Specifications. Also, the tenderer confirmed one more time the EU origin of the
cameras.
Further to his answer to question 3, the Evaluation Committee members decided to seek more
clarification regarding the remote display, as some issues regarding the power supply were not
clear and because the tenderer was referring to a clarification answer provided for different
evaluation procedure. Also, one more statement, omitted in the first clarification letter needed to
be confirmed.
6
The clarification questions have been sent to the tenderer, and reply was received within
deadline.
The EC members accepted the answers regarding the compliance with the Technical
Specifications and considered the tender as technically compliant.

CIMCOOP TRADING Ltd.

In case of Cimcoop Trading Ltd some of the parameters of the equipment were not exactly
specified, some of the parameters required additional technical details in order to be assessed
as complaint or not. No authorization letter from the manufacturer was attached to the offer. The
clarification questions have been sent to the tenderer, and reply was received within deadline.
The tenderer provided the technical details required and confirmed one more time his
statements. The Evaluation Committee members accepted the answers regarding the
compliance with the Technical Specifications. Also, the tenderer provided the authorization letter
required. Further to his answer to question 5, the Evaluation Committee members decided to
seek more clarification regarding the remote display, as some issues regarding the power
supply were not clear and because the tenderer was referring to a clarification answer provided
for different evaluation procedure. Also, one more statement, omitted in the first clarification
letter needed to be confirmed.
The clarification questions have been sent to the tenderer, and reply was received within
deadline.
The Evaluation Committee members accepted the answers regarding the compliance with the
Technical Specifications and considered the tender as technically compliant.

3 LOT No 3
3.1 Hagleitner
In case of Hagleitner discrepancy between the statements in the tender declaration, where as
country of origin is stated Norway/Great Britain and the supporting documents provided. No
training proposal. Some of the parameters of the equipment were not exactly specified. Some
of the parameters required additional technical details in order to be assessed as complaint or
not.
The clarification questions have been sent to the tenderer, and reply was received within
deadline.
The tenderer answered that Norway in his declaration is mistake and has specified the
countries of origin as the Netherlands and UK; also he provided the technical details required,
which confirmed one more time his statements. The EC decided to seek further clarification in
order to find out whether the service points listed are authorized by the specified manufacturers.
The clarification questions have been sent to the tenderer, and reply was received within
deadline.
The EC members accepted the answers. The tender was not accepted as technically not-
compliant.
In my opinion EC decision is correct, because the tenderrer did not fulfils technical compliance
with field of view, equivalent light diameter and F number.

3.2 Sagem Defence

Sagem Defence do not provide exact model of the image intensifier tube to be specified. Some
of the parameters required in the Technical Evaluation Grid were not specified.
The clarification questions have been sent to the tenderer, and reply was received within
deadline.

7
The tenderer specified the models/types of the equipment proposed and provided the technical
data required. The EC members accepted the answers and considered the tender as technically
compliant.

3.3 Cimcoop Trading Ltd.

CIMCOOP TRADING Ltd. do not provide the type of image intensifier tube to be specified.
Some of the parameters required in the Technical Evaluation Grid were not specified.
The clarification questions have been sent to the tenderer, and reply was received within
deadline.
The tenderer provided some of the technical data required. The answers were partially
accepted, as regarding the answer to question 1 the F number can be calculated by dividing the
focal length specified to the equivalent light diameter. The members of the EC decided to
discuss the issue only after the exact image intensifier tube is specified, as the tenderer
provided again two different types, one of them not compliant to the requirements and no
technical data sheets. Further to his answer to question 2, the Evaluation Committee members
decided to seek more clarification regarding the tube proposed.
The clarification questions have been sent to the tenderer, and reply was received within
deadline.
The tenderer specified the tube, which is actually proposed, yet the figures required in the
Technical Evaluation Grid were not specified in their minimal values, but only the typical ones.
No calculation could be made in order to prove their compliance. The EC members considered
the tender as not compliant to the technical Specification.

5. Financial Compliance
The Evaluation Committee analyzed the technically compliant tenders. The offers were found
as arithmetically correct. Next, the financial offers were compared in order to identify the
technically compliant tender with the lowest price.

The analysis results are shown in the tables below:

Lot 1:

Tender Tenderer name Financial offer Final ranking

envelope No [after arithmetical
correction]
(euro)

7 Consortium Optix Co (Bulgaria) 1,968,000.00 1

6 Carl Zeiss Optronics (Germany) 2,083,800.00 2

Lot 2:

Tender Tenderer name Financial offer Final ranking

envelope No [after arithmetical
correction]
(euro)

9 Cimcoop Trading Ltd. (Bulgaria) 228,000.00 1

11 Draeger Safety AG (Germany) 264,000.00 2

8
 Tender Tenderer name Financial offer Final ranking
envelope No [after arithmetical
correction]
(euro)

10 Consortium CE (Bulgaria) 294,500.00 3

7 Consortium Optix Co (Bulgaria) 348,050.00 4

2 Sagem Defence (France) 352,320.00 5

Lot 3:

Tender Tenderer name Financial offer Final ranking

envelope No [after arithmetical
correction]
(euro)

7 Consortium Optix Co (Bulgaria) 289,200.00 2

2 Sagem Defence (France) 429,500.00 3

The Evaluation Committee decided to recommend the contracts are awarded to the following
tenderers:

Lot Tender Tenderer name Financial offer Discount Contract value

number envelope after arithmetical applicable
No correction (euro)
(euro) (euro)

Consortium Optix Co
1. 7 1,968,000.00 N.A. 1,968,000.00
(Bulgaria)
N.A.
2 9 Cimcoop Trading
228,000.00 228,000.00
Ltd. (Bulgaria)

Consortium Optix Co N.A.

3. 7 289,200.00 289,200.00
(Bulgaria)

7. Independent Evaluator’s remarks about the tender

In my opinion the evaluation process of the Tender Phare BG 2004/016-711.08.05
“Establishment of mobile units for border control and surveillance on the Bulgarian western
border and implementation of the EU best practices for integrated border control in the border
area – third stage” was carried out according to PRAG rules. There were no disagreements
between the Evaluation Committee members or my disagreement with the Evaluation
Committee. I have not noted that somebody tried to influence other evaluator’s opinion, any
unauthorized persons attending or following the meetings. During the meetings of the

9
Evaluation Committee English was used as the language of communications between the
members. When clarification questions were asked typical time was given for the answer as
shown in tender documentation. If the tenderer asked to delay his response then he got
permission from the Evaluation Committee. The treatment of all the tenders by Evaluation
Committee was based on the approved evaluation criteria or grids and can be considered as
fair.
I have not noted any deviation or change of the evaluation criteria or grids during the
evaluation process. All the time only the approved evaluation criteria or grids were used by EC
members. In several cases the Evaluation Committee decided to accept minor technical
deviations from the Technical Specification requirements. However, this decision was taken
with my full support because the deviations had no influence on final performance of the
system, non-acceptance could reduce competition and practically non-acceptance on ground of
very minor technical details would be against PRAG rules.
I fully agree with the final decision taken by the Evaluation Committee taken after long analysis
according to PRAG rules that the contracts should to be awarded to the following tenderers:
Lot no1 - Consortium Optix Co (Bulgaria)
Lot no 2 - Cimcoop Trading Ltd. (Bulgaria)
Lot no 3 - Consortium Optix Co (Bulgaria)
This final results should not cause any controversy because practically the final results
depended almost totally on financial offers.
In case of LOT no 1 the cheapest offer was from SAMEL 90 PLC, Optix Co. offer was the
second. However, SAMEL 90 PLC offer was not properly prepared and there were quite a few
significant both administrative and technical deviations from tender requirements.
In case of LOT no 2 the offer presented by Cimcoop Trading Ltd. was the cheapest offer. The
Evaluation Committee took great care to check if the offer fulfils all the tender requirements,
clarification questions were sent and after getting answers the EC members decided to treat
Cimcoop Trading Ltd. offer as compliant.
In case of LOT no 3 the offer presented by Cimcoop Trading Ltd. was the cheapest offer and
Optics Co. was second. However, Cimcoop Trading Ltd. offer was not technicali compliant. The
Evaluation Committee checked carefully documentation provided by the Optix, clarification
questions were send and after getting answers the EC members decided to treat Optix offer as
compliant.
During the evaluation process the tenderers Aselsan and Hagleitner were eliminated as
administrative or technically non-compliant. As I mentioned earlier all these decisions were
taken properly because of significant deviations from administrative and technical requirement.
The results of LOT no 1 could be potentially different if Samel 90 PLC was not eliminated but
such situation was practically not possible due to not properly prepared offer with many
administrative and technical deviations.
Therefore to summarize, we can conclude that the final results of the Tender Phare
BG2004/016-711.08.05 are fair and should be accepted.

8. General remarks of Independent Evaluator’s

Ovdeka bi kazal otprilika samo deka tehnickata specifikacija e relativno dobro napravena so isklucokna
nekolku tocki, koi bitno ne vlijaeea na evaluacijata , no pozelno e pred objavuvanje na tenderot da se
napravi revizija na tewnderskata specifikacija osobeno ako vo medjuvreme nastanale znacajni tehnicki
podobruvanja na opremata koja se kupuva .

Buletiranjeto ne mozev da go sredam ako mozes ti dobro ako ne koga ke mi go vratis dokumentot ke go
napravime.

10