Group 1: In-Kind models in practice
ESS and FAIR (add others as we go along)
- What are the in-kind models of different big science facilities?
- Relationship between members and institutes
- Towards a global in-kind model (see also: group 2, legal aspects)
- How to really achieve joined-up approach in IK contracting?
- What are the limits of in-kind? Are there limits?
- How to address in-kind contributions with travelling detectors?
- History, previous contributions
- How to unite in-kind and €-procurement?
- Technical interdependency of IKC
Felix and Gareth, please complete:
- Functional specifications only
- Be international and write your own procurement rules: that allows geographic return
- Keep your paperwork to a minimum
- Introduce the sexy factor
Session 2 - protocol
- in-kind contracts, contributions, agreements
- in-kind models
- institutes, host, shareholder, member states
- Breakdown of contract models: structure and responsibilities
- Sexy/boring factors, geographical return
- Contract philosophy
- Equal treatment to all partners
- Comprehensive vs. minimalist
- Functional technical/scientific specification
- Geographical return (countries profit from the project proportional to thier contribution)
- Correction factor: CB-value x sexy factor (say, 0,8) for sexy topics, CB-value x boring factor (say, 1,3) for dull contributions
ESS: Institutes only get cost book value. CB assumes universal labour rates. Institutes were not consulted sufficiently on contract template --> push-back, insufficient backing from ministry --> scope reduction. Model was not designed for in-kind, so does not address the inherent power imbalance of a procurement relationship --> needs to be addressed on a country-to-country basis.
FAIR: Development and personnel costs were omitted from cost book. CB prices (frozen 2005) were estimates; partners were not (always) consulted on feasibiliy of CB prices --> individual revisions by experts were needed. Cost-escalation process is being negotiated with individual partners --> should be council for fairness & transparency. Host institute covers most extra costs. IKC come in cheaper than tenders. Political underestimation of costs --> costs "hidden" in risk assessment. In Germany, no buffer/margin is allowed (but in France it is). Pressure can be applied by restricting acceptance or partial cost book value, then shareholder will not recieve full value from member state.
Structure of IKCA
| Main body
|| Council-approved template, fixed content
| Annex 1
|| Council decision of assignment
| Annex 2
|| Purpose and specifications
| Annex 3
|| Scope, negotiable
| Annexes 4-6
|| not used
| Annex 7
|| Legal German stuff (like VOL/B), negotiable
| Appendices I - IV
|| Statutes and convention, fixed content
Where an appropriate agreement has been made with a shareholder, this can be replaced by an AFAA (annex for additional assignment) and annexes 1-3.
There is one framework IKC agreement per institute (usually).
| Main text
|| Terms and conditions
|| Technical annex(es) (warranty, scope, specs)
|| Technical and legal
| Framework IKA
What tools can we provide to equilibrate the power imbalance betweeen provider and ministry? Milestones, interventions, mediation...
How can we include uncertainty? How much and what is allowed?
ESS and FAIR model contracts --Sonia to upload/link.
European XFEL terms and conditions