You are here: GSI Wiki>IKBestX Web>IDEAAL (revision 3)EditAttach

Group 1: In-Kind models

The what and why of in-kind

Starting topics

  • 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?
Not addressed:
  • 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

Main results

Will type these tomorrow.

Session 1 - protocol

Group members: Gareth, Sonia, Marek, Martin, Sylvie, Tuomas, Felix

Starting point: review of different in-kind models (ESS, XFEL, FAIR)

Main results:
  • Ministry/funding agency relations concerning money are difficult - leverage?
  • In-kind rules should be well established
  • Contract models: host<>povider (bilateral) host<>shareholder<>provider<>host (trilateral)

Session 2 - protocol

Group members: Gareth, Felix

Key words:
  • IKCA
  • in-kind contracts, contributions, agreements
  • in-kind models
  • institutes, host, shareholder, member states
Main results:
  • Breakdown of contract models: structure and responsibilities
  • Sexy/boring factors, geographical return
  • Contract philosophy

Background work

Organisational structure

1 person from each member country (ministry, institute) --> ESS council.

Council decides everything.

Council is advised by
  • SAC (scientific advisory committee)
  • TAC (technical)
  • IKRC (In-kind review commission)
  • AFC (Finance)
  • CEC (employment conditions)
FAIR is similar, but no SAC or CEC.

Contractual relationships

See images

ESS: bilateral IKCA.

FAIR: trialateral IKCA. Member state and shareholder are sometimes the same. Shareholder and provider are sometimes the same

File:|Caption 1
File:|Caption 2

Lessons learned

ESS: Institutes only get cost book value. CB assumes universal labour rates. Unstitutes 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 expersts were needed. Cost-escalation process is being negotiated with individual partners --> shopuld 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.

Open questions

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?

Shared resources

ESS and FAIR model contracts --Sonia to upload/link.

-- SoniaUtermann - 2018-05-11
Edit | Attach | Print version |  PDF | History: r4 < r3 < r2 < r1 | Backlinks | View wiki text | Edit WikiText | More topic actions...
Topic revision: r3 - 2018-05-11, SoniaUtermann
This site is powered by FoswikiCopyright © by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding GSI Wiki? Send feedback
Imprint (in German)
Privacy Policy (in German)