QUESTIONS & ANSWERS - European Parliament · 2019-08-05 · QUESTIONS & ANSWERS (4) European...

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

(4)

European Parliament edited web video and other multi-media services (4 lots)

Lot 1 - Editorial and creative strategy services and content production – non News Lot 2 - Editorial and creative strategy services and content production – News Lot 3 - Architecture, design and hosting Lot 4 - Translation and subtitling services

Open Procedure

COMM/DG/AWD/2015/732

Publication reference: 2015/S 226-410618 20 (November 2015)

Question (19) received on 09/12/2015

Lot 3: Chapter 7 of the Technical specifications writes: “The tenderer is invited to present a project for development of the future platform. This includes the architecture, applications and features that, as a minimum, match the current EuroparlTV live site.” In order for tenderers to comply, can you provide documentation relating to the architecture, applications and features, including an exhaustive list of applications and features?

Answer (19)

The tenderer is free to propose solutions that, as a minimum, match the current EuroparlTV live site as long as it respects point 8.2 Technical requirements of the Technical specifications. See also answers 20 and 21 below.


Lot 3: Chapter 8.2 of the Technical specifications writes: “…the contractor may supply to the European Parliament equipment and software which, while not identical to the initial equipment and software, is nonetheless fully compatible with it and does not necessitate a re-think with regard to the system already installed.” In order for tenderers to comply, can you provide an exhaustive list of initial equipment and software and other related documentation?

Answer (20)

All web applications hosted in the parliament are located in a DMZ. The access to the web applications is done through a reverse proxy (RP) Apache (v2.4.9). Servers are running on either Solaris or Virtual Machines executing Linux Red Hat 6. Hosted web applications are written in Java. They run on a Tomcat 7 (lightweight Tomcat). J2EE servers are not recommended. The database used is Oracle 11G, but PostgreSQL is also supported. In the future, the European Parliament considers using cloud services. The tenderers are therefore free to propose this as solution. In that case, communication with the Parliament’s services could be restricted or limited to HTTP services. Terms and conditions for cloud services are not defined yet by the European Parliament.

Is this solution being considered by the tenderers, special case should be taken in terms of SEO as the reputation of the Parliament’s website - www.europarl.europa.eu - would be omitted.


Lot 3: Chapter 8.2 of the Technical specifications writes: “…, the tenderer must ensure that the technology and tools proposed are fully compatible with the technology used by the European Parliament and are handed over to the European Parliament in such a way that future use of the applications and software are fully possible.” In order for tenderers to comply, can you provide a description and documentation on the technology used by EP, including an exhaustive list of technology artefacts used?

Answer (21)

For OS, Java, Apache, Tomcat, database types and version, please refer to answer 20. Communication between applications could be done using HTTP or JMS. The preferred transfer formats are XML and JSON. Web applications should be HTTP/1 Cache compliant.


Lot 3: Chapter 9.4 of the Technical specifications writes: “The ingest platform needs to be tightly coupled with the translations application so that when new translations become available or existing ones are updated the required processes are initiated.” In order for tenderers to comply, can you provide documentation of Translations application, including a specification of integration/available services?

Answer (22) It is for the tenderer to propose a technical solution for the Translation platform. The point 11.2 Translation platform, of the Technical specifications indicates the requirements demanded. See also answers 20 and 21 above.

Question (23) received on 09/12/2015 Lot 3: Chapter 12.5 of the Technical specifications writes: “An auto dictionary suggestion mechanism should be included (supporting all languages).” Can you please clarify what exactly this mechanism is meant to perform? Provide suggestions for all available languages? Or translate the search term?

Answer (23)

The auto dictionary should provide suggestions for all available languages. Being in, for example, the English version of the site, autosuggestion mechanism should propose English words.

Question (24) received on 09/12/2015 Lot 3: Chapter 12.8 of the Technical specifications writes: “Development of the pages must reflect the state of the art with regard to referencing and Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) (see Annex XIV – SEO). Tenderers shall provide the European Parliament with a description of the proposed procedure for ensuring that the pages of the public facing website are correctly referenced by search engines.” In how far do you expect tenderers to also cover content-related issues of SEO?

Answer (24)

The tenderers for Lot 3 are not obliged to include proposals in relation to content produced and delivered by the future contractor(s) for the Lots 1 and 2. Meanwhile, the tenderers for Lot 3 are free to propose best practise procedures in relation to content produced under the lots 1 and 2.


Section 6.1 of the Technical Specifications (page 15) for Lot 2 states that “the standard video format is typically expected to be up to 60 seconds”, whereas in the table of page 16, it says that the “standard will be 30 seconds, with 15s cut downs”. For budgeting and planning purposes, will the

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/

typical standard be 30 seconds or 60 seconds?

Answer (25)

The standard video format for this territory is typically expected to be up to 60 seconds.


In the case study briefs for Lots One and Two (Annexes XIII), could you clarify what is required under Line B1 (Editorial Approach)? The text currently reads "Provide a TTIP editorial manifesto text, including discriminating criteria to support deciding: what events should not be covered or deprioritised, what the angle or essence of any story should not be, what any innovation in production should not be" We have the following clarifying questions:

To respond to the requirement of providing an “editorial manifesto,” may tenderers share their proposed editorial approach or strategy?

For Lot 1, should tenderers propose separate editorial approaches for each of the three content territories?

o If so, should the maximum lengths of the description of the editorial approach for content territory be 400 words each?

Answer (26)

The tenderers are invited to include any information they deem relevant in their replies.

Under Annex XIII - Lot 1 - Case Study Brief, ‘Editorial approach’ (B1) the tenderers are asked to submit a proposal for the editorial approach taking into accounts the description as included under B1 and with a maximum use of 400 words.


For Lot 1 and Lot 2 the tender specifications indicate that the qualitative criteria are applied to the information included in the table of Annex XIII. Annex XIII consists of two tables, the case study brief and the case study resources. Presuming that both tables need to be completed, can you please clarify (a) for what tasks specifically tenderers are expected to provide estimates in the resources table, and (b) how information provided in the resources table will be assessed under the quality criteria?

Answer (27)

Both tables are requested fulfilled and constitute an entity for the evaluation under the qualitative criteria.

The Annex XII ‘Price list’ for each of the lots will be used as described in the Specifications under

Point 18 AWARD CRITERIA, Price criterion (it reads Annex XIII but should read Annex XII.

A rectification is available on this address: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/tenders/invitations.htm


For Lot 1 and Lot 2 the tender specifications state that “Tenders will be attributed the price criteria points on the basis of the formulas mentioned in the price lists tables (see Annex XIII for respectively lot 1 and lot 2).” Can you confirm that this should read Annex XII and not Annex XIII?

Answer (28)

It can be confirmed that the correct annex is Annex XII. See also answer 27

Question (29) received on 10/12/2015 Sub-category A1 of the Lot 1 case study brief requires tenderers to describe the proposed project team. Do you expect tenderers to identify the names of project team members or will it be sufficient to refer to roles and responsibilities?

Answer (29)

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/tenders/invitations.htm

It is sufficient to refer to roles and responsibilities.


Sub-categories B3-B5 of the Lot 1 case study brief refer to “intended distribution platform(s).” Does this refer to the distribution platforms identified in the overview table in point 5.4 of the technical specifications? Or do you expect tenderers to individually identify intended distribution platform(s) for each of their proposals?

Answer (30)

Apart from the distribution platforms mentioned under point 5.4 of the Technical specifications, the tenderers are invited to propose further distribution platforms as they see fit.

Question (31) received on 14/12/2015 On page 5 of the conditions for submitting a tender (Ref: COMM/DG/AWD/2015/732), there is a cross reference under 'Supporting documents relating to exclusion criteria' to point 15 of the specifications. Should this reference in fact be to point 16 of the specification as point 15 is labelled Case Studies?

Answer (31)

Supporting documents relating to exclusion criteria must contain all the documents referred to point 16 (Exclusion criteria) of the specifications


On page 5 of the conditions for submitting a tender, there is a cross reference under 'All the documents establishing that the tenderer meets the selection criteria … as laid down in point 16.2'. Should this in fact refer to point 17.2?

Answer (32)

All the documents establishing that the tenderer meets the selection criteria relating to his technical and professional capacity are laid down in point 17.2 of the specifications.


The first sentence on page 20 of Invitation To Tender has a cross reference to Annex XIII for lot 3, should this read Annex XII price lists as Annex XIII is case studies?

Answer (33)

Yes, this should read Annex XII. A rectification is being published on this webpage:



On page 17 of the Technical Specifications, there is a box written in bold. This box refers to paragraph 2.4 (estimated value of the contract). Paragraph 2.4 of the technical specification is labelled 'Editorial Policy and Objectivity for EuroparlTV content'. Where is the paragraph 2.4 that this refers to please?

Answer (34)

The paragraph 2.4 on page 17 of the Technical specifications refers in fact to point 4.3 of the Specifications.


On page 17 of the Technical Specifications, there is a box written in bold. We understand this is stating that the contractor could be asked to integrate the solution into the Parliament's IT environment. Firstly, please will you describe the IT environment? Next, as the scope of work is not defined, do you agree that it is not possible to quote for this activity? Lastly, any such activity will


need a pragmatic approach e.g. some services may be rendered 'as a service' and not able to be transitioned into the Parliament (for example, an international Content Delivery Network); and other services may require specific infrastructure that the Parliament's IT environment does not support. Please will you confirm that this 'pragmatic' approach will be acceptable for the purposes of this bid?

Answer (35)

Please see answers 20 and 21 for a description of the IT environment. We confirm that the possible transfer of parts or the entity of services cannot be priced at this stage.

Regarding a ‘pragmatic’ approach, please see answers 20 and 21.

Question (36) received on 14/12/2015 On page 18 of the Technical Specifications, we read the stipulation that "the technology and tools proposed are fully compatible with the technology used by the European Parliament". We are not able to find documentation describing the technology used by the European Parliament. Please will you clarify your position on this?

Answer (36)

Please refer to answers 20 and 21 above


Noting the requirement for compatibility with technology used by the Parliament, please will you detail any web content management systems used by the Parliament, noting where you have staff who (i) operate the system, (ii) customise the system, and (iii) where is each system hosted?

Answer (37)

The European Parliament is primary executing internal tailor-made CMS’s. Communicating with

those should be done by using open technologies like JSON, XML, HTTP services.


Referring to the technical specification point 9.1, is it always the case that all assets including subtitles have to be received and approved before admin staff click and publish?

Answer (38)

The ingest platform needs to be a fully automated process which allows publishers and translators to add the assets in any order over any period of time so as to build up the final publishable programme. The admin staff might decide, case by case, to publish content without all assess being available. The remaining assess would then be automatically and/or manually published as they become ready.


Referring to the Technical Specification point 9.1, we wish to understand whether it is always the case that EP staff manually must click to publish, rather than publishing content automatically? Our question is whether the solution should include configurability within the publishing process so that certain content can be pre-selected to publish automatically?

Answer (39)

The solution should include configurability within the publishing process so that certain content can be pre-selected to publish automatically. This could be the case as described above under answer 38.


Referring to the Technical Specification point 9.4, regarding management of translations, we understand that speed of publishing (especially for news) is important and an EP priority. Can you

describe the rules regarding language availability and publishing rules? For example, can an asset (for instance, a programme) be published with only a minimum set of languages accompanying the asset, or even only in its original language with no subtitles and a single language of metadata? Also, does this vary according to asset/programme category or type? Nuancing the question further, is it the case that some categories of news content must be published urgently without waiting for full multilanguage sets of subtitles being produced and included? If so, are these added later?

Answer (40)

The Admin staff might decide to publish an asset (for instance, a programme) with only a minimum set of languages accompanying the asset, or only in its original language with no subtitles and a single language of metadata. This will vary according to asset/programme category or type and on a case by case basis. Meanwhile, it is expected that this procedure will be employed mainly under Lot 2. Some categories of news content will be published urgently without waiting for all sets of subtitles being produced. The remaining assets will then be published automatically and/or manually addition as they get available.


Referring to the Technical Specification point 10.1, we read that the technical contractor will be responsible for timely and accurate saving of files following pre-defined naming conventions. We understand and accept that files created by us, i.e. encoded versions, shall follow a pre-defined filenaming convention. Our question relates to the ingestion workflow and is whether files uploaded that do not match the filenaming convention shall be rejected?

Answer (41)

It is for the tenderer for lot 3 to propose a solution that is secure, reliant and minimize any potential malfunction and blockage of the workflows in question. This would include arrangements to be taken to prevent malfunctions due to manual handling and introduction of files and other assets into the system.


Referring to the Technical Specification point 10.1, we note the requirement that each programme must store information about Members of Parliament, making reference of the official ID for the Member. Is it correct to understand that the contractors for lots 1 and 2 will include the official ID registration number in the programme metadata that they upload?

Answer (42)

This is correct.


Referring to the Technical Specification point 10.1, can you elaborate and explain the sentence 'If the assigned CMS administrator wishes so, any configurable information can be overwritten from within the English version across the site'?

Answer (43)

This means that an assigned CMS administrator can make changes in the English version of the CMS that will affect all other linguistic versions. The English version of the CMS is the default version and any changes to the configuration can only be made in the English version and should apply automatically across all the language versions of the site.


Referring to the Technical Specification point 10.1, we note that the CMS shall be built to support all the latest stable browser versions as well as the versions in use within the European Parliament. Will you please provide further specification and detail to ensure we can validate this request? For example, we do not know the browser versions in use within the European Parliament.

Answer (44)

By way of example the CMS (and website) should be working on below listed browsers (non-exhaustive):

- Internet Explorer: from 9 to 11 - Firefox: from 40 to 45 - Chrome: from 43 to 49 - Safari: 8 and 9

In addition, the CMS should be supported by any future versions of the mentioned browsers.


Referring to the Technical Specification point 10.1, we note the requirement for the CMS to be accessible from both inside and outside the EP IT network. We will comply and note the expectation that this will require engagement with and services from DG ITEC. Is this service support expectation correct?

Answer (45)

This is correct. However, DG COMM/EuroparlTV staff will act as first line support for accessing required reference data (like MEP ID’s).


Referring to the Technical Specification point 12, a bullet point notes the 'Display of subtitle files formatted so they appear as articles under the player'. Please can you clarify this?

Answer (46)

This refers to the possibility of having the subtitles displayed underneath the player as a transcript.

Please see, by way of example:

http://europarltv.europa.eu/en/player.aspx?pid=bc88d2d0-1020-4c41-8109-a52900d49588


In section 9.1 on page 20 of the Technical Specification, there is a description of the assets that make up a publishable programme. This appears to describe a programme with a single audio language, together with multiple languages of subtitles. Is there at any time a requirement for a programme that exists in multiple audio versions? If so, please will you describe how the assets are to be grouped/aggregated? Our rationale for this question is that it would require different functionality than substitution of subtitle tracks in the player.

Answer (47)

It is likely that requests for multi audio versions of a given programme will occur. It is up to the tenderers to propose a solution for this.


Referring to the Technical Specification point 12.1, and relating to our previous question above (47) is it to be understood that sometimes a programme may exist with multiple audios and that by changing the language selector in the player, instead of selecting the language subtitle, the actual audio track is changed?

Answer (48)

It is up to the tenderers to submit their preferred solution. Please also see answer 47.


Referring to the Technical Specification point 15.2, 'download platform', we read that the system should provide access to 'All videos produced so far'. Please will you quantify 'all videos produced so far' and whether all of these should be migrated to a new download platform? Please detail by

http://europarltv.europa.eu/en/player.aspx?pid=bc88d2d0-1020-4c41-8109-a52900d49588

number of assets/programmes as well as duration that should be made available, as well associated files that exist and should be made available. i.e. number of subtitle files, graphics files and any other files. This will enable us to provision the system solution in better alignment with known performance requirements.

Answer (49)

Please see under answer 62.


Referring to the Technical Specification point 16.1, 'location of hosting services', and the in-scope requirement of CDN (Content Distribution Network) services, our question relates to modern CDN services provided by leading 3rd party vendors. Leading vendors that fulfil the EP stated requirement for delivering content to audiences operate large distributed systems of proxy servers across multiple data centres that store the content globally. They serve content to end-users with high availability and high performance from data storage locations worldwide – and not restricted to data locations that are domiciled within the European Union. Can you please clarify whether the correct interpretation is that our operational hosting should be within the EU and that content forwarded to an EU domiciled CDN provider can be distributed globally; i.e. to their network of data centres globally? If this is not the correct interpretation, please in detail describe the file workflow from file creation to CDN-supported End User delivery anywhere in the world. Illustrative example: An MEP visiting the United Nations in New York should be able to benefit from efficient file download and concurrent viewing of EP content from a CDN server in close proximity to his/her location, rather than retrieve video files from a server in the EU. Where services are provided by international providers with some servers outside of the EU, please will you clearly confirm whether this will be prohibited?

Answer (50)

With regard to CDN, this will be authorised. The hosting of application servers have to be located

within the EU.


Referring to the Technical Specification point 15.5 'MEP database', we request clarification of the following sentence; '…and manually record re-use of EuroparlTV videos on other web presences of the Member (MEP website, Youtube, Facebook)'. We understand that this relates to monitoring the MEPs’ web presences and that documentation is to be as-published. May you state the delineation between the functionality of this tool and its operation e.g. should we build a database but you will be entering data into it? Does the word ‘record’, in this sentence, refer to allowing data entry or should there be some form of screen recording? Is this restricted to only MEP websites, YouTube channels and FaceBook pages or all MEP online presences? If we are to monitor, will the EP provide a list of online presences to be included in the media monitoring? Is the expectation that the evolving list of web presences will be updated and ‘owned’ by us or by EP staff? How regular is the requirement for reporting monitoring results? Will the reporting need to be one report to EP; or simply log the re-use instances within our system with no formal reporting to EP, i.e. EP will forward re-use metrics to MEPs.

Answer (51)

The MEP data base tool tracks the appearance of Members of the Parliament in EuroparlTV videos and allows admin staff to manually record re-use of EuroparlTV videos on other web presences of the Member (MEP website, Youtube, Facebook). The tool allows users (admin staff) to view MEP appearances over a specified time period. In case re-use is made by use of embed code the registration would be automatic.

See also 10.1 Encoding of the Technical specifications.


Referring to the Technical Specification point 16.3, please detail your requirement for cache invalidation?

Answer (52)

For all web pages, the mechanism HTTP/1.1 Cache-Control should be employed properly (Cache-

Control, Max-age, Last-Modified headers). In this case Max-age will act as the invalidation

mechanism.

If other data (new data) needs to be cached by the application, an invalidation mechanism, other

than a timeout should be used. For example, automatic forced refresh in case of updating the

database.


A general question, referring to the Draft Framework Services contract for Lot 3; is a firm and final 1 year commitment with expected annual extension for additional 4 years confirmed? When will we as contractor be given notice to continue or cease service provision? Will contract renewal be automatic or is there a formal assessment process or even recompete process? It may be that the meaning of 'renewed tacitly' indicates renewal automatically, but we nonetheless need to understand in detail. We read this in Article 1.2 Duration, point 1.

Answer (53)

No formal assessment or reopening procedure is applicable for this framework contract. Once the framework contract enters into force (on the date of signature by the EP legal

representative), the contract shall be renewed tacitly (automatically) on an annual basis but its duration may not exceed five years unless one of the parties objects thereto by registered letter sent at least three months before the expiry of the initial duration or before each annual renewal date.


Will any pre-existing content be required to be loaded into the system? If so, how many files and hours, and who shall be responsible for conforming the files into the appropriate formats for ingest?

Answer (54)

The approximate amount of data envisaged to be loaded into the system proposed by the successful tenderer is approximately 8TB.

The future contractor for lot 3 will be responsible for conforming the files into the appropriate formats for ingest.


Regarding existing embedded content, does the Parliament propose that links should be redirected to the new system? If so, please provide an estimate of links or actual list of links to allow us to quantify the resources needed.

Answer (55)

Links of embedded content will, to the extent possible, be requested redirected into the new system. It is not possible to give an estimate of the quantity.


In Annex XIV, SEO, we note the depth of information provided. Should we interpret this Annex as providing ideas of best practice, rather than specifications that must be followed? For example, the current website is http://www.europarltv.europa.eu/en/home.aspx yet 2.6 URL Construction Rules suggests that the site's base URL should be http://www.europarl.europa.eu/[planet]/en where we might imagine that [planet] was europarltv.

Answer (56)

The Annex XIV should be seen as a set of recommendations and best practices with regard to SEO to be proposed implemented as the tenderers see fit.


Regarding the Property Claim, item 8.3 on page 18 of the specification, please will you list the applications that will be passed over from the existing contractor?

Answer (57)

None.


In the specification for Lot 3, section 11.1, please describe further the requirement to comment on content? Should such a tool be better used during content production provided under Lots 1 and 2, while the content is still being made, rather than once the content has been uploaded and encoded? Is this commenting an instruction to the content provider e.g. ‘Please remove background music during interview’? May you provide examples of how you intend to use this functionality?

Answer (58)

The tool is 1) to be used during content production provided under Lots 1 and 2 and 2) once the content has been uploaded and encoded. The example included in the question (58) is illustrative for use during the production process.


On page 30 of the specification for Lot 3, there is a comment on measuring partner downloads, specifically 'Number videos plays uploaded by partners to their proper websites'. Please may you explain this? We are unsure what this means, and are you requiring us to create a system to track videos that are not hosted by us? We could anticipate that you require a log of which partners download which video files.

Answer (59)

Number videos plays uploaded by partners to their proper websites refer to embedded videos and not ‘(non embedded videos)’ as stated in the Technical specifications.


Noting the project duration of 4 months, on page 35, please can you provide the date you intend for project initiation, which allows for tender evaluation, initial award and up to 14 days after that, so that we may accurately calculate the project plan? Please would you also provide the date that the contract ends with the incumbent platform provider, and any other dates that you believe will impact on our project plan?

Answer (60)

The 4 months will be count from the date on which the contract has been signed by both parties. The contract with the current contractor will remain in force during the 4 months period counted from the date in which the contract for the present call for tenders enters into force or as per decision by the European Parliament.


In the Technical Specification, we read that the 'working language of the project shall be English'. Please will you therefore kindly provide a copy of 12.Annex_IX_Charte_Graphique_Europarl_2015_fr in English?

Answer (61)

The English version of the graphical charter is now available on the indicated web page: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/tenders/invitations.htm


To quantify costs and allow a level playing field between bidders (to ensure all bidders are providing costs based on the same amount of content stored and delivered by all platforms), please may you quantify the scenario we should quote for, for the encoding, storage and transmission/streaming/downloads? As an example, this would include the following information: a. Number of forecast minutes of content to be produced and uploaded per week under the new contract

b. Typical bitrate of source files uploaded to the existing system for transcoding and typical bitrate of source files uploaded to the partner website

c. Number of GB delivered by the CDN for each month for the last year

d. Number of GB delivered by the partner website for each month for the last year

e. Number of files and type of file uploaded for a single programme

Answer (62)

With regard to the current contracts:

1. To date the total size on the CDN (used by the current contractor) of all programmes and assets (web text, subtitles, mp4s, .mov) comes to approximately 8 TB. This volume covers the period September 2009 till today. The production load is impossible to forecast. The typical bitrate of source files are under the current contractor between 25Mbps et 30Mbps

2. The assets that make up a publishable programme are as follows; a. 1 XML Manifest file – Includes details and a list of all the files that make up the

programme b. 1 Raw Video file – The actual broadcast quality video relating to the programme in

quick time format. c. 92 videos files with burnt in subtitles (4 different formats X 23 languages). d. 1 Thumbnail – Thumbnail image associated to the programme e. 23 Subtitle Files – Subtitle files in timed text format with the possibility of one file for

each of the 23 languages supported by the system f. 23 Web Text Files (one file for each of the 23 languages.) – meta data files including

title and description for the programme. g. 4 videos for EPTV website ( 128kb + 384kb + 768kb + 1536kb) h. 2 Videos formats for EP archive (HO and Lo resolution)

Total: 1 + 1 + 92 + 1 + 23 +23 +4 +2 = 147 Further, there are three areas of transcode:

1. Web player transcodes a. 50 Kbps MP4 – Lo-res archive only b. 128 Kbps MP4 – Web player


c. 384 Kbps MP4 – Web player d. 768 Kbps MP4 – Web player e. 1536 Kbps MP4 – Web player f. 4096 Kbps MP4 – Hi res archive only

2. Mobile burnt in subtitles

a. 128 Kbps MP4 – Burnt in subtitle version for mobile devices b. 384 Kbps MP4 – Burnt in subtitle version for mobile devices c. 768 Kbps MP4 – Burnt in subtitle version for mobile devices d. 1536 Kbps MP4 – Burnt in subtitle version for mobile devices

3. Custom Partner Downloads

a. 128 Kbps MP4 – With or without burnt in subtitle b. 384 Kbps MP4 – With or without burnt in subtitle c. 768 Kbps MP4 – With or without burnt in subtitle d. 1536 Kbps MP4 – With or without burnt in subtitle e. 2000 Kbps MP4 – With or without burnt in subtitle f. 4000 Kbps MP4 – With or without burnt in subtitle g. 8000 Kbps MP4 – With or without burnt in subtitle


Under which area of the pricing table (Annex XII – Lot 3 – Price list) should we indicate the variable prices for encoding, storage and delivery, which depend on the amount of content the Parliament commissions and the amount of viewers watching and partners downloading?

Answer (63)

It is for the tenderers to make an estimate on this.

The budgeting of is assumed included under: B HOSTING AND OPERATION OF ONLINE PLATFORM AND RELATED SERVICES (PER ANNUM)


I would like to have a clarification on the point 17.1:

If the tender submit as a consortium, can you confirm me that regarding the point 17.1 Financial and

Economic Capacity (page 15 of Invitation to Tender - Specifications), we have to sum the turnover of

all the members of the consortium?

That mean that it’s the sum of the turnover of the members of a consortium who want to submit for

all the lots that must reach a minimum of €7.300.000 (and not the turnover of each member

individually).

Answer (64)

As stated in 17.1, in case of a consortium of economic operators, the tenderer may rely on the

capacity of members of the consortium or of other entities.

In this case, a signed declaration in which the tenderer (consortium) confirms that he has available the minimum turnover, assuring of the undertaking by each relevant economic operator, member of the consortium should be provided. The tenderer may also rely on the capacity of other entities, irrespective of the legal nature of the links between him and those entities. In that case, he must prove to the European Parliament that he will have the resources needed to perform the contract, for instance by providing an assurance of the undertaking by those entities to make them available to him. In that case the European Parliament is entitled to refuse the application or the tender submitted if it has doubts about the

undertaking by the third party or about that party’s financial capacity. Parliament may require the tenderer and those other entities to be jointly liable for performance of the contract.

Tenderers may also rely on the economic capacities of one or more subcontractors in so far as they undertake to take part in the process of performing the contract. In such instances, the European Parliament will assess the capacities of the subcontractor(s) in the light of the extent to which the latter is/are involved in performing the contract.


Reference:

Annex I – TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS, Section 8.3. Property claim:

"All applications (multi-media content, data, graphics etc.) developed by the contractor for the

European Parliament are of the property of the European Parliament."

Question:

Is the source code of the CMS developed by the contractor property of the Parliament after the end

of the contract ?

Answer (65)

Yes. Please refer to Article II.9 of the General Terms and Conditions of the draft framework contract and Art I.15 of the Specific Terms and Conditions (Intellectual or industrial property rights)

"Any results, works or rights thereto, including copyright and other intellectual or industrial property rights, obtained in performance of the contract shall belong exclusively to the European Parliament, which may use or assign them as it sees fit, without geographical or other limitation, except where rights exist prior to the conclusion of the contract. ..."


Could you please provide the number and size of multimedia content to be imported for the

handover?

Answer (66)

Please see answers 54 and 62.

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS - European Parliament · 2019-08-05 · QUESTIONS & ANSWERS (4) European...

Documents

Transcript of QUESTIONS & ANSWERS - European Parliament · 2019-08-05 · QUESTIONS & ANSWERS (4) European...