Klagenævnet for Udbud J.nr.: (Katja Høegh, Nikolaj Aarø-Hansen) 5. marts 2012

Transkript

1 Klagenævnet for Udbud J.nr.: (Katja Høegh, Nikolaj Aarø-Hansen) 5. marts 2012 K E N D E L S E Bombardier Transportation Denmark A/S (advokat Jesper Kaltoft, København) mod Banedanmark (Kammeradvokaten ved advokat Kristian Hartlev) Ved udbudsbekendtgørelse nr. 2010/S af 23. februar 2010 udbød Banedanmark (indklagede) som udbud med forhandling efter direktiv 2004/17/EF (forsyningsvirksomhedsdirektivet) en rammeaftale om»fjernbane onboard ERTMS equipment«senere i udbudsbetingelser og under evalueringen betegnet»the Signalling Programme Signalling System contract for the Fjernbane Onboard for Onboard Equipment«(indkøb af ombordudrustning til brug for jernbanetrafikregulering på fjernbanen med et såkaldt ERTMS (European Rail Traffic Management System) level 2 system). Værdien er i bekendtgørelsen anslået til 1 1,3 mia. kr. ekskl. moms. Udbuddet indgik i en af Folketinget besluttet samlet udskiftning af signalanlæg på fjernbanen og S-banen til en værdi på i alt 18 mia. kr. Indklagede meddelte den 26. januar 2012 tilbudsgiverne at have besluttet at tildele kontrakten til et konsortium bestående af Alstom Belgium SA og Alstom Denmark A/S (»Alstom«i det følgende). Klagenævnet har den 6. februar 2011 modtaget en klage fra Bombardier Transportation Denmark A/S (klageren) over udbuddet.

2 2. Klageren har anmodet om, at klagenævnet tillægger klagen opsættende virkning. Indklagede har protesteret mod, at der tillægges klagen opsættende virkning. Klagenævnet har truffet afgørelse vedrørende opsættende virkning på det foreløbige grundlag, der foreligger, nemlig klageskrift med bilag 1 11, klagerens supplerende processkrifter 1 og 2 af 27. og 28. februar 2012 og svarskrift med bilag A J samt indklagedes supplerende processkrift A af 1. marts Klagens indhold: Klageskriftet indeholder følgende påstande: Påstand 1 Klagenævnet skal konstatere, at indklagede har handlet i strid med ligebehandlingsprincippet, jf. forsyningsvirksomhedsdirektivets artikel 10, ved at anvende en sproglig evalueringsmodel, der ikke er egnet til at identificere det økonomisk mest fordelagtige tilbud, og som ikke sikrer en overholdelse af den udmeldte vægtning af de enkelte underkriterier. Påstand 2 (subsidiær i forhold til påstand 1) Klagenævnet skal konstatere, at indklagede har handlet i strid med ligebehandlingsprincippet, jf. forsyningsvirksomhedsdirektivets artikel 10, ved at tildele Alstoms tilbud høje karakterer for de kvalitative underkriterier og herefter antage tilbuddet fra Alstom, uagtet Alstoms tilbud ikke havde en høj grad af opfyldelse for så vidt angår de kvalitative kriterier, hvorved indklagede reelt har tilsidesat den udmeldte vægtning af underkriterierne og reelt alene ladet prisen være udslagsgivende for tildelingsbeslutningen. Påstand 3 Klagenævnet skal annullere indklagedes beslutning af 26. januar 2012 om at tildele kontrakten for»signalling Programme regarding the delivery for the On Board project«til Alstom.

3 3. Andre oplysninger i sagen: Udbuddets forløb Følgende 5 virksomheder blev prækvalificeret den 7. maj 2010 og 2. juli 2010 opfordret til at afgive tilbud: - Klageren. - Ansaldo STS S.p.A. - Invensys Rail Ltd. - Et konsortium bestående af Siemens A/S og Siemens AG. - Alstom. De pågældende virksomheder modtog udbudsmaterialet»tender Documents«, som ifølge den endelige version af»tender Conditions«punkt 3 samlet består af (de rettelsesmarkeringer, som fremgår af den endelige version, og som viser ændringer i forhold til den første version, er ikke medtaget her):»prequalification - EU Notice Invitation to Tender Tender Conditions (this document) Att. 4: Template for questions Att 5: Award Criteria Att 5: Att 1 Price Evaluation Att 6: Complete Overview of Tender Documents Att 8: Complete list of ITTs Contract Appendix 1 Time Schedule Attachment 5: Suggested Rolling Stock Installation Plan Appendix 2 Customer's Environment Att 1-48: Onboard Data incl. TIP for all train types Appendix 3.1 Delivery Description, Introduction and Scope Att 3: Compliance Matrix Appendix 3.2 Functional Requirements Att 2: Fjernbane Operational Concept Att 3: Draft ERTMS Users Group ETCS-GPRS Principles document 11E017 Att 4: Fjernbane Infrastructure East/West BAFO Tender Document/Appendix 3.1 Att. 11 Online Key Management System Concept Appendix 3.3 Non Functional Requirements Att 1: Fjernbane Infrastructure East/West BAFO Tender Document/Appendix 3.1 Att. 11 Online Key Management System Concept

4 Appendix 3.7 Training Requirements Att 2: Training Matrix Appendix 4 Documentation Att 1: Documentation Tables Att 2: STM-DK Documentation for Onboard Supplier Att 1-6 to Att 2 Appendix 5 Maintenance and Support Appendix 6 Service Level Goals Appendix 9 Change Management Att 1: Change Order Template Appendix 10 Project Organisation and Execution Att 4: CVs for Key Resources Att 5: List of Key Functions Att 9: Working Group Proposal Att 10: Early Warning template Att 12: List of Subcontractors Att 13: Overview of Key Functions and Key Resources Appendix 11 Customer's Participation Att 6: Human Resources Att 13: Baneafgifter Appendix 12 Delivery Payment and Pricing Schedule Att 1: Pricing Schedule Att 2: Payment Schedule Att 3: Economies of Scale Appendix 13 Incentives and Penalties Appendix 14 Installation, Testing, Commissioning and Decommissioning Att 11: The Joint Test Lab Concept Appendix 15 License Terms Att A: License Terms for Standard SW and Open Source SW and Escrow Appendix 16 Process Requirements Att 1: Customers System Engineering Management Plan Att 2: Customers Requirements Management Plans Att 3: OR-Packages Overview Att 4: OR-Packages Analysis and Study Att 5: Stage Gate Procedure Att 6: Customers Safety Plan Att 6, Att 1: Authority Approval Process Plan Att 8: Customers Risk Management Plan Att 9: Customers Pre Tender Risk Register Att 11: G-ISA Scope of Work Att 12: The G-ISA s proposed G-ISA S-ISA split of responsibilities Appendix 17 Glossary Appendix 18A Subcontract A Appendix 18B Subcontract B 4.

5 5. Att 1: Contracting Entities Att 2: Example of LCC model Att 2 Att 1: Price Example for LCC model Appendix 19 Non Disclosure Agreement Appendix 20 Arbitration Agreement Appendix 21 Model Parent Company Guarantee Appendix 22 Q&A Appendices 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 7, and 8 do not exist. In addition to this list of appendices the tender documents also consist of a number of other attachments to the individual appendices that should be delivered by the Tenderers (all marked with ((red text))). All Functional Requirements in App. 3.2 and 3.3 are an extract from DOORS, which the Tenderers also have access to. In case of discrepancy between Requirements in App. 3.2 and 3.3 compared to DOORS it is App. 3.2 and 3.3 that is applicable.«det i udbudsmaterialet indeholdte kontraktudkast indeholder i punkt 28.1 følgende bestemmelse:» The requirements stated by the Customer may only be modified or changed in the appendices if such modifications are expressly stated by the Supplier in the compliance matrix and preferably also in the appendix. The compliance matrix filled in by the Supplier shall take precedence over the rest of the Supplier's offer. «De prækvalificerede afgav herefter i overensstemmelse med Tender Conditions punkt 4.3 inden for fristen herfor den 1. december 2010 et forhandlingstilbud (»first negotiation tender«forkortet»fnt«). Efter en i udbudsbetingelserne fastsat forhandlingsproces, hvorunder tilbudsgiverne blandt andet på møder i februar marts 2011 modtog feedback på FNT-tilbuddene, justerede indklagede udbudsbetingelserne i overensstemmelse med den i udbudsbetingelserne fastlagte procedure. De prækvalificerede afgav herefter inden for fristen herfor den 11. november 2011 på dette grundlag deres endelige og bindende tilbud (»Best And Final Offer«forkortet»BAFO«i det følgende»bafo-tilbud«).

6 6. Indklagede modtog 4 konditionsmæssige BAFO-tilbud fra klageren, Alstom, Ansaldo STS S.p.A og Siemens-konsortiet. Tilbuddet fra Invensys Rail Ltd. blev efter afholdelse af en i udbudsbetingelserne foreskrevet procedure, som gav mulighed for at frafalde forbehold, fundet ukonditionsmæssigt, idet Invensys Rail Ltd. afslog at frafalde et forbehold for et minimumskrav. Efter en yderligere proces med afklarende spørgsmål fra indklagedes side traf indklagede den 26. januar 2012 beslutning om at tildele kontrakten til Alstom. Indklagede underrettede de øvrige tilbudsgivere herom per den 26. januar Med underretningen fulgte en individuel evalueringsrapport»bafo Assesment Report«til hver tilbudsgiver. Minimumskrav og tildelingskriterier i udbudsbetingelserne Af punkt 4.5, 4.6 og 7.3 i»tender Conditions«i udbudsbetingelserne (seneste version her gengivet uden rettelsesmarkeringer af ændringer i forhold til forrige version) fremgår:»4.5 Reservations A number of minimum requirements are defined in the tender documents, cf. section 4.6. If the Tenderer in the BAFO makes reservations to a minimum requirement in the tender material, the tender is noncompliant and will be rejected (disqualified) and the Tenderer will be disqualified from further participation in this procurement process, unless the reservation is withdrawn according to section 7.3, 3 rd paragraph. If the Tenderer has reservations to a (non-minimum) requirement, the Tenderer shall specifically describe the scope of the reservations in the compliance matrix [1] and there specify any proposed amendment to the (non-minimum) requirement. Reservations to (non-minimum) requirements will be assessed during the evaluation under the relevant sub-criterion, cf. section 6. The relevant sub-criterion for each (non-minimum) requirement is - via the element - stated in attachment 5 combined with the compliance matrix. 4.6 Requirements and Minimum Requirements A (non-minimum) requirement is marked as R [appendix reference].000 in the appendices, e.g. R1.000 for Appendix 1. A minimum requirement is marked with an M in front of the requirement MR1.000.

7 7. Unless otherwise stated, the phrase "requirement" can mean both R- requirement and MR-requirement (whether it is one or the other depends on the marking (R or MR) of the requirement, cf. the sentence right above). In some documents the requirements are marked with an abbreviation of the appendix name, e.g. in Appendix 1 Time Schedule the requirements are marked TSR.000 and the minimum requirements are accordingly marked as MTSR.000. Some examples of requirements are shown below: The Contract, Appendix 15, Attachment A (Escrow Agreement) and Appendices 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 are as a whole a minimum requirement. These documents are not marked with MR or R like the rest of the appendices, cf. above, but nevertheless all text in these documents is to be considered MR. 7.3 BAFO The Customer shall reject the BAFO if it 1) does not meet the mandatory requirements in section 5.1, or 2) includes one or more reservations to minimum requirements in the tender material, cf. section 4.5. If the Customer identifies reservations to a minimum requirement in a tender, the Customer can contact the Tenderer and ask for the reservation to be withdrawn (see also section 4.5, 1. paragraph).«om tildelingskriteriet og tildelingen anføres det i»tender Conditions«(seneste version her gengivet uden rettelsesmarkeringer af ændringer i forhold til forrige version):»6. 1 The Most Economically Advantageous Tender The contract shall be awarded to the most economically advantageous tender assessed on the following sub-criteria (the relative weighting of the sub-criteria is stated in the parenthesis after each sub-criterion): 1) The lowest price, cf. "Total amount only for evaluation" in Appendix 12 Delivery Payment and Pricing Schedule as well as Other Prices (weight 40 %) 2) Onboard Solution (weight 30 %)

8 8. 3) Project and Maintenance Execution (weight 30 %) The Customer shall award the contract based on an evaluation of the prices and descriptions et cetera in the Tenderers' BAFO. The negotiation tenders will not be evaluated, when the contract is awarded. 6.2 Sub-criterion 1 - Price (40 %) The evaluation of the price consists of an evaluation of "Total amount only for evaluation", cf. the spread sheet in attachment 5. The weighting of the different price elements is listed in the same spread sheet in attachment Sub-criterion 2 - Onboard Solution (30 %) When assessing the Onboard Solution offered by the Tenderer s the Customer will base the assessment on the following elements: 2.1 Compliance with Delivery Requirements 2.2 Maturity 2.3 Environmental Impact 2.4 Robustness to external Events 2.5 Robustness to major Failures 2.6 System Integration 2.7 System Expansion and Changes 2.8 System Performance 2.9 System Safety 2.10 Flexibility of Upgrades and Maintenance (SW) 2.11 Maintainability of Equipment (HW) Together the 11 elements constitute the sub-criterion Onboard Solution. The elements are of equal importance to the Customer. The elements are explained in attachment 5 to these Tender Conditions and the explanations are an integrated part of the sub-criterion. 6.4 Sub- criterion 3 - Project and Maintenance Execution (30 %) When assessing the Project and Maintenance Execution offered by the Tenderer s the Customer will base the assessment on the following elements: 3.1 Time Schedule and Migration 3.2 Project Organisation and Execution 3.3 Maintenance Execution 3.4 Training 3.5 Documentation 3.6 Installation, Test, Commissioning and Decommissioning 3.7 Safety Management, Planning and Processes 3.8 Commercial Terms

9 9. Together the 8 elements constitute the sub-criterion Project and Maintenance Execution. The elements are of equal importance to the Customer. The elements are explained in attachment 5 to these Tender Conditions and the explanations are an integrated part of the subcriterion.«udbudsbetingelserne indeholder et mere end 600 sider langt dokument»appendix 3.1 Attachment 3: Compliance Matrix«, hvori tilbudsgiverne for hvert enkelt krav og minimumskrav skulle angive, om tilbuddet opfylder, delvist opfylder, eller ikke opfylder de enkelte krav henholdsvis minimumskrav. For så vidt angår de krav, som ikke er minimumskrav, kobles ikke-minimumskrav og det delkriterium, hvortil det gældende krav knytter sig, og under hvilket opfyldelsen/opfyldelsesgraden bedømmes. Tilbudsgiverne skulle som en del af tilbuddet udover en række priser, som lå til grund for vurderingen af priskriteriet, indlevere et forslag til Onboard Solution og et forslag til Project and Maintenance Execution til brug for vurderingen under hver af de to kvalitative underkriterier. I et 20 sider langt bilag 5»Attachment 5 Award Criteria, explanation of the 3 sub-criteria«til»tender Conditions«er underkriterierne til tildelingskriteriet nærmere forklaret, og det er uddybet, hvilke delkriterier indklagede ville lægge vægt på ved vurderingen af de kvalitative underkriterier. Det fremgår blandt andet:»3 Sub-criterion 2: Onboard Solution (30 %) For each element there is an explanation of what is important to the Customer. The Tenderer should try to fulfil these wishes since the evaluation of each element shall consist of an assessment of the Tenderers' fulfilment of the wishes stated in the table below regarding the element in question. For each element there is a reference to the Compliance Matrix (attachment to Appendix 3.1) and there may be a reference to the Complete list of ITTs "Instructions for the Tenderer" (attachment 8 to the Tender Conditions). The detailed references linking each requirement to an element are stated in the Compliance Matrix. The detailed references linking each ITT to one or more elements are stated in the Complete list of ITTs. The purpose of the references is to make it transparent for the Tenderer under which element(s) a certain proposed Delivery Description - based on an Instructions for the Tenderer text - is assessed and

10 10. under which element the non or partial compliance of a requirement is evaluated (cf. also section 4.5, 3rd paragraph, in the Tender Conditions). It is noted that the non or partial compliance of a minimum requirement in BAFO IS NOT evaluated. Instead refer to section 4.5, first paragraph, in the tender conditions. 4 Sub-criterion 3: Project and Maintenance Execution (30 %) When assessing the Project and Maintenance Execution offered by the Tenderers the Customer will base the assessment on the following elements (see table below). (The introduction under sub-criterion 2 also applies to the table below)«i»tender Conditions«(seneste version her gengivet uden rettelsesmarkeringer af ændringer i forhold til forrige version) omtales en række instruktioner»instructions to Tenderers«, som fremgår af bilag i udbudsbetingelserne, som følger:»5.2.1 Appendices Must Be Completed The Tenderer must complete the appendices to the contract. The Tenderer must complete the appendices in accordance with the instructions in the appendix in question. These instructions to Tenderers, are in bold red and all marked with double parenthesis (( )). All instructions to Tenderers will be deleted from the documents before contract signature. R An example of the instructions to Tenderers is shown here: The Supplier shall revise the Master Contract Project Schedule as defined in the Master Contract Project Schedule revision procedure {2} including a baselining of the Master Contract Project Schedule in connection with each phase shift. revisions ((The Tenderer shall suggest a procedure for Master Contract Project Schedule 2} which will be included as an attachment to this appendix)) An appendix can also contain guidance texts to the Tenderer. These texts are in italic and are meant as examples and/or explanatory text for a requirement.

11 11. An example of a guidance text is shown here: Guide: The Customer expects that the Master Contract Project Schedule is revised regularly both at pre-defined milestones (to be defined in the Master Contract Project Schedule revision procedure) and ad hoc as needed. The Customer expects that the Detailed Time Schedules and Resource Manning Plans are revised more often than the Project Management Milestone Plan and that the Project Management Milestone Plan is revised more often than the Executive Milestone Plan. The Customer expects that the first Master Contract Project Schedule revision takes place no later than 30 days after the Contract signature date. I et 92 sider langt dokument»attachment 8 List of ITT s«til udbudsbetingelserne er det angivet, under hvilket delkriterium en besvarelse af den enkelte Instruction to Tenderers (forkortet»itt s«) vil blive bedømt. For hver enkelt instruktion, som er gengivet samt forsynet med et nummer, er der givet en reference til det dokument, hvori instruktionen findes, og til hvilket delkriterium den knytter sig, som eksempelvis følgende: 1. Number Document Appendix 1 Sectiorement Requi- 3.3 MTSR.0 1 Heading ITT Award Criteria Migration ((The Tenderer shall include a 3.1 Time Schecept Con- draft Migration Strategy Report dule and Migra- which will be included as an attachment tion to this appendix {1}. The Migration Strategy Report {1} shall include the integration of Danish STM (see section 3.5), and the Critical milestones (see section 4.1). Further the Migration Strategy Report {1} shall also include time and resources to integrate the Swedish STM)) «Bedømmelsen af tilbuddene De tilbudsgivere, som ikke blev tildelt kontrakt, modtog som nævnt hver en individuel evalueringsrapport»bafo Assessment Report«. I rapporten til

12 12. klageren, som er på i alt 34 sider, anføres det i afsnit 3 Contract Award Criteria, blandt andet:»in the assessment Banedanmark has used the following terms to rate the tenders in relation to each of the elements under sub-criteria 2, Onboard Solution, and sub-criteria 3, Project and Maintenance Execution: Excellent (the BAFO fulfils all of Banedanmark's wishes and non-minimum requirements in the element) Very Satisfactory (the BAFO fulfils almost all, or a very large majority, of Banedanmark's wishes and non-minimum requirements in the element) Satisfactory (the BAFO fulfils most of Banedanmark's wishes and non-minimum requirements in the element) Less satisfactory (the BAFO fulfils only a few of Banedanmark's wishes and non-minimum requirements in the element) Not satisfactory (the BAFO does not fulfil any, or hardly any, of Banedanmark's wishes and non-minimum requirements in the element) The assessment of Bombardier s BAFO is stated below in section 4 to 6 in this assessment report. Section 7 contains the award of the contract.«i rapporten angives om bedømmelsen af underkriteriet»onboard Solution«blandt andet:»5 Assessment of the Onboard Solution Based on an assessment of the 11 elements it is Banedanmark's overall assessment that Bombardier is Very Satisfactory regarding the subcriterion Onboard Solution. When making this overall assessment Banedanmark has taken into account that the 11 elements are of equal importance. Bombardier have received 4 Excellent, 6 Very Satisfactory and 1 Satisfactory ratings for the elements divided as follows: Element 2.1 Compliance with Delivery Requirements Excellent Element 2.2 Maturity Excellent Element 2.3 Environmental Impact Excellent Element 2.4 Robustness to external Events Satisfactory Element 2.5 Robustness to major Failures Very Satisfactory Element 2.6 System Integration Very Satisfactory

13 13. Element 2.7 System Expansion and Changes Element 2.8 System Performance Element 2.9 System Safety Element 2.10 Flexibility of Upgrades and Maintenance (SW) Element 2.11 Maintainability of Equipment (HW) Very Satisfactory Very Satisfactory Very Satisfactory Very Satisfactory Excellent«Om bedømmelsen af underkriteriet»project and Maintenance Execution«fremgår det blandt andet:»6. Assessment of Project and Maintenance Execution Based on an assessment of the 8 elements it is the Banedanmark s overall assessment that Bombardier is Very Satisfactory regarding the subcriterion Project and Maintenance Execution. When making this overall assessment Banedanmark has taken into account that the elements are of equal importance. Bombardier have received 8 Very Satisfactory ratings for the elements divided as follows: Element 3.1 Time Schedule and Migration Element 3.2 Project Organisation and Execution Element 3.3 Maintenance Execution Element 3.4 Training Element 3.5 Documentation Element 3.6 Installation, Test, Commissioning and Decommissioning Element 3.7 Safety Management, Planning and Processes Element 3.8 Commercial terms Very Satisfactory Very Satisfactory Very Satisfactory Very Satisfactory Very Satisfactory Very Satisfactory Very Satisfactory Very Satisfactory The assessment of the 8 elements is explained below.«om tildelingen af anføres det i rapporten:»7.1 Result and explanation of the award Banedanmark have received 4 conditional BAFOs. The names of the 3 non-winning Tenderers are in the following made anonymous by using the letters U, V [V er klageren] and Z instead. The sub-criterion Price (weight 40%)

14 14. Alstom has offered the lowest price ( Total amount only for evaluation ) mdkk, cf. the Tender Conditions section 6.2). Tender Z s price is the second lowest price (almost 17% higher than the lowest price). Tenderer V's price, being the third lowest, is almost 46% higher than the lowest price. The highest price is Tenderer U's, almost 97% higher than the lowest price. The sub-criterion Onboard Solution (weight 30%) According to Banedanmark s overall assessment of the 11 elements all 4 Tenderers' Onboard Solutions are assessed as Very Satisfactory. The 4 Onboard Solutions have different qualities, i.e. different strengths and weaknesses according to the 11 elements, but it is Banedanmark's overall assessment, after having assessed the 11 elements, that the 4 Onboard Solutions are almost of the same level of quality, the differences between them being only a little more than insignificant. It is assessed that Tender V has offered the best Onboard Solution. The Onboard Solution for Tenderer U and Tenderer Z are assessed to have the same level of quality and be the second best solutions. Alstom s Onboard Solution is assessed to be the fourth best Onboard Solution. As stated above, it is however Banedanmark's overall assessment, based on the assessment of the 11 elements, that the 4 Onboard Solutions are almost of the same level of quality. The sub-criterion Project and Maintenance Execution (weight 30%) According to Banedanmark s overall assessment of the 8 elements the Project and Maintenance Executions offered by Alstom, Tenderer V and Tenderer Z are assessed as Very Satisfactory. These 3 Project and Maintenance Executions have different qualities, i.e. different strengths and weaknesses according to the 8 elements, but it is Banedanmark's overall assessment, after having assessed the 8 elements, that these 3 Project and Maintenance Executions are almost of the same level of quality, the differences between them being insignificant. It is assessed that Tenderer V and Tenderer Z have offered the best Project and Maintenance Executions with the Project and Maintenance Execution from Alstom as the third best. As stated above, it is however Banedanmark's overall assessment, based on the assessment of the 8 elements, that these 3 Project and Maintenance Executions are almost of the same level of quality. The Project and Maintenance Execution from Tenderer U is assessed to be the fourth best (assessed as Satisfactory). The most economically advantageous tender Based on the assessments described above, it is Banedanmark s overall assessment that Alstom has submitted the most economically advantageous tender. When making this overall assessment Banedanmark has taken the relative weighting of the 3 sub-criteria into consideration. Alstom has submitted the proposal with the lowest price: The second low-

15 15. est price (Tenderer Z's) being almost 17% higher than Alstom's price, the third lowest price (Tenderer V's) being almost 46% higher than Alstom's price and the fourth lowest price (Tenderer U's) being almost 97% higher than Alstom's price. Alstom s significant lead on price (weight 40%) is not lost on the 2 other sub-criteria: On the Onboard Solution (weight 30%) Alstom and the 3 other Tenderers have offered a proposal of almost the same level of quality (all assessed as Very Satisfactory), the differences between the 4 BAFOs being only a little more than insignificant. On Project and Maintenance Execution (weight 30%) Alstom and 2 other Tenderers have offered a proposal of almost the same level of quality (all 3 assessed as Very Satisfactory) and the differences between the 3 are insignificant. All in all, Alstom has offered a very competitive price (weight 40%) in combination with very strong Onboard Solution (weight 30%) and a very strong Project and Maintenance Execution (weight 30%). Based on the 3 sub-criteria with their relative weighting, it is Banedanmark s overall assessment that Alstom have submitted the most economically advantageous tender. In order to further demonstrate that Banedanmark has considered the weighting of the sub-criteria (40%, 30% and 30%) appropriately when identifying the most economically advantageous tender, Banedanmark has compared the result explained above with a score model, cf. attachment with supportive point model. It is stressed that the supportive score model has only been used to compare the result of the assessment explained above, and that the supportive score model in itself has neither been decisive nor a guideline for the result. The purpose of the supportive score model is only to further demonstrate that the result of the verbal assessment explained above (in Danish: sproglig evaluering) is correct, i.e. that the most economically advantageous tender have been identified correctly according to the 3 sub-criteria with their relative weighting. 7.2 Additional explanation regarding the winning BAFO from Alstom Regarding the sub-criterion Onboard Solution (weight 30%) Based on an assessment of the 11 elements it is Banedanmark s overall assessment that Alstom is Very Satisfactory regarding the sub-criterion Onboard Solution. Alstom has received: One Excellent rating: 2.5 Robustness to major Failures

16 16. Alstom have proposed an Onboard solution which has been designed to reduce the impact of a major failure. Alstom s RAM analysis provides evidence that the architecture of the Onboard solution includes the appropriate levels of redundancy. Further Alstom have proposed an Onboard solution which will reduce the impact of a major failure leading to an immobilisation event. Alstom's RAM programme related to design demonstrates that reliability is built into the design, including the use of fault tolerance, design margins and identification of areas of design weakness and corrective actions which is positive. Alstom optimises the use of design techniques for redundancy, maximising testability of built-in equipment and using burn-in to eliminate infant mortality failures which is positive. Five Very Satisfactory ratings: 2.1 Compliance with Delivery Requirements: Alstom is assessed to be fully Compliant to 10 out of the said 15 non ninimum requirements and partly Compliant to the remaining 5 requirements (TCR-055, TCR-062, TCR-065, OBP.470 and TCR-020). 2.2 Maturity: Alstom have provided a Maturity Table with some credible maturity levels and has declared a high Maturity level of above 6 for all sub systems not identified as requiring development, adaptation or customisation. In their Maturity Table, Alstom have stated that 1000 vehicles are in service fitted with their Baseline 2.3.0d ERTMS Onboard solution. This indicates a mature solution where each ERTMS Onboard Component has a high maturity level and this is assessed positive. Alstom state that no development is needed, but there are a number of references in Alstom s Onboard solution that describe adaptations or developments indicating that some development is needed after all. Further the Maturity Table provides no detail as to how the joint design subjects described in Alstom s BAFO or the Roll-out of Baseline 3 and other Danish specific requirements affect the maturity of Alstom s Onboard solution, which must be expected. Alstom have stated they will provide a single architecture for the whole fleet. This is a generic architecture already fitted on Rolling stock in operation in several countries. 2.7 System Expansion and Changes: Alstom's proposal supports infrastructure and Rolling stock fleet expansion, substitution and changes. Alstom provide software/data that are easy to reconfigure and parameterise, and at the same time Alstom's proposal have few limits regarding the possibility for future expansions to the ERTMS Onboard System. Alstom's Obsolescence Management system will allow for system expansions and new functionalities, as it provides the Customer/Onboard Customer or third party with the possibility to implement changes including reconfigurations/parameteri-

17 17. sations. However, the level of changes supported by the proposal from Alstom, by means of parameterisation, will not enable Banedanmark to change the ERTMS Onboard system as a result of changes or expansion to the infrastructure or Rolling stock, neither will it allow exchange of parts with other suppliers. 2.8 System Performance: Alstom demonstrates consistently, in their Onboard solution description and RAM Analysis and Prediction modelling of their Onboard solution, that its design provides a level of redundancy and robustness against isolated failures that is sufficient to meet the performance level required by the RAM targets. Furthermore, Alstom s design includes a proper level of Self Tests to detect and diagnose faults. Alstom s RAM Programme demonstrates a solid governance of prescribed RAM assurance methods, processes and activities during design, development and deployment of their Onboard solution, indicating that the Onboard solution will actually meet the requirements in operations throughout its Design Life. The governance is provided by a competent and professional RAM department at the company level, which is well defined and for which roles and responsibilities are clearly described. RAM critical items analyses and managing these has a significant focus in this, which reduces the risk of Onboard Deliveries not meeting the targets. Substantial activities on RAM Growth are included, which support a rapid elimination of systematic faults. This supports the achievement of a stable long-term RAM performance throughout the Design Life. Whereas the central department providing RAM governance within Alstom is well defined and its staffing described in detail, the information provided is both very little and ambiguous for the roles, resource assignments and planning envisaged for this specific project. Alstom s RAM Analysis and Prediction report provides a model of the Onboard solution which is clear and comprehensive. The assumptions in the analysis are very clearly identified and consistently applied. The analysis includes a comprehensive mapping of all credible failures for the whole system against the severity level definitions prescribed. This includes that common cause failure potential has been appropriately included and that RAM Critical Items potential has been analysed. However, expansions or changes to the Onboard solution are not addressed in the RAM modelling Maintainability of Equipment (HW): Alstom have provided a number of measures in their Onboard solution, including a modular design and Ethernet bus communications. Further, Alstom s In Service Monitoring System is capable of detecting failures or abnormal status of Onboard Components, and transmitting such information via GSM-R in real time to the Alstom central computer, since this eases the overall maintainability of Hardware Components by re-

18 18. ducing fault finding and detection. Alstom provides a Maintainability Demonstration Test Procedure which includes Alstom's approach to Maintainability Demonstration as well as the treatment of the LRUs on test. Alstom have described their solution as modular which allows Alstom to position their components in easily accessible locations. Alstom proposed Onboard Components provide condition monitoring information to Alstom's In Service Monitoring system, which allows maintenance and repairs to be carried out when necessary thus reducing MTTR. This also reduces the cost of unnecessary early maintenance/component changes or failures in service due to lack of maintenance. The In Service Monitoring system also allows MDBF and MTBF to be monitored and optimised. Moreover, Alstom provide Remote Diagnosis of the Onboard Components, via a web interface. Alstom provides the necessary Maintenance tools to group diagnose and present the Component condition data. Finally, Alstom provides relevant alarms automatically via /sms. Five Satisfactory ratings: 2.3 Environmental Impact: Alstom are using CrVI and PB/PBDE free solutions and are experimenting with the use of lead free solder. Alstom will appoint a dedicated person to manage environmental matters. Alstom have presented an example showing the energy consumption figure for an ETCS level 2 project at 485 W and stated they are below the threshold value of 500 W. Alstom has stated partly Compliant to 1 non minimum requirement (TCR-164). 2.4 Robustness to external Events: Alstom have mitigated the risks associated with shock and vibration on the Eurobalise Antenna and have described and illustrated the suggested placement of the equipment for each train type. Alstom states that the solution s design reduces the impact of terrorism, vandalism or other external events and have odometry using three sensors located in different places. Alstom also use mechanical protection to mitigate the risk from foreign objects hitting underframe mounted equipment. However, Alstom have not described further how the Onboard deliveries will be designed, constructed and deployed to mitigate the risks from external events e.g. vandalism. 2.6 System Integration: Alstom have demonstrated throughout their Onboard solution description that they have understood the interface types and their complexity and are able to reduce interface risks. On the other hand Alstom have not supplied any information regarding the criteria or a clear rationale by which criticality could be assigned. Alstom have supplied a compre-

19 19. hensive description of the technical interfaces with external systems, such as STMs, the wayside signal equipment and TOC specific interfaces such as GreenSpeed. However Alstom do not mention any other users in their context diagrams than drivers. Finally Alstom have stated that they are developing a system to manage neutral sections by opening the main circuit breakers on the train. Alstom showed that the integration into each of the existing Rolling stock types that are included in the delivery has been considered. Alstom s Joint Design Plan covers the main elements of a Joint Design programme - definition, specification, development, integration tests and the use of prototypes and simulations. However, Alstom have not considered the Joint Test lab as requested in OBP System Safety: Alstom have presented a solution that demonstrates they will be able to meet the safety targets as requested. The description of the activities that will be undertaken is at a very high level, but still provides details of the main safety targets. Alstom have not provided the requested detailed information about the dependencies between the activities and the cross acceptance procedures, which are needed to demonstrate the management of safety targets. Alstom are partly Compliant to 2 of the non minimum requirements (OBP.156 and OBP.471) Flexibility of Upgrades and Maintenance (SW): Alstom have provided a proposal to maintain the software of the ERTMS Onboard System in a suitable and efficient way with high degree of flexibility in respect to the Configuration Management and Change Control Plan. However, Alstom have provided insufficient information to assess if the process will minimise the impact on revenue service because the plan does not relate to the actual SW updates necessary to achieve the required specifications. Alstom's Obsolescence Management System provides flexibility to allow for modifications and upgrades in the maintenance concepts. Alstom's Obsolescence Management System will assist the OBC (and Alstom) in making the timely decisions on changes or substitutions necessary to keep the system fully operational. Alstom have provided insufficient information in The Software Development Plan to assess how support to software modification and upgrades during operation, and thereby impact on revenue service, will be minimised. Alstom offers remote download of software for the onboard RMR recorder but provides no information on remote download of software for other ERTMS Onboard Systems which is negative. Alstom have stated non Compliance with one non minimum requirements linked to this Award Criteria (OBP.119) in the Compliance Matrix. Instead Alstom offers an EN compliant process and the use of formal methods to reduce risk in large SIL 4 software development projects.

20 20. Regarding the sub-criterion Project and Maintenance Execution (weight 30%) Based on an assessment of the 8 elements it is Banedanmark s overall assessment that Alstom is Very Satisfactory regarding the sub-criterion Project and Maintenance Execution. Alstom has received: Six Very Satisfactory ratings: 3.1 Time Schedule and Migration: Alstom have provided a detailed Time Schedule which is robust and flexible planning tool that support timely deliveries. Alstom have minimized the interdependencies between the Master Contract Project Schedule and the Master Subcontract Project Schedule. However there is insufficient information to assess how the revision procedure will influence the flexibility. Alstom have left enough time to allow for changes to the ERTMS Baseline version with no impact on delivery of the Generic Design and allowed for enough time for the Customer participation. Alstom allocates more time for ETCS Baseline 3 design than required and allocates more time to laboratory testing for the Onboard solution before fitting Rolling stock which minimize the impact of train services. Alstom provide a Provisional Installation Programme which only takes one unit per class out for installation at a time. Alstom provide a Draft Installation Plan which secure that the Onboard Customer or RU s have the necessary number of Rolling stock to operate on ERTMS lines. However, Alstom have not fulfilled the requirement to fit the Øresund Link Trains with a Baseline 2.30d solution. Further, Alstom have provided insufficient information to assess the training activities after the ED Roll-out but have provided sufficient time for training activities. Alstom have covered the milestone deliverables and acceptance criteria related to the Project Phases and aligned these with the Master Contract Project Schedule. 3.2 Project Organisation and Execution: Alstom provide a Collaborative Working Proposal which is based on a team which is integrated into the Partnering Project Office. Alstom s proposal is based on the defined Meetings and Working Groups and collaborative working in The Joint Steering Committee to handle the multiple supplier strategy. However, Alstom have provided insufficient information to assess how the Maintenance organisation is directly linked to the Project Organisation. Alstom have provided a Stakeholder Management Plan which involves all stakeholders in the Systems Integration. Alstom have provided insufficient information to assess how