7 Amendments of Milan BRGLEZ related to 2019/2066(DEC)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Commends the budget implementation rate of 100 % in 2018 compared to 99.95 % in 2017; notes that this exceptional result and budget execution demonstrates the Centre's successful efforts towards optimal use of resources;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Appreciates the Centre’s high-quality work to provide research, analyses and technical advice in vocational education and training (VET), qualifications and skills policies; stresses to this end the importance of ensuring adequate staff and financial resources allowing Cedefop to implement its growing and changing tasks;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Welcomes Cedefop’s contributions and expertise in providing new knowledge, evidence and policy analysis, monitoring policy trends and acting as a knowledge broker to highly relevant policy themes on the EU agenda; acknowledges the Centre's quality work on different projects, in particular the Skills Agenda for Europe, Europass, the revision of the Skills Panorama, the European Skills Index and Skills forecast;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Appreciates the Centre’s continuous support to the European Commission, Member States and social partners, and its cooperation with other Agencies under the remit of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs; and in particular with ETF and Eurofound; notes in this regard that the recent cooperation between Cedefop and Eurofound has helped to develop a common project and skills forecast for the manufacturing sector, which demonstrated the quality and added value of Cedefop's work for the other agencies;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes with regret that the Court identified weaknesses in two recruitment procedures which undermined the principles of transparency and equal treatment of applicants; notes from the Centre’s reply that itacknowledges, however, that Cedefop had already revised its conflict of interest procedure and had been in thea thorough process of undertaking measures to improveing its selection procedures in general and to ensureing that any prolongation of a reserve list would be done in a regular manner and that scoring methods and documentation of the whole selection process would be reviewed; notes in this regard that the vacancy notice model has been improved substantially to ensure increased transparency and clarity criteria;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Notes the Court’s observation that in the procurement procedure for its travel agency services the Centre should have used more detailed and adequate criteria regarding the price and quality in order to ensure the best value for money contract; notecommends the Centre’s commitment to improve the application of quality award criteria for similar services in the future and acknowledges that Cedefop has already adjusted the formula used to identify potentially abnormal low tenders; encourages the Centre to further improve its public procurement procedures ensuring full compliance with the applicable rules and best value for money principle;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Welcomes Cedefop’s initiative to revise and improve its performance indicators with new quality indicators allowing to better understand the quality and relevance of the Centre’s work and expertise;