3 Amendments of Monika HOHLMEIER related to 2014/2129(DEC)
Amendment 3 #
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Director of the Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy discharge in respect of the implementation of the joint undertaking’s budget for the financial year 2013 / Postpones its decision on granting the Director of the Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy discharge in respect of the implementation of the joint undertaking’s budget for the financial year 2013;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Notes with concern the continuous revisions of time and cost schedule due to on-going delays in the signing of important contracts, which does not allow for the execution of planned pre- financing postponements related to the Joint Undertaking's operational procurement procedures.
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18 a. Notes with concern the on-going weaknesses related to the Joint Undertaking's operational procurement procedures. Calls on the Joint Undertaking to submit to the European Parliament a detailed report outlining the following: Out of the procurement procedures that took place between 2008 until present: - In how many procedures has a significant cost increase (more than 5%) taken place with respect to the initial set cost frame of contract and what were the exact reasons for the increases? - Which procedures suffered from a considerable time delay compared to their initial target date and what have been the financial consequences deriving from such delays? How does the Joint Undertaking ensure for the future that the set dates of contract signature are being met? - Which procurement procedures did not set a specific target date at all when awarding the contracts? - In which procedures did the Joint Undertaking not advertise the respective contract by means of a pre-information notice, thus failing to increase the competitiveness of the procedure and what were the reasons for this? Which contractual partners did particularly benefit from the consequently limited competiveness? - What procedures (besides the applicable Staff Regulations) are in place to prevent a possible conflict of interest in relation to members of staff involved in tendering procedures? In how many cases were members of staff not formally mandated to be involved in tendering procedures? - How does the Joint undertaking ensure that its internal decision making procedure is improved to avoid further time delays in tender procedures, as determined by the Court, in order to guarantee transparent, timely and lawful tenders for the future?