Contract award report

Regarding tender of delivery, maintenance and operation of a Declaration Management Solution

including implementation of import processes

Contract Notice No. 2019/S 190-462423

1. CONTRACTING AUTHORITY

Udviklings- og Forenklingsstyrelsen
Osvald Helmuths Vej 4
2000 Frederiksberg

The tender procedure has been conducted on behalf of the following associated authority subject
to the Danish Minsitry of Taxation:

Toldstyrelsen
Slet Parkvej 1
8310 Tranbjerg

(Hereafter collectively referred to as the “Customer”)

2. INTRODUCTION

The Customer has conducted a negotiated procedure with the publication of a contract notice
according to the Danish Public Procurement Act (Act no. 1564/2015 of 15 December 2015)
(hereafter the Public Procurement Act), cf. Contract Notice 2019/S 190-462423.

The tender procedure has been carried out as a negotiated procedure, cf. §§ 61 – 66 of the Public
Procurement Act, as this is a complex IT system where the Customer’s needs cannot be met
without adaptation of already available solutions on the market, cf. § 61 (1) (a) of the said act.

3. SUBJECT OF THE CONTRACT

The contract concerns delivery, maintenance and operation of a Declaration Management

Solution including implementation of import processes (hereafter the “Solution”).

The goal of the acquisition of the Solution is to provide a platform that will enable the Danish
Customs Agency to become compliant with the Union Customs Code (hereafter “UCC”)
according to the deadlines in the EU Commissions Multi Annual Strategic Plan (MASP).

The value of the contract is estimated to DKK 600.000.000, cf. section II.1.5 of the Contract
Notice.

4. RESULT OF THE EVALUATION OF FINAL OFFERS

The Customer has in cooperation with its technical and legal advisors conducted an evaluation
of the Final Offers on the basis of the award criteria stated in Appendix A to the Tender
Conditions and the corresponding weighted sub criteria.

2
Matters\49286109.1
 The evaluation of the Final Offers has resulted in the Customer’s assessment that Netcompany-
Intrasoft has submitted the economically most advantageous offer on the basis of the award
criteria best price/quality ratio.
The Customer therefor intends to award the contract to Netcompany-Intrasoft.

5. RESULT OF THE SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT

Upon expiry of the deadline for prequalification in the present tender the following economic
operators applied to participate in the tender phase:

• Asseco, consortium consisting of:

Asseco Denmark A/S and Asseco Poland S.A.
Supporting subcontractor:
▪ SKG S.A.

• CGI Danmark A/S

Supporting subcontractors:
▪ Atos IT Solutions and Services Ltd
▪ Atos IT Solutions and Services, Unipessoal Lda.

Subcontractor:
▪ Atos International S.A.S

• European Dynamics, consortium consisting of:

European Dynamics Luxembourg S.A, European Dynamics S.A. and Hellenic
Telecommunications Organization (OTE S.A.)
Supporting subcontractors:
▪ DXC Technology Danmark A/S

Subcontractor:
▪ BDO Statsautoriseret Revisionsaktieselskab

• Netcompany-Intrasoft, consortium consisting of:

Netcompany A/S and Intrasoft International S.A.
Supporting subcontractors:
▪ IBM United Kingdom Ltd
▪ IBM Nederland B.V.
▪ IBM Belgium SPRL/BVBA

Subcontractor:
▪ IBM Danmark ApS

Based on the submitted applications the Customer determined that Asseco had failed to comply
with the minimum requirement regarding technical and professional suitability. Asseco had
failed to submit references demonstrating experience with operations of large complex IT
solutions.

In accordance with section II.2.9 the Customer intended to prequalify three applicants.

3
Matters\49286109.1
 Since only three of four applicants were deemed compliant the Customer did not conduct any
further selection.

Thus the following applicants were prequalified and invited to submit an Initial Offer:

• CGI Danmark A/S

• European Dynamics

• Netcompant-Intrasoft

Reference is made to Enclosure 1 for the detailed report on the prequalification.

6. RECEIVED OFFERS

Upon expiry of the deadline for the Final Offer 3 June 2020 the Customer received Final Offers
from the 3 prequalified Tenderers.

The following Tenderer has thus submitted a Final Offer:

• CGI Danmark A/S

• European Dynamics

• Netcompany-Intrasoft

7. NEGOTIATION MEETINGS

In accordance with section 8 of the Tenderer Conditions the Customer conducted negotiation
meetings in week 5-6 2020 and week 16-17 2020. Due to COVID-19 the Customer decided to
conduct the second negotiation round virtually via Microsoft Teams. Upon submission of the
Second Revised Offers the Customer, in accordance with section 8.1 of the Tender Conditions,
decided to conduct the third negotiation round on a written basis prior to the invitation to the
Final Offers.

The negotiation meetings were completed on the same allotted time and identical agendas
however with the content varying dependent on the different offers and Tenderers.

8. ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE IN THE FINAL OFFERS

Upon submission of the Final Offers the Customer completed a thorough assessment of the Final
Offers with regards to their compliance with the formal requirements of the Tender Material.
Furthermore, the Customer assessed whether reservations or non-compliance with minimum
requirements was present in any of the Final Offers.

The result of the compliance assessment was that all three Final Offers were compliant and
suitable for award.

Reference is made to Enclosure 2 for the detailed Assessment of Compliance.

4
Matters\49286109.1
9. DOCUMENTATION FOR THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE ESPD

In continuation of the invitation to submit a Revised Offer, after the first negotiation round, the
Customer requested the Tenderers to submit documentation for the information provided in the
ESPD’s during the prequalification. The documentation was requested in accordance with
sections 151 (2) and 152 of the Danish Public Procurement Act.

In accordance with the contract notice the Tenderers and entities whose economic, financial
and/or technical capacity the Tenderers was based on, was obliged to present documentation
that the Tenderer and entities on which the Tenderer is based on, was not subject to the grounds
for exclusion stipulated in Danish Public Procurement Act section 135, 136 and section 137(1),
(2) and (5).

Further documentation with regards to the financial standings was requested. The Tenderers and
entities whose economic, financial and/or technical capacity the Tenderers was based on, was
obliged to present documentation that:

1. the Tenderer had achieved an annual turnover of at least 500.000.000 DKK in each of
the preceding 3 audited financial years

2. the Tenderer had achieved a positive equity of at least 100.000.000 DKK in each of the
preceding 3 audited financial years

The Customer has assessed all of the submitted documentation and deemed that all Tenderers
are compliant with regards to suitability.

Reference is made to Enclosure 3 for the detailed assessment of the documentation submitted.

10. CONTRACT AWARD CRITERIA

In accordance with Appendix A to the Tender Conditions the contract will be awarded to the
economically most advantageous offer based on the award criteria “best price-quality ratio”
based on the following weighted sub criteria with associated sub sub criteria:

5
Matters\49286109.1
11. EVALUATION MODEL

In order to assess which Offer has the best price-quality ratio, cf. Appendix A to the Tender
Conditions, the Customer has used a difference model for compiling the sub criteria "Economy",
"Business functionality", "Delivery, technical requirements and IT service management",
"Scalability and flexibility" and "Competencies and cooperation". The difference model is
described in further details below.

The calculation of a total score for each qualitative sub criterion has taken place by use of the
following formula:

Sub criterion
Point for Sub sub − criterion 1 × Point for Sub sub − criterion 2 × Point for Sub sub − criterion 3 ×
(( )+( )+( ))
Weight of Sub sub − criterion 1 Weight of Sub sub − criterion 2 Weight of Sub sub − criterion 3
=
The sum of weight of the sub sub − criteria

For compiling the sub criterion "Economy" and the total qualitative evaluation of the sub criteria
"Business functionality", "Delivery, technical requirements and IT service management",
Scalability and flexibility" and "Competencies and cooperation" a total quality score for each
Tenderer based on the respective weightings between the qualitative sub criteria has been
calculated by use of the following formula:

Quality score
Point for Sub criterion 2 x Point for Sub criterion 3 x Point for Sub criterion 4 x Point for Sub criterion 5 x
(( )+ ( )+( )+( ))
Weight of Sub criterion 2 Weight of Sub criterion 3 Weight of Sub criterion 4 Weight of Sub criterion 5
=
The sum of weight of sub criteria 2, 3, 4 and 5

For the compilation of the overall quality score, the score has been rounded off to two decimals.

6
Matters\49286109.1
 All of the offers have been compiled, cf. below, in order to assess the advantages of the offers
in relation to the award criteria.

When compiling the offers, the advantages of the offers has been assessed in relation to that of
the offers that have achieved the highest overall quality score.

This means that when compiling two offers the percentage difference of the offers has been
calculated by the following formula "percentage difference = (y-x)/x", and where "x" and "y"
represent the compiled offers respective quality score or evaluation technical price depending
on the current evaluation criterion, "x" will represent that of the two offers that have achieved
the lowest overall quality score. This also applies when "x" represents the offered evaluation
technical price for the particular offer, and regardless of whether "y" is greater than "x" in the
compiling of "Economy".

If the weighted percentage difference in the evaluation of "Quality" for an offer exceeds the
weighted percentage difference of "Economy", the offer that has the best quality of the two
compiled offers will be considered to have the best price-quality ratio.

If the weighted percentage difference in the evaluation of "Quality" for an offer does not exceed
the weighted percentage difference of "Economy", the offer that has offered the lowest
evaluation technical price of two compiled offers will be considered to have the best price-
quality ratio.

In the compiling of the percentage differences of "Quality" and "Economy" percentage

differences has been rounded off to two decimals.

12. EVALUATION OF “QUALITY”

For the evaluation of the qualitative sub criteria and associated sub sub criteria the Customer
has used the below point scale from 0 – 10:

Point Wording Description

No fulfilment No fulfilment is given where the Tenderer's reply does not
0 meet the requested requirements / solution is not described.

Extremely poor Extremely poor assessment is given for a reply that

assessment illustrates a completely unacceptable fulfilment of what is
desired by the Customer. The reply does not critically
1
relate to the information that is requested, and / or the
elements of the solution are extremely poorly described.

Very poor assessment Very poor assessment is given for a reply that illustrates a
very poor fulfilment of what is desired by the Customer.
The reply does not critically relate to the information that
2
is requested, and / or the elements of the solution are very
poorly described.

Poor assessment Poor assessment is given where for a reply that illustrates
3
a poor fulfilment of what is desired by the Customer. The

7
Matters\49286109.1
 reply lacks essential parts of the information requested, and
/ or the elements of the solution are poorly described.

Under average Under average assessment is given for a reply that

assessment illustrates a less than acceptable fulfilment of what is
desired by the Customer. The reply lacks essential parts of
4
the requested information, and / or the elements of the
solution are unclearly described.

Average assessment Average assessment is given for a reply that illustrates an

acceptable fulfilment of what is desired by the Customer.
The reply lacks some of the information requested. The
5
description of the elements of the solution appears less
well-grounded and in some places unclear.

Above average Above average assessment is given for a reply that

assessment illustrates a more than acceptable degree of fulfilment of
what is desired by the Customer. The reply lacks some of
6 the information that is requested but not essential parts of
it. Most of the description of the elements of the solution is
well-founded and understandable.

Good assessment Good assessment is given for a reply that illustrates a good
fulfilment of what is desired by the Customer. The reply
contains far most of the information requested. The
7
description of the elements of the solution is well-founded
and understandable.

Very good assessment Very good assessment is given for a reply that illustrates
a very good fulfilment of what is desired by the Customer.
The reply lacks only a few of the information that is
8
requested. The description of the elements of the solution
is very well-founded and understandable.

Extremely good Extremely good assessment is given for a reply that

assessment illustrates an extremely good fulfilment of what is desired
by the contraction authority. The reply lacks only very few
9 of the information that is requested. The description of the
elements of the solution is elaborated, very well-founded
and understandable.

The best possible The best possible assessment is given for a reply that
assessment illustrates the best possible fulfilment of what is desired by
the Customer. All the information that is requested is
10 described in an elaborate, very well-founded and
understandable way and the description of the elements of
the solution illustrates that the Customer's desires are
fulfilled in the best conceivable way.

8
Matters\49286109.1
13. EVALUATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL OFFERS

The Customer has conducted an evaluation of the individual offers fulfilment of the
requirements of the Tender Material.

Reference is made to Enclosure 4 for the detailed Evaluation Report containing the assessment
and justifications in relation to the assessment of the Tenderer’s reply to the competitive
requirements, sub sub criteria and sub criteria.

14. RESULT OF THE EVALUTION

CGI Danmark European Netcompany-

Criteria Weighting
A/S Dynamics Intrasoft

Economy 20%

DKK DKK DKK

Evaluation technical price 100% 233.297.332,00

Capitalization of the DKK DKK DKK

Supplier’s prerequisities 100% 0,00 0,00 0,00

Business functionality 25% 1,68 1,80 2,03

Ability to accommodate 80% 6,40

goals and requirements

Support of business 10% 0,80

processes

Usability 10% 0,90

Delivery, technical 25% 1,76 1,68 1,93

requirements and IT
service management

Methods and time schedule 30% 2,71

Test and documentation 10% 0,90

Quality of the technical 40% 2,76

solution

Maintenance, service level 20% 1,36

and operations

Scalability and flexibility 15% 0,98 1,05 1,17

9
Matters\49286109.1
 Roadmap and flexibility in 30% 2,70
the Solution

Scalability for TICo, 50% 3,50

operation setup and the
Solution

Export and Transit 20% 1,60

Competencies and 15% 0,83 0,89 1,07

cooperation

Competencies 80% 5,60

Organisation 20% 1,56

Quality score 5,25 5,42 6,20

15. COMPILING OF OFFERS:

Compiling of Netcompany-Intrasoft and CGI Danmark A/S:

The quality score of Netcompany-Intrasoft is 18,10 % better than the quality score of CGI
Danmark A/S ((6,20–5,25))/5,25 = 0,1810 = 18,10 %). Netcompany-Intrasoft has further
offered an evaluation technical price that is % lower than CGI Danmark A/S
= = %) equal to a weighted percentage
difference of "Economy" of % * %= %).

Given that Netcompany-Intrasoft has achieved a quality score that is 18,10 % better than CGI
Danmark A/S and has offered an evaluation technical price that is lower, Netcompany-Intrasoft
compared to CGI Danmark A/S has offered the best ratio between price and quality

Compiling of Netcompany-Intrasoft and European Dynamics:

The quality score of Netcompany-Intrasoft is 14,39% better than the quality score of European
Dynamics ((6,20–5,42))/5,42 = 0,1439 = 14,39 %). Netcompany-Intrasoft has further offered
an evaluation technical price that is % lower than European Dynamics
= = %) equal to a weighted percentage difference of
"Economy" of % * %= %).

Given that Netcompany-Intrasoft has achieved a quality score that is 14,39 % better than
European Dynamics and has offered an evaluation technical price that is lower, Netcompany-
Intrasoft compared to European Dynamics has offered the best ratio between price and quality.

Compiling of European Dynamics and CGI Danmark A/S

The quality score of European Dynamics is 3,24 % better than the quality score of CGI Danmark
A/S ((5,42– 5,25))/5,25 = 0,3238 = 3,24 %). European Dynamics has further offered an

10
Matters\49286109.1
 evaluation technical price that is % lower than CGI Danmark A/S
= = %) equal to a weighted percentage difference of
"Economy" of % * %= %).

Given that European Dynamics has achieved a quality score that is 3,14 % better than CGI
Danmark A/S and has offered an evaluation technical price that is lower, European Dynamics
compared to CGI Danmark A/S has offered the best ratio between price and quality.

Collective evaluation

Since the offer from Netcompany-Intrasoft has achieved a higher quality score and includes a
lower evaluation technical price compared to both CGI Danmark A/S and European Dynamics,
Netcompany-Intrasoft has offered the best quality-price ratio.

16. ASSESMENT OF ABNORMALLY LOW OFFERS

In continuation of the evaluation of “Economy” and the submitted Evaluation Technical Prices
the Customer has assessed the individual prices submitted in order to assess whether the
submitted offers appear abnormally low.

The Customer has assessed that none of the Tenderer’s have submitted abnormally low offers.

17. STANDSTILL-PERIOD AND AWARD OF CONTRACT

According to the Danish Act on The Complaints Board for Public Procurement (Act no. 593 of
2 June 2016) the Customer is obliged to comply with a standstill-period of 10 calendar days
calculated from the day following the electronic sending of this letter. The standstill-period
expires 29 June 2020, after which the Customer intends to sign the Agreement with
Netcompany-Intrasoft.

The Customer intends to sign the Agreement on 1 July 2020.

11
Matters\49286109.1