Call for tenders' details
Status
Submission date
13/08/2018
Answer date
23/08/2018
Language
Status
Answered
Question details
Subject
deliverables of 3.4.1 assistance in research
Question
According to our understanding of the specifications, the deliverables will engage the contractor’s liability when proposing a relevant object. Indeed, the content of the deliverables can be understood as including most of the matters addressed in the provision of expertise. Thus, rendering provision of expertise redundant after assistance in research has been performed. For instance, the term “due diligence” could, from a legal point of view, include all the points of 3.4.2 Provision of expertise. Research to determine who is the copyright holder of an artwork or an object can be lengthy. This will make the assistance in research procedure burdensome, thus expensive. Moreover, it is not possible to establish a reasonable flat fee for the creation of a condition report by the contractor or its agent. This depends greatly on the type of object and its localisation. Requiring what can be understood as a de facto expertise will lead to a very low level of flexibility and reactiveness of performance of assistance in research. It is our opinion that the Assistance in research process would be much more efficient if it is understood that the contractor performs due diligence by informing the HEH of a foreseeable problem on the matters mentioned in the deliverables. In sum, we think that, for the sake of efficiency, potential issues about condition, copyright ownership e.a. should be raised but not explored during assistance in research. Is it possible to receive a clear definition of each matter mentioned in the deliverables of assistance in research?
Answer
23/08/2018
Your question concerns The services “Assistance in research and/or searching objects for the collection” (point 3.4.1.) and “Provision of expertise” (point 3.4.2.) are two distinctive services which can be ordered separately. The purpose of service 3.4.1. is to receive suitable and solid proposals for the acquisition of objects by the House of European History. If e.g. the objects are in an unsatisfactory condition or authorship of the work under copyright is not known such information should be clearly indicated. In order for the House of European History to judge the said proposal, it should be as complete as possible and include information on the condition and whether the proposed work is still under copyright protection or in public domain. This information will inter alia determine if the House of European History goes ahead with the acquisition. Having said this, it is not required to provide a full condition report as this will be part of service 3.4.2. Therefore, the following sentence should be deleted from point 3.4.1 of the Specifications: A condition report (following the template provided by HEH) should be completed by the contractor or its agent, in order to be able to assess the condition of the object prior to buying it. Concerning ownership copyrights, as said above, it is necessary to provide sufficient relevant information to help the House of European History to take a decision or to make it aware of the need for copyright clearance. In service 3.4.2. more detailed information about ownership/copyrights is required: “Traceability, Provenance and due diligence: the full history of the ownership of the object and the proof of the legality of this process has to be attested. Verification that a valid title is held. Analysis related to acquisition terms and conditions, e.g. including conditions on the export of cultural goods, information about creator and copyright ownership and conditions for acquisition of rights or licences etc.”