Call for tenders' details

Identification, assessment, sharing and dissemination of best practices for the ...
Contracting authority:
European Commission, DG for Environment (ENV)
TED publication date:
Time limit for receipt of tenders:
English (en)
Question details
Clarification about cost-effectiveness vs. cost-benefit analysis - new tender Ref. ENV.D.2/SER/2018/0019
With respect to the technical specifications (section 3) on the new tender Ref. ENV.D.2/SER/2018/0019, I hereby request a clarification on the type of analyses that need to be undertaken. Point "1.8. General and specific objectives' states that "The identified measures shall be assessed in terms of their cost-effectiveness, (...)". However, "Sub-task 1C – Assessment of measures" refers to a cost-benefit analysis. My question is which of these is the European Commission interested in? A cost-effectiveness analysis or a strict cost-benefit analysis that only looks at the economic benefits of the measure?
The Commission is interested in a global assessment of the measures. Sub-task 1C looks separately at the costs and then at the effectiveness of the measures, amongst other aspects such as the potential to spare pain and suffering, or the side effects on the environment. With the inclusion of the phrase ”cost-benefit evaluation” as an element to be addressed in the assessment of each measure, it is meant that the contractor should look at benefits in a broad sense. The analysis should not limit itself to examine the economic benefits, but should include a more global evaluation taking into account of all the other elements that need to be considered by the assessment, e.g. potential to spare pain, effectiveness, side effects.