Kapitel 2: Mindestkriterien
Topic: Assurance SystemC.1.04 - Fee levels
new MiK
Art.43
CRITERIA QUESTION
Are levels of all costs and fees incurred by applicants and certificate holders/licensees based on programme costs and kept as low as possible?
RESPONSE OPTIONS
Accepted: yes
Not accepted: no
REQUIREMENTS
- All initial und recurring fees are listed and made available (on request or on the website) and these are justified and reasonable.
- The scheme owner can justify that the level of all fees is calculated so as to cover necessary operational costs only.
GUIDANCE
Costs and fees include assessment and testing fees and any recurring costs required to obtain and maintain a certificate or license, such as application fees, certificate fees, administrative fees etc.
Art. 43: These criteria are particularly relevant for (sustainable) public procurement and are based on the EU Procurement Directive 2014/24/EU (Art. 43, para. 1). For this reason, content-related feedback on criteria marked with this keyword can only be considered to a very limited extent.
Christina Endemann, FSC
a) This criterion is, amongst others, about certification costs. However, in case of third- party certification, the certification bodies who determine these (direct) costs are usually independent from the scheme owner.
Please explain the logic that the prices set by the certification bodies “must not exceed what is economically necessary for the permanent maintenance of the scheme.” (I understand that with scheme and programme, you mean the scheme owner / standard setter. )
b) The way the criterion is worded right now it could trigger a race to the bottom in both price and subsequently quality of auditing.
c) Additionally, this is a criterion that will be hard to assess.
OEKOTEX(R)
We would like to raise the question where this criterion can be found in Art. 43 of the public procurement directive 2014/24/EU. Since we cannot find this criterion in Art. 43, would like to propose that this criterion C.1.04. is not considered Art. 43.
Additionally, it should be noted that assessment fees as well as testing costs are usually not a one-size fits-all but need to be adjusted to the scope of the article or the facility that is to be certified. Under these circumstances we would like to propose that this criterion C.1.04 is not considered MiK or that this issue is at least considered in the “yes” response option.
Moderation
Kommentar der ModerationC.1.04 refers to the sections of the EU regulation Art.43 2014/24/EU and the German § 34 Vergabeverordnung (VgV) requiring that the scheme must be accessible to all concerned. This was operationalized within a legal assessment that, among others, in cases where fees are charged, they must be based on the actual costs incurred and must not exceed what is economically necessary for the permanent maintenance of the scheme. Therefore, C.1.04 was matched to this requirement for public procurement.