Dear CETAF Members,

Since I was prevented from asking questions on the CL6 proposal at today's Governing Board, I am following up on the request of EC Member Gergely Babocsay by posting them here, so that they can be picked up by the EC projects group.

1. When (specifically) did the full CETAF membership have an opportunity to agree on a project model that requires core project members to pay the contractor a success fee totalling  180,000 Euro (3% of the grant value) and a commitment fee of 30k Euro + VAT from their institutional funds?

2. Why was this model chosen in preference to other potentially more inclusive community models that require no fees or make the contractor part of the project and thus at least partially accountable for the proposal they develop? Related to this, who (specifically) made and is accountable for this decision, and why could this not have been selected democratically (e.g. by a vote) through the CETAF membership?

3. How much of the success and commitment fees are liable to CETAF AISBL and what proportion of the liability is covered by core members? These numbers did not appear on the CETAF budget presented by Erik Smets today, suggesting the fees are only payable by the membership.

4. Are there any CETAF core members not paying these fees, and if not, how can this be perceived as anything other than core members having to buy their way into the proposal?

5. What procurement process was followed in tendering the contract? Specifically where was the tender advertised, for how long and who were the respondents? The size of the contract is sufficient to prohibit a single tender action. If no procurement process was followed, can you reassure CETAF members that the procurement process was legal?

In the interests of transparency, I think it's important CETAF members have clear answers to these questions. Lastly, rest assured that I would much rather be asking about the content of the proposal.