Report on the OMC and Outcome of the Preparation Phase of the Procurement (Deliverable 2.4)
Under the umbrella of OMC, diverse activities attracted almost 500 different organisations and allowed around 1500 interactions, such as webinar attendances. Potential suppliers were mostly small and medium-sized enterprises, start-ups (SMEs founded less than 5 years ago), public and private research and technology organisations. To a lesser extent, large companies and non-profit organisations also contributed to the OMC. The supply side accounted for around 430 organisations from all over Europe and beyond, representing 35 countries.
- Read the entire Deliverable 2.4 here!
- Read more about the Open Market Consultation and its reach
- Pre-Commercial Procurement (PCP)
- Our partners
- €2.8M Call for Tenders
Main Findings – Impact on Challenges
The dialogue with suppliers incited public buyers to better define their use cases and sometimes remove some of them. Some subchallenges were refined compared to their first draft during the OMC. The need for more clarity on the needs was expressed by several suppliers and by Aerospace Valley’s technical experts. The exercise of presenting subchallenges and use cases during the OMC Webinar Series also had an impact: it helped civil servants to reflect deeper on their needs, especially data gaps and current solutions they were having and it allowed more people from the five public buyers to work on those needs.
On the other hand, the state-of-the-art analysis (SOTA) supports cities to understand technological possibilities and commercial solutions. Buyers became aware of well addressed use cases and of other use cases that they did prioritise. Although knowing better the market did not change the cities’ needs substantially – purposefully, as we did not want to take a techno- or market-oriented approach – the description of commonly found use cases became more precise, especially in terms of data expectations. It was the case in particular for climate risks, urban planning data, air quality and energy transition.
By exploring which solutions were already implemented in other departments, cities removed several use cases because the needed solution was already there, could be arranged with other data or no buyers decided to focus on other needs. The best example is that, given the engagement level during the OMC and the strong interest in the Challenges, cities decided to take out the Wildcard that was proposed in the first draft. Two main reasons explain this choice: first, Challenges were kept broad enough and the suggested wildcard from suppliers during the OMC about the Wildcard topics not suitable enough for this PCP. Also, for completely new solutions falling under the “Wildcard” it would be more difficult to find a matching use-case owner on the side of the Buyers Group.
Indeed, respondents overwhelmingly described the three Challenges as ”major, critical, and essential” topics to address and stressed that Challenges were aligned with their expertise. However, potential suppliers showed higher interest in Urban Planning and Climate Adaptation than in Sustainable Mobility, most of the time with the intention and the capability to address both Challenges.
The last observation relates to the need for more clarity on the scope of the Challenges, notably regarding the limits between Climate Adaptation and Urban Planning. For example, during the OMC Webinar Series, the choice was made to consider nature-based solutions (NbS) as a climate adaptation solution, even though they also constitute a change in urban planning. Lastly, clarifications were requested by suppliers about the content of subchallenges, many times to detail technical specifications. Building on previous PCPs, the approach embraced and reaffirmed by SPACE4Cities consisted in maintaining challenges at a relatively general level throughout the OMC. The consortium’s stance and the nature of this pre-commercial procurement is to stimulate a wide range of innovative solutions. Therefore, the buyers group did not produce a list with technical specifications for specific solutions, but rather a more general overview of functional specifications, for example related to the use of space data,
interoperability, innovativeness and impacts on city and citizens (more details can be found in Tender Document 2 on the SPACE4Cities website).
Impact on Requirements and Selection Criteria
Several changes dealt with data-related topics. More clarification was added to the tender documents regarding how suppliers plan to collect and manage their data, elaborated information on the role of EU satellite data and services versus non-EU ones. Emphasis was made that EO expertise as well as expertise associated with Challenges would be highly beneficial. Other relevant technical topics were agreed to be discussed in a later phase of the PCP. For instance, interoperability of AI algorithms used, protocols for calibration, validation and quality standards would be discussed in Phase 2.
The OMC also triggered discussions about relations with end-users. It was suggested that the user experience (UX) requirement asks how the solution can be run without the company in case of procurement. Still on the interface with end-users, the Call for Tenders requests an explicit identification of the end user profile (e.g., GIS expert, decision-maker, workers, citizens…). For Phase 2 and 3, a specific requirement for capacity-building and training of civil servants was included after the OMC.
Lastly, the draft “disruptiveness” criteria was removed, notably considering the lessons learnt from the former AI4Cities PCP. It was deemed too complex to define and too close to the innovativeness requirement, especially after the feedback received during the OMC incentivised the consortium to work on a comprehensive and clear definition of innovation. The definition of innovation featured in the tender documentation goes beyond technological aspects by acknowledging the role of use cases, processes and end-users in innovation creation.
Overall lessons
The OMC sparked the interest of various stakeholders who indicated the need for continued support to cities and emphasised the relevance of all Challenges proposed regarding urban planning while validating the notion of the underutilised space data. More specifically, Climate resilience and Urban planning brought more attention and common traits, whereas Sustainable mobility was perceived as less familiar to the stakeholders consulted.
For the OMC methodology, SPACE4Cities found value in using previous PCP (AI4Cities, FABULOS, BROADGNSS) and CSA (PROTECT) experiences. Despite relying primarily on the results from the OMC activities, desk research was heavily utilised as it brought a broader perspective to the OMC regarding the market, stakeholders and challenges.
Putting into perspective SPACE4cities’ experience, the main effort in an OMC needs to be directed towards avoiding information gaps. Indeed, partners must not expect all suppliers to be attracted only by the Call for Tenders’ funding amount, firstly because the OMC process does not constitute a funding mechanism, and secondly because PCPs provide many non-financial opportunities which could attract potential suppliers to be involved.
An effective OMC must leverage physical events and networks to act as multipliers, notably outside of the buyers’ countries. Such networks can include clusters and business associations, economic development agencies of all administrative scales, relevant expert public authorities (e.g., in this case space agencies) and European Union-funded or EU-supported networks (e.g., EEN, EDIH, EU Space Ambassadors). Echoing the quadruple helix concept20, research and technology organisations (RTOs) should not be ignored as economic operators to target for the OMC or as potential Suppliers when the Call for Tenders opens. Either public – like universities – or private, a PCP is a formidable opportunity for RTOs to collaborate with businesses and to transfer mature technologies.
Any success that is about to derive from an OMC will result from the dialogue made between the participants, and effective dialogues can only be successful when all parties are speaking the same language. Thus, the main aim of the OMC is to clarify discussions, for instance by translating needs into technical processes and vice versa, and by drafting definitions of the PCP jargon like “Challenges”, “Requirements” and “Criteria”. Evidently, reaching for networks outside of a PCP’s core communities is highly advised. By doing so,, the project will greatly contribute to the uptake of EU space applications by non-traditional suppliers, which is one of EUSPA’s main missions. For instance, SPACE4Cities also focused on engaging with non-space sectors related to cities’ challenges (digital, mobility, environment, infrastructure…).
As a means to achieve these goals, involvement of buyers is a major tool to be utilised for the OMC to succeed. Buyers have a tremendous capacity to talk to their local ecosystems, but also to their relevant partners in national and EU projects. The latter is necessary to build synergies between EU research and innovation (R&I) projects. The PCP is indeed a proven process to scale-up commercially-promising R&I projects21. Buyers are also key to feeding the state of the art, beginning with their very own commercial or experimental experiences: an “internal state-of-the-art” is of crucial importance to connect the project partners with other (possibly technical) departments of their public authority. It will also help project partners to reflect on, collect and validate their colleagues’ needs, or in the best case, it will make operational civil servants interact directly with potential suppliers (see OMC Webinar 3).
Photo: Vesa Laitinen