Linkedin Envelope

FAQs

Here you will find the common question about the suHCO PCP project. Any updates to the FAQ will be summarised here. Similarly, the questions received from any supplier, not covered here yet, will be added to the FAQs.

If you have any additional questions or feedback, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us at suhco@empirica.com.

General

The project aims to develop an AI-powered horizontal digital planning and execution-driven system enabling the healthcare sector to become more sustainable and circular. See for more detail the pitch deck.

Just submit a quick form and we will publish your organisation within 2 working days on our Follower page.

Followers are health and care organisations, public procurers, regional authorities, ministries, (non-)governmental organisations, projects/clusters and other health and/or sustainability stakeholders that share the suHCO challenge. Benefits include insights into the solutions, access to testing in Phase III, procurement clause examples and financial support to visit pilot sites. Find out more.

Keep an eye on the project website, subscribe to the newsletter and follow the project on LinkedIn.

suHCO Challenge

Patients are not expected to be primary end-users of the solution. The focus is on organisational and operational stakeholders within healthcare systems. However, the organisational building block (see Common Challenge) does include improving interaction between healthcare stakeholders where this supports sustainability objectives. Further details will be provided in Challenge Brief.

Specific requirements regarding the challenge will be shared in the Challenge Brief.

We will involve the procurers’ IT departments during the Challenge Brief development so that integration requirements are well prepared. As the solution sought in suHCO is intended to be standalone and not patient-facing, the integration complexity is expected to be limited.

PCP

PCP is a form of public procurement of R&D services. It challenges industry to develop innovative solutions and provides an initial customer reference. PCP enables procurers to compare potential solutions and select the best. More information on our PCP page and pitch deck.

PCP is implemented in three phases: Phase I focuses on solution design and selecting an initial set of suppliers; Phase II covers prototype development; Phase III scales up the solution based on previous iterations. More information on our PCP page and pitch deck.

Traditional procurement often does not involve exchange with the market. suHCO holds open market consultations and invites for feedback, but tender specifications are not designed jointly with the market. More information on our PCP page and pitch deck.

EU legislation is leading. Spanish tender regulations are compliant with EU legislation. Details will be set out in the Call for Tenders.

suHCO supports the pre‑commercial development. The IP remains with suppliers provided they commercialise their products or services. If they do not commercialise within four years, procurers gain access to the IP. The risk–benefit sharing arrangement is defined in the PCP Framework Agreement (to come). More information on our PCP page and pitch deck.

Phase IV lies outside the scope of suHCO, so the responsibility for further commercialising the product rests with suppliers. Suppliers are expected to work on their commercialisation strategy during Phase I-III, for which we will offer support and provide feedback. See the PCP timeline for a full overview.

Tendering process

The tender is launched in July 2026 and published on PSCP (Catalan Procurement Portal)

The submission deadline is 9th October and the tender evaluation is expected to be completed in November 2026. Details on the submission are explained in tender webinars, recordings of which are available under events page.

Only solutions not yet on the market may participate. The solution must include something discernibly new compared with existing offerings, although existing components and technologies may be used.

The Evaluation Committee, nominated by the procurers, selects suppliers. Each procurer has one vote.

Towards the end of each phase, suppliers submit an updated offer. The evaluation procedure described above is repeated and the procurers’ evaluations are consolidated.

The 1) exclusion criteria (2) selection criteria, (3) on-off award criteria and (4) technical weighted award criteria will be detailed in the tender documents. The European Commission does not take part in evaluations. Each procurer evaluates the offers, and results are consolidated.

Access is limited to the Evaluation Committee on a need-to-know basis, and materials are stored and managed securely. Confidential information will not be disclosed or used outside the purpose of evaluating proposals, including after the process concludes and the people involved are made sure to sign NDAs. These arrangements are formalised and monitored through the project’s Data Management Plan, prepared in accordance with the European Commission template and will be made available as a public project deliverable.

Consortia and partners

There is no requirement for geographic diversity.

Ukraine is a Horizon Europe Associated Country and thus eligible. Potential risks should be addressed.

There are no specific rules for consortium composition. Members can structure their consortium based on needs and capabilities, and many previous PCPs have been supplied by SMEs.

There are no rules for consortium structure; members can form it according to their needs and capabilities.

No. There are no turnover constraints; the consortium must simply demonstrate that it can successfully execute the project.

A single entity may submit a tender or join a consortium with subcontractors.

Experience can improve the quality of a tender. The Selection Criteria in the Call for Tenders (to come) will provide further detail.

Changes of partners are subject to strict conditions. Rules for subcontractors are more flexible. If subcontractors are not yet identified, the selection approach should be described in your technical offer (TD6, template co come).

suHCO cannot provide advice on participation. Interested parties should attend open market consultation events or review the documentation to assess their suitability.

Yes, provided no conflict of interest arises with the procurers represented in the Buyers Group. Participation must also comply with EU funding rules and must not result in double financing or breach EU State aid rules.

The challenge is open to all operators established in the EU or in Horizon Europe associated countries on equal terms, regardless of size, or governance structure. At least 50 % of the R&D work must be performed in those countries.

The call for tenders is restricted to entities established in EU Member States or Horizon Europe Associated Countries. This requirement applies to subcontractors as well.

Financial

A preliminary overview is provided on the PCP page. “Supplier” refers to the entire consortium. The consortium may distribute the budget internally.

The total budget for each phase is divided by the number of suppliers; this establishes the ceiling for offers.

Payments for each PCP phase depend on satisfactorily completed deliverables and milestones. The payment schedule in the Call for Tenders (to come) may include pre‑financing for Phases II and III.

No. The Lead Procurer (Consorci de Salut i d’Atencio Social de Catalunya, CSC) manages the budget.

If accepting public funds would result in double financing or violate EU state‑aid rules, the tenderer will be excluded.

As long as the overall budget permits, selecting more suppliers than anticipated in each phase would be possible. Please note that the number of suppliers per phase is still provisional.

There is no uniform tool. The compensation should reflect your assessment of market potential and risks.

No. The amount affects only the overall price. The tender uses a quality–price ratio of 80–20 %.

Staff that cannot be named individually and instead represent a role or category—such as an IT administrator—are not principal R&D staff. They are not accompanied by a CV.

Tender documents

They are not involved.

All documentation will be in English.

No

Technical offer

Suppliers may design the work plan according to their methodology, provided it is sound, complete and convincing. Development across the technical sub‑criteria continues across phases. The original tender must cover all phases, but planning can be refined with each call‑off.

suHCO aims to address all stages of procurement, including those where procurement departments are normally uninvolved, because circular principles can be applied at any stage.

No

Confirmed. This does not relax the requirement that the model(s) and all data generated are hosted within the EU27, nor the participation requirements or the criterion on the place of performance. A component or service from a provider established outside the EU may therefore be used only if it also meets these requirements.

The suHCO solution does not process patient or clinical data. It will use organisational and operational data of the Procurers, such as past procurement and contracts, waste volumes, and energy and resource consumption. The Procurers will prepare these datasets for the Suppliers and will not share personal data. The solution must nevertheless implement adequate data protection and cybersecurity measures in line with relevant regulations.

The three Procurers have different organisational set-ups and IT environments. The solution is expected to integrate with each of them through standardised interfaces.

No specific deployment model is prescribed or preferred. Suppliers may use existing AI models or develop their own and may choose how the solution is hosted and operated, provided that the architecture complies with the tender requirements. In particular, all data generated must be hosted within the EU27, and no copies may be transferred outside the EU27.

The Procurers will not provide hosting infrastructure, compute capacity, or AI model/API subscriptions. Testing in Phase III will be carried out on operational systems provided by the Suppliers. Therefore, all costs for infrastructure, hosting, AI inference/token consumption, licences and data integration required to deliver the R&D services in each phase must be included in the offered price.

The Procurers’ contribution is limited to providing the relevant data and access for integration. If components are proposed to run within a Procurer’s environment, such as a local connector or pre-processing/anonymisation agent, these must be described in the offer and all associated costs included. Such components are subject to approval by the respective Procurer’s IT security function. The Procurers remain data controllers for their data at all times.

Yes. A single tenderer that is a private company only needs to complete and submit the European Commission “Identification Form – Private Law Body” once.

Yes. An extract from the trade register and a bank statement are sufficient as supporting documents.

Section 2 of TD5 contains the identification information, while the completed Identification Form and supporting documents can be included as annexes. The specific placement of these documents within TD5 is up to the tenderer.

Ideally, TD3a and TD3b can be included within TD5. However, it is also acceptable to keep them as separate documents. In this case, TD3a, TD3b and TD5 must be included together in the same Administrative Envelope (Envelope A).

Yes. The keywords required for Envelopes B and C are part of the security mechanism of the PSCP/Sobre Digital platform. They are used to encrypt the submitted documents and are subsequently required to decrypt them. Tenderers must retain these keywords, as they are not accessible to the contracting authority or the platform support service.

Clicking “Close tender” is not the final step of the submission process. After closing the tender, the tenderer must validate the information provided and generate the corresponding tender summary, which is generated automatically. This summary must then be signed and submitted through the platform to complete the final submission of the tender. Tenderers should ensure that they complete the subsequent steps and receive confirmation of the final submission.

The “Economic operator guide tender submission” is available as a PDF under the “Documentation” section of the PSCP tender page.

Yes. Technical questions are permitted until the day of submission

No. In Phase II, each prototype will be tested at every Procurer site. Likewise, in Phase III, pilot testing will take place at every Procurer site. Therefore, prototype testing is not limited to one region per supplier. Further details on the concrete steps for prototype and pilot testing will be provided as the project progresses through the phases.

.

Tenderers are advised to set aside travel costs in their budgets for prototype and pilot site testing in Phases II and III, as these activities require in-person presence. Further details on the concrete steps for prototype testing will be provided as the project progresses.

Each member of a joint tender must submit the Identification Form in the version corresponding to its legal status (Natural Person, Private Companies or Public Law Body), together with supporting evidence of its legal identity, e.g. an extract from the company register and VAT registration. As before, subcontractors do not need to submit the Identification Form.

Yes. Only the Lead Contractor should complete the banking details section of the Identification Form and provide the related supporting bank evidence, e.g. a recent bank statement. Co-contractors should complete only the organisation identification section, sign the form and provide the supporting legal-identity evidence. They should leave the banking details section blank.

The rule in TD1 §3.4.1(E) applies. In Section 1 of TD3b, the bidder declares compliance with the on/off criteria “set out under section 3.4.1 of the Call for Tenders”, and question 1.5 is to be read accordingly.

Dependency on a provider established outside the EU or Horizon Europe associated countries leads to exclusion only where it undermines the procurers’ ability to maintain, operate, modify or transfer the solution independently. Where the architecture demonstrably preserves that ability, “Yes” may be answered.

For each provider, tenderers should state both the contracting entity and its ultimate parent company, together with the country of establishment of each. Compliance with Criterion E is not determined by nationality alone, but by the effect of the dependency on the procurers’ ability to maintain, operate, modify or transfer the solution independently.

All data processed by the solution, including prompts, outputs and training or fine-tuning data, must be stored and processed within the EU Member States or Horizon Europe associated countries, and no copies may be held elsewhere. Ancillary processing outside this area, such as provider support access, security monitoring or service metadata, is acceptable only where it is covered by GDPR safeguards, does not involve storing copies of solution data, and is declared in the tender. Hyperscale cloud and AI providers are therefore not excluded where they operate the relevant services from data centres within this area. Where the scoring rules refer to storage “within the EU27”, this should be read as “within the EU Member States or Horizon Europe associated countries”.

Yes. From Phase I, the Buyers Group will facilitate access to relevant staff at each pilot site and will participate in Co-Design sessions as active stakeholders. The tender documents deliberately do not prescribe a specific number of sessions or hours of staff time. Tenderers should describe the frequency, format and governance of Co-Design in their work plan, with Co-Design sessions shown as explicit tasks. Sessions may be on-site, remote or both, as proposed by the tenderer. The plan should be realistic for a Phase I of approximately four months and take into account the limited availability of front-line staff.

The target is WCAG 2.2 AA, or the equivalent standard in force at the time of deployment. The solution must be web-browser-based and must not require specialist local software. The tender documents do not prescribe specific device classes, but a responsive interface usable on desktop, tablet and mobile browsers is expected. Specific device constraints at the pilot sites will be clarified during Co-Design. Alignment with a particular national design system is not required. Language requirements are set out in TD2 §4.1.

Human-in-the-loop is required by design for every AI-supported recommendation, particularly where it may influence clinical, regulatory, financial, procurement or organisational decisions. The granularity of approval is not prescribed. Approval at workflow or document level is acceptable if the user can see and change each AI-generated element before approval and the approval is recorded in the auditable trail. Source transparency and indicators of evidence strength are mandatory (cf. INF-01 and INF-04). Confidence indicators are required where appropriate. How these elements are presented in the interface is up to the tenderer.

For Phase I, only a written solution/description is required. Documented concepts and wireframes are sufficient. Clickable prototypes are permitted but are not required, and working software is not expected. Phase I results will be evaluated by the Buyers Group against the successful-completion criteria, and not necessarily by end users.

The data to be integrated is organisational data, not patient data. The data landscape differs between sites, and relevant data may be incomplete, distributed across several systems or held on paper. The solution must therefore support documented APIs, structured data exchange and file-based import/export, and accommodate data held in spreadsheets, local tools, legacy systems or manual records. Interoperability with identity/SSO systems forms part of the requirements. Single Sign-On through the HCOs’ identity providers is expected where the site offers it. The specific systems to be connected at each site, the form in which data will be available and the relevant approval route will be established during Co-Design. Access approval rests with each HCO’s IT function (GEN-04).

Baseline data available at the Procurers will be shared where data protection allows. KPIs are defined at solution level and measured at each pilot site. Site-specific targets will be agreed during Co-Design. This PCP does not include a PPI. Phase III results will provide the basis for a separate follow-up procurement.

The current practice at each site, the roles involved and the related baselines will be established during Phase I Co-Design.

The solution is not limited to options already on the market. Supporting the supply side is in scope through the supplier engagement tier: HCOs can publish forward procurement intent, run pre-tender market consultations, share evolving criteria and receive structured supplier responses, enabling SMEs and social-economy actors to position themselves alongside established suppliers.

Supplier engagement before tendering (ORG-02) is also in scope, within the limits of procurement law. The solution does not itself create supply. It helps the procurer engage and develop the market lawfully.

The spend categories for each pilot are not predetermined. They will be agreed during Co-Design, based on each procurer’s purchasing profile.

CAM are mandatory wherever a CAM decree applies to the purchase. Which CAM apply to the EnEA pilot will depend on the categories agreed during Co-Design.

Identifying the applicable CAM for each category and supporting their inclusion and post-award monitoring is part of what the solution must do (INF-02, OPS-03). The procurers will not fix this in advance.

Where no CAM decree applies, the basis is EU GPP criteria and recognised standards and labels, within the limits of Italian procurement law and EnEA’s own procurement policy.

All tenders are assessed against the same criteria, not against the baseline of any one site. The different levels of data maturity are a known condition of the challenge. The solution must establish and maintain baselines, including where data is partial or manually collected. The Operation component assesses the ability to establish and update local baselines using available data, including partial, manual or imperfect data from sources such as invoices, spreadsheets, contractor reports, procurement records and operational systems. How a tender deals with this asymmetry is part of what is evaluated, in the same way for every tenderer.

The list in TD2 provides examples (“e.g.”) and is not exhaustive, for Wales or any other jurisdiction. Examples include the Italian CAM portal of the Ministry of Environment and Energy Security, the GHG calculator of the Catalan Office for Climate Change, and the ECODES ScopeCO2 tool for Spanish healthcare centres.

Identifying the authoritative sources in each jurisdiction and respecting their access conditions is part of the solution’s scope. This is covered by INF-01 and INF-02 and by the KPI on legal and regulatory coverage of all three procurer jurisdictions. The procurers will confirm the relevant local sources during Co-Design.

The decision, and its defence, rest with the procurer. The solution must provide the responsible procurement and legal team with what it needs to verify a proposed requirement and take ownership of it.

The procurers do not prescribe the level at which requirements are placed. This is decided case by case, under the applicable law and in light of the market situation.

The solution should support all four levels: selection criteria, technical specifications, award criteria and contract performance conditions. It should also make the implications of each choice visible, including the risk of restricting competition.

In Phase III, the solution runs under real operating conditions. Its outputs may be used in live procedures where the responsible procurement and legal team has reviewed and adopted them under its normal procedures.

The award decision, and responsibility for it, remain with the procurer in all cases.

The decision, and its defence, rest with the procurer. The solution must provide the responsible procurement and legal team with what it needs to verify a proposed requirement and take ownership of it.

The procurers do not prescribe the level at which requirements are placed. This is decided case by case, under the applicable law and in light of the market situation.

The solution should support all four levels: selection criteria, technical specifications, award criteria and contract performance conditions. It should also make the implications of each choice visible, including the risk of restricting competition.

In Phase III, the solution runs under real operating conditions. Its outputs may be used in live procedures where the responsible procurement and legal team has reviewed and adopted them under its normal procedures.

The award decision, and responsibility for it, remain with the procurer in all cases.

The policy and regulatory context of each procurer is summarised in TD2 Section 1.2 and Annex F. It will be detailed with contractors during Phase I Co-Design, together with the relevant targets, reporting lines and baselines.

Each procurer is subject to its own national and regional framework. The solution is expected to produce audit-ready reporting outputs aligned with the relevant frameworks, including those named in TD2.

It is also expected to support procurers in setting and monitoring supplier sustainability obligations in their own procedures (OPS-03; TD2 Section 3.2, post-award compliance monitoring).

The solution is not expected to issue certifications or assurance statements. Responsibility for any submission or compliance assessment remains with the HCO.

Where binding instructions on environmental criteria exist, the procurers apply them as legally required. These include mandatory clauses or minimum requirements, such as the CAM in Italy where a CAM decree applies.

Mapping these instruments and supporting their correct application in procurement documents is part of the legal and regulatory scope of the solution (INF-02, OPS-03; KPI “Legal/regulatory document coverage”).

The detailed position for each procurer, including any monitoring and reporting, will be established during Co-Design.

Tenderers should not need this information to prepare their tender.

The standards in TD2 are listed as examples (“e.g.”) of frameworks that reporting outputs should be able to align with. They are not a hierarchy, and a single output is not expected to satisfy all of them at once.

The solution should produce outputs for the framework relevant to the respective purpose, organisation and jurisdiction. Where a framework is mandatory for a procurer, that framework governs for that procurer.

Where outputs are derived under different frameworks, the solution must make boundaries, scopes, units and assumptions explicit. It must not present figures as comparable when they are not and must state limitations and uncertainty.

The solution does not make award decisions. Whether and how life-cycle-based figures are used in an award decision is decided by each procurer under its applicable procurement law. The solution should support the approach chosen by the procurer and show the comparability and uncertainty of any figure used.

Including ISO 14040/44 in TD2 does not require LCA to be used as a comparative award criterion. The recommendation published by Confindustria Dispositivi Medici is noted; it does not change the requirements of TD2.

The tender documents do not set a threshold for acceptable uncertainty. Tenderers should describe how their solution quantifies and communicates uncertainty.

Proposed targets are not scored against individual baseline values. Under I1, evaluators assess how concrete, quantified and credible the claimed benefits are, and how well the proposed indicators align with the KPIs documented in TD2. A missing baseline does not count against the tenderer.

There is no numeric ceiling.

At tender stage, the criterion is assessed qualitatively: “the extent to which the Operation component reduces, rather than increases, user effort and administrative burden”.

Tenderers should explain how their design achieves this and how they will measure it.

From Phase II, this is assessed with evidence through usability testing that includes time-on-task for representative sustainability workflows and through efficiency KPIs.

The consultation-preparation figures in the KPI table are baselines for one efficiency KPI, not a ceiling for the solution as a whole.

Yes. Specialisation in recycling is not required. Tenderers should, however, consider the following when deciding on their set-up:

  1. Scope: The solution must address all four building blocks (Information, Operation, Organisation, and Change & Upskilling) as one coherent platform. It covers sustainability across energy, water, waste, procurement and other resource use in health and care organisations, including home care. The tender is assessed on how well it addresses the challenge as a whole.
  2. Selection criteria: Selection criterion B requires evidence of platform development, AI/IT expertise and sustainability knowledge. All selection criteria are assessed on a pass/fail basis. Team competence in the sustainability domain is also assessed under P3. Tenderers may rely on the capacity of subcontractors or other third parties to meet the selection criteria.
  3. Later changes: Changes to the composition of a joint tender, and changes or additions of subcontractors, require authorisation by the Buyers Group. They are excluded in particular where new participants would enter, or where the tenderer would no longer meet the selection criteria. Partners whose expertise the tenderer intends to rely on should therefore be included in the tender.

Must Have requirements “represent essential capabilities required to achieve the core objectives of the PCP”. Desirable and Additional requirements are non-essential (TD2 Annex B, priority definitions). Must Have use cases are to be addressed by the proposed solution. They are expected to be demonstrated in the Phase II prototypes and to be operational at the pilot sites in Phase III. Desirable and Additional use cases are optional. Where a tenderer addresses them, this can strengthen the tender (see TD6 §1.5, added value).

The sequencing, depth and site-specific adaptation of all use cases, together with the related KPIs, baselines and phase targets, will be refined with the Procurers during Co-Design and documented in SD1.1. Co-Design does not turn a Must Have use case into an optional one. Tenderers should propose how they phase the use cases across Phases I–III within the phase budgets. Scope and resourcing are assessed for feasibility within the available budget and timeline. The same applies to the realistic alignment of resources with the increasing scope of the later phases. Modular delivery is expected, so Must Have use cases can be delivered at increasing maturity from design (Phase I), through prototype (Phase II), to operational pilot (Phase III).

Yes. A self-employed natural person (e.g. a Spanish autónomo / individual entrepreneur) established in an EU Member State may submit a tender as a single tenderer, provided that all applicable exclusion, selection and award criteria are fulfilled.

No additional specific legal-entity or financial documents are required solely because the tenderer is a natural person.

The tenderer should provide the required Legal Entity Form and Financial Identification Form, together with the relevant supporting documentation. The tenderer should also complete TD3a as a natural person, providing the identification information requested in the form.

For the Selection Criterion B questions, I would wait before adding them because the official response you pasted ends after the natural-person clarification. We should not formulate an answer that was not actually included in the published response.

Yes. Pages 1 and 2 are included in the 70-page limit. As specified in TD6, the technical section must not exceed 70 pages, and this limit includes the cover page, table of contents, references and other introductory pages.

Any information exceeding the 70-page limit will not be considered in the evaluation. Therefore, the complete TD6 technical PDF, including pages 1 and 2, must remain within the maximum limit of 70 pages.

The standards in TD2 are listed as examples (“e.g.”) of frameworks the reporting outputs should be able to align with. They are not a hierarchy, and a single output is not expected to satisfy all of them at once. The solution should produce outputs for the framework relevant to the respective purpose, organisation and jurisdiction. Where a framework is mandatory for a Procurer, that framework governs for that Procurer.

Where outputs are derived under different frameworks, the solution must make boundaries, scopes, units and assumptions explicit. It must not present figures as comparable when they are not, and it must state limitations and uncertainty.

The solution does not make award decisions. It provides traceable guidance and documentation for review and approval by the responsible procurement and legal teams. Whether and how life-cycle-based figures are used in an award decision is decided by each Procurer under its applicable procurement law. Including ISO 14040/44 in TD2 does not require LCA to be used as a comparative award criterion.

The tender documents do not set a threshold for acceptable uncertainty. Tenderers should describe how their solution quantifies and communicates uncertainty.

There is no numeric ceiling. At tender stage, the criterion is assessed qualitatively: “the extent to which the Operation component reduces, rather than increases, user effort and administrative burden”. Tenderers should explain how their design achieves this and how they will measure it.

From Phase II, it will be assessed with evidence through usability testing that includes time-on-task for representative sustainability workflows and through efficiency KPIs.

The consultation-preparation figures in the KPI table are baselines for one efficiency KPI, not a ceiling for the solution as a whole.

The condition “where IPR allows” is governed by whoever holds the rights in the material concerned. A departure from a recognised standard must be supported by a documented gap analysis identifying the standards examined, the requirements they do not meet and why extending or profiling an existing standard would not be sufficient.

At tender stage, this is assessed under E3/E4. During the contract, the departure must be documented in the solution design (SD1.1 or later deliverables). The contractor is also expected to offer relevant contributions to standards bodies where an existing standard needs to be extended or a new one created.

For cross-organisation benchmarking (ORG-04), opt-in is given by each HCO at organisational level through an authorised person. It can be configured per indicator or dataset. TD2 §4.6 refers to contributions to the project’s taxonomy and policy paper deliverables (D1.4, D1.5, D1.7 and D1.8) and relevant Common European Data Space working groups, not to the Follower Network.

At tender stage, the Evaluation Committee assesses the classification under E3, with technical and ethical experts participating in the evaluation. During the contract, the contractor must update the classification in each call-off offer for Phases II and III, whenever an AI component changes materially, and before deployment in Phase III.

The Buyers Group reviews the classification through monitoring and deliverable acceptance, supported by independent ethical review of high-impact features. The Buyers Group may challenge a classification through this process.

The contractor remains responsible for compliance with the AI Act as the provider of the AI components, while the Procurers retain their obligations as deployers. The PCP does not designate a market surveillance authority or another third party to review classifications.

The intended focus of the suHCO solution is organisational and operational sustainability data. A use case involving prescribed diets linked to identifiable residents would fall within the patient-identifiable clinical data boundary described in TD2. The procedure for obtaining any necessary validation will be discussed with the relevant Procurer during Phase I. Validation must be obtained before the relevant processing begins.

Recording information on site, including taking photographs, is subject to the organisation’s applicable data protection, confidentiality, safety and access requirements. Site-specific arrangements will be clarified with the relevant Procurer before the activities take place.

Approval routes, evidence requirements and timescales vary according to the organisation, product and proposed change. The tender documents therefore do not prescribe a common authorising body or approval timeframe. Relevant evidence would generally address environmental benefits, safety, functionality, effectiveness and applicable compliance requirements.

As required by TD2, the solution must support each organisation’s existing governance and approval pathways, with final decisions remaining with authorised staff. Relevant procedures and, where available and appropriate, examples of previous substitutions can be discussed with the Procurers during Phase I to inform the solution design. Depending on the product, decisions may involve bodies such as the Technical Purchasing Committee or initiatives from the Environmental Management team.

Working time is 08:00–18:00 CET. For HDUHB, availability should be measured during agreed UK business hours unless otherwise agreed. Planned maintenance periods should be excluded.

Existing practices differ across the Procurers.

EnEA does not have shared sustainability workflows with other healthcare organisations. For procurement of medical supplies and medicines, the Regional Health Authority (Azienda Zero) procures goods that are subsequently provided to local hospitals.

HDUHB collaborates with NHS Wales organisations through national procurement, sustainability and decarbonisation programmes, including NHS Wales Shared Services Partnership activities and cross-organisational sustainability networks.

For CSC, potential relevant initiatives include Born Green Generation, Race to Zero and the Global Green and Healthy Hospitals network.

The Buyers Group considers that suppliers should propose the approach providing the greatest value to the pilot. It supports sharing completed and in-progress workflows where appropriate governance controls are in place.

Organisations receiving access to a workflow should be able to create an independent copy for local adaptation without affecting the original. Suppliers should propose suitable controls for ownership, permissions, versioning and governance.

The solution is not limited to options already available on the market.

Supporting the supply side is within scope through the supplier engagement tier. Healthcare organisations can publish forward procurement intentions, conduct pre-tender market consultations, share evolving criteria and receive structured supplier responses, enabling SMEs and social-economy actors to position themselves alongside established suppliers.

Supplier engagement before tendering (ORG-02) is also within scope, subject to procurement law. The solution does not itself create supply; it supports lawful engagement and market development by the Procurer.

The purchasing categories for each pilot are not predetermined. They will be agreed during Co-Design based on each Procurer’s purchasing profile.

CAM requirements are mandatory wherever an applicable CAM decree covers the purchase. The CAM applicable to the EnEA pilot will depend on the purchasing categories agreed during Co-Design. Identifying the applicable CAM for each category, supporting their inclusion in procurement and monitoring compliance after award are part of the solution’s requirements (INF-02 and OPS-03).
The Procurers will not determine the applicable CAM categories in advance.
Where no CAM decree applies, the basis is EU Green Public Procurement (GPP) criteria and recognised standards and labels, within the limits of Italian procurement law and EnEA’s own procurement policy.

Supporting documents in a language other than English must be accompanied by an English translation. A simple translation, signed and stamped by the tenderer’s authorised representative, is sufficient at tender stage.

Sworn or certified translations and legalisation or apostille are not required. Where in doubt, the Procurers may request a certified translation or further evidence.

Yes. It is possible to submit an offer through Sobre Digital using an eIDAS-recognised credential without having a Spanish NIF/NIE or a digital certificate issued in Spain.

When submitting, the summary document generated by the tool must be electronically signed. For the system to consider the signature valid, it must be made using a valid qualified digital certificate issued by a recognised Certification Authority (Trust Service Providers/EU Trusted List).

Advanced electronic signature certificates based on a qualified electronic signature certificate are valid. Tenderers can verify whether a PDF is correctly signed using the verification link provided on the procurement portal.

If problems with the signature occur, the offer may be submitted with an unvalidated signature.

Specific Contracts are fixed-price. Payment depends on satisfactory completion of milestones and deliverables and is not adjusted to the hours and costs actually incurred.

Actual hours and the resource mix may differ from the TD7 estimates without reducing payment, provided that:

  • Deliverables are accepted.

  • On/off criteria A (R&D services and supply share) and C (place of performance) continue to be met.

  • Funds are allocated to the planned objectives.

Invoices must show a breakdown by units and unit prices. Significant deviations from the planned resource mix should be raised during monthly monitoring meetings.

The price for each phase is set out in the respective Specific Contract. Payment and invoicing follow TD1.

Unit prices in TD7 are binding for the entire duration of the Framework Agreement.

The tender documents do not provide for adjustments due to inflation, salaries, exchange rates or statutory costs. Tenderers should therefore incorporate expected cost developments for 2027–2028 into their unit prices.

New units, staff categories, tasks or equipment items may be introduced in a Phase II or III call-off offer only where the work cannot be priced using existing units.

No minimum percentage or benchmark is set. Tenderers should explain how they arrived at the discount amount.

The discount is not scored but is a compliance requirement under EU R&D&I state aid rules. A missing or evidently unjustified discount may lead to a request for justification and, failing that, exclusion.

The 20% price score is calculated using line 3 of TD7, “Total offered price”, for the next Specific Contract. For the initial tender, this is the Phase I price.

Line 3 is calculated as the exclusive development price (line 1) minus the IPR-retention discount (line 2).

Under TD8 Article 17.8, each Party’s total liability in relation to the Framework Agreement is limited to the total value of the Specific Contract under which the act or omission giving rise to the liability took place.

The cap applies to aggregate liability arising under that Specific Contract, including indemnity under Article 17.3.

It does not apply to liability under Article 5 (IPR), infringement of applicable law, gross negligence or wilful misconduct.

A standard escrow agreement with deposit and release is sufficient.

The tender documents do not prescribe a single deployment scope, pricing unit or operational contract term. Suppliers should clearly specify these in their TCO assessment and commercialisation plan.

At initial tender stage, TCO estimates should follow TD6 §2.2, covering both a medium-sized and a small HCO. Estimates should be developed further during the PCP and documented in the Phase III offer.

TD1 §2.7 permits price increases only for third-party components approved to form part of the Results. It does not provide a general entitlement to adjustments for inflation or regulatory changes.

Pricing for different deployment volumes should be clearly distinguished from increases to the price for the documented scope.

Project implementation

Yes. Monitoring calls will be organised. If specific meetings are needed, suppliers should describe the need and schedule in their tender.

Suppliers will have access to procurers through monitoring calls. User testing is planned for Phases II and III, and limited user research during Phase III may be agreed on a case‑by‑case basis.

All suppliers must follow the same timeline. An extension is possible only if all suppliers and procurers agree.

Phase I is scheduled to start in December in accordance with the timeline agreed under the PCP procedural requirements. The consortium must adhere to the approved timeline and has planned accordingly. We will account for the holiday period in December when planning Phase I workstreams and deliverables. 

Revision history

The FAQ page records its revision and correction history at various dates, noting when new questions from e.g. tender question sessions, training and workshops have been added.

09.10.2026

  • Expanded FAQs with clarifications on contractual and financial requirements, AI governance, data protection, pilot implementation, supplier engagement, and sustainability compliance.

07.10.2026

  • Updated FAQs with clarifications on sustainability standards, LCA, KPI assessment, administrative burden, and technical tender requirements.

05.10.2026

  •  FAQs updated with further clarifications on joint tender identification forms, strategic autonomy and data hosting, Co-Design, accessibility, AI human oversight, Phase I deliverables, system integration and KPIs.

02.10.2026

  • Added FAQs in the following sections of the page: financial, consortia and partner, tender documents. Added a new section Technical offer, it contains questions posed by suppliers

__________________________________________________________________

11.03.2026

  • Added new questions asked during International OMC.

__________________________________________________________________

25.02.2026

  • Added new questions asked during national OMCs.

__________________________________________________________________

29.01.2026

  • First set of questions and answers.