Fakta om udbudet

EU-nr

2017/S 132-270624

Offentliggjort

13.07.2017

Udbudstype

Udbud med forhandling uden forudgående offentliggørelse

Udbyder

Danmarks Tekniske Universitet (Technical University of Denmark)

Vindere

(13.07.2017)
Peergrade ApS
København N

Peer review system for DTU's Learning Management System

Danmarks Tekniske Universitet (Technical University of Denmark)

Voluntary ex ante transparency notice

Services

Directive 2014/24/EU

Section I: Contracting authority/entity

I.1) Name and addresses

Danmarks Tekniske Universitet (Technical University of Denmark)
2800
Kongens Lyngby
Denmark
Contact person: Johanne Liv Pedersen
E-mail: jolip@dtu.dk
NUTS code: DK012

Internet address(es):

Main address: http://www.dtu.dk/

I.4) Type of the contracting authority

Body governed by public law

I.5) Main activity

Education

Section II: Object

II.1) Scope of the procurement

II.1.1) Title:

Peer review system for DTU's Learning Management System.

II.1.2) Main CPV code

72000000

II.1.3) Type of contract

Services

II.1.4) Short description:

Peer review system for DTU's Learning Management System.

II.1.6) Information about lots

This contract is divided into lots: no

II.1.7) Total value of the procurement (excluding VAT)

Value excluding VAT: 675 000.00 DKK

II.2) Description

II.2.1) Title:

II.2.2) Additional CPV code(s)

II.2.3) Place of performance

NUTS code: DK012

II.2.4) Description of the procurement:

Peer review or peer assessment is a method for teaching and learning that with the help of technology now can be supported by an online system, thus making the process more manageable. A peer review system generally works by letting students submit their assignments, which is then distributed among their peers for feedback. The steps in a peer review system is as follows:

1. The teacher creates an assignment for the students.

2. Students submit their work on the assignment.

3. The assignments are distributed among the students to evaluate. The students evaluate e.g. 3-5 other assignments using a rubric: a tool to guide their evaluations.

4. Students get all the feedback on their own assignment created in the evaluations.

5. The teacher gets an overview and can comment on the assignments based on the data shown in the evaluations.

A peer review system has several options like anonymous evaluations, automatically distribution of assignments, creation of rubrics, aggregated data etc. depending on the chosen system.

II.2.5) Award criteria

Price

II.2.11) Information about options

Options: no

II.2.13) Information about European Union funds

The procurement is related to a project and/or programme financed by European Union funds: no

II.2.14) Additional information

Section IV: Procedure

IV.1) Description

IV.1.1) Type of procedure

Negotiated procedure without prior publication

The works, supplies or services can be provided only by a particular economic operator for the following reason:
- absence of competition for technical reasons

Explanation:

Peergrade.io is a peer-review sys-tem for teaching and learning, which is going to be used in DTU's Learn-ing Management system (LMS) and therefore it is essential that it can be integrated with the LMS. DTU's LMS supplier D2L has already chosen to set up an integration with Peer-grade.io.

Peegrade.io has functionality that is not available in any other systems — according to the current knowledge of the market, which is needed to ensure a good peer review process. This includes:

— Possibility to export data from the system, both on course- and institution level.

— Students are able to evaluate and interact with the feedback they get.

— Comprehensive aggregated da-ta in user-friendly dashboards.

— Check of rubric quality through data-driven insights from stu-dent feedback.

— Sharing of rubrics and assign-ment within the institution.

— Data on student evaluation e.g. how much time they use giving feedback.

— Adjustment on weight in grades on both assignment and rubric question level.

— Feedback givers are assigned based on previous feedback quality and grader agreement.

— Support guides and priority chat support.

IV.1.3) Information about framework agreement

IV.1.8) Information about the Government Procurement Agreement (GPA)

The procurement is covered by the Government Procurement Agreement: yes

IV.2) Administrative information

IV.2.1) Previous publication concerning this procedure

Section V: Award of contract/concession

V.2) Award of contract/concession

V.2.1) Date of contract award decision:

11/07/2017

V.2.2) Information about tenders

The contract has been awarded to a group of economic operators: no

V.2.3) Name and address of the contractor/concessionaire

Peergrade ApS
36999551
København N
Denmark
NUTS code: DK011

The contractor/concessionaire will be an SME: yes

V.2.4) Information on value of the contract/lot/concession (excluding VAT)

Total value of the contract/lot/concession: 675 000.00 DKK

V.2.5) Information about subcontracting

Section VI: Complementary information

VI.3) Additional information:

VI.4) Procedures for review

VI.4.1) Review body

Klagenævnet for Udbud / The Complaints Board for Public Procurement
Nævnenes Hus, Toldboden 2
Viborg
8800
Denmark
Telephone: +45 35291000
E-mail: klfu@erst.dk

Internet address:https://erhvervsstyrelsen.dk/klagenaevnet-for-udbud

VI.4.2) Body responsible for mediation procedures

VI.4.3) Review procedure

Precise information on deadline(s) for review procedures:

Complaints must be sent to the Complaints Board for Public Procurement within a certain deadline. Complaints regarding a decision on shortlisting in a restricted procedure must be received in the Board within 20 days, after the contracting authority's notification of the outcome of the shortlisting. Other complaints must be received in the Board within 45 days from the day after publication of the contracting authority's notice in (TED) about entering into a contract. If the subject for the tender is a framework contract, the deadline is 6 months from the contracting authority's notice to the tenderers about the tenderer which the contracting authority intends to enter into contract with. Complaints regarding the national regulations for tender procedures (Tilbudsloven)must be received at the Board within 45 days after the contracting authority have notified the Tenderers about the tenderer which the contracting authority intends to enter into contract with. If the complaint is regarding a framework agreement the deadline is 6 months after the contracting authority has notified the Tenderers about the Tenderer which the contracting authority intends to enter into contract with.

VI.4.4) Service from which information about the review procedure may be obtained

Konkurrence- og Forbrugerstyrelsen / Danish Competition and Consumer Authority
Carl Jacobsens Vej 35
Kongens Lyngby
2800
Denmark
Telephone: +45 41715000
E-mail: kfst@kfst.dk

Internet address:http://www.kfst.dk/

VI.5) Date of dispatch of this notice:

11/07/2017