14^th Transportation Working Group Meeting
Seoul, October 19-23, 1998
 Review of Existing Projects

Seafarers' Training Project

REPORT OF MEETING ON SEAFARERS TRAINING PROJECT PHASE II
Indonesia

Present:

Representatives from the following economies attended the meeting:

Australia; Brunei Darussalam; Canada; China; Chinese Taipei; Hong Kong, China; Indonesia; Korea; Mexico; Philippines; Singapore; and Thailand.

Welcome and Introductory Comments:

The meeting was chaired by Dr Budhi M Suyitno of Indonesia. The meeting considered the agenda and adopted the agenda. The meeting considered the paper issued by Indonesia for the 14th TPT-WG meeting.

1. Report of the Seafarers Training Project Phase II (TPT/14/HRD/4.1.a)
2. The Request for Proposal (July 1998)(TPT/14/HRD/4.1.b)

1. CONSIDERATION OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)

The Chairman presented the Request for Proposal (RFP), including the timetable and selection process proposed in the RFP (July 1998). A total of eight proposals were received from APEC economies. Three proposals were received from both Australia and Canada, one proposal was received from both Indonesia and China. The Steering Committee agreed that the best three proposals would be selected and recommended in order of preference to the APEC Secretariat.

China questioned whether maritime training institutions should be regarded as STCW compliant as a result of Phase II of the Seafarers Training Project. The Philippines, Hong Kong China and Indonesia stated that the project was beneficial to their economies in particular in determining the difficulties in being STCW compliant. The results of the project would assist economies in determining whether they required assistance to become STCW compliant. The Steering Committee agreed that the project does not duplicate the work of the IMO and is beneficial to APEC economies and should proceed.

China and Canada suggested that the Terms of Reference in the RFP be revised to reflect the requirement of the Consultant to identify the required facilities, equipment, course contents, quality of trainers, instructors, examiners and level of certification under the STCW Convention and determine which areas economies might require assistance. This was agreed by the Steering Committee.

China raised the matter regarding the timetable and whether the Final Report should be considered at the 16^th TPT-WG meeting. The Philippines, Republic of Korea, Hong Kong China, Canada, Australia and Indonesia agreed that the timetable should be extended so that the final report would be considered by the 16^th TPT-WG meeting.

Recommendation: That the Steering Committee note that the RFP has been revised to reflect:

1. Contract commencement date will now be in November 1998;
2. Progress Report to Business and Administrative Committee (BAC) in January 1999;
3. Interim Report to be provided on 6 March 1999;
4. Draft Final Report to be provided on 5 July 1999;
5. Final Report to be provided by September 1999 for consideration at the 16^th TPT-WG.

2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

Australia developed a method of evaluating the proposals by proposing an evaluation matrix assigning a weight to each criteria. The Steering Committee agreed to adopt the evaluation method proposed by Australia.

The Philippines suggested that the criteria should take into account both the technical proposal and the financial proposal. Brunei Darussalem suggested that each criteria should include more detail for the evaluation process. Australia proposed detailed criteria for the evaluation process. The Steering Committee agreed to adopt the detailed criteria and attach this to the revised RFP.

The Steering Committee agreed that the preferred tenderer should be advised of the revised timetable in the RFP before signing the contract. In the event that the preferred tenderer does not agree to the revised timetable the next preferred tenderer shall be consulted.

Recommendation: That the Steering Committee agree:

1. The revised RFP will be submitted to the APEC Secretariat.
2. The contractual process will be completed in November 1998 according to the revised timetable.

3. EVALUATION PROCESS

The Project Steering Committee agreed to meet separately to consider and evaluate the eight proposals according to the recommendations agreed by the Steering Committee. Indonesia, Australia, China, Chinese Taipei and Singapore met to consider the proposals. Indonesia, Australia, China, and Chinese Taipei completed the individual evaluation matrix and transferred their assessment to the group evaluation matrix. The Steering Committee unanimously agreed the results of the evaluation process which were as follows:

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Steering Committee adopt the results of the evaluation process. The Steering Committee recommends that the APEC Secretariat approve the preferred tenderer China Maritime to undertake the work for Phase II of the APEC Seafarers Training Project. In the event that China Maritime is unable to undertake the work for Phase II of the project, the two other preferred tenderers are Synergem and Multi Daya Tata Karya.

This page was last updated on 12 March, 2008