The DCA did not intend to define and regulate all aspects of the relationship between the consortium members. The SKA organization provided that other bilateral or multilateral agreements would be concluded between the members of each consortium and that the SKA organization would not be associated with these agreements. The SKA organization obliges the members of each consortium to enter into such an agreement, which must not be in contradiction with the terms of the agreement (provided for when the RfP documentation as DCA is published) between the SKA organisation and the members of the consortium. ——— question: “The organisation of the head of the consortium must be located in one of the Member States in its own right in order to guarantee, without cash flow, a (indirect) governance mechanism for the SKA board of directors. We did not see that this had been explicitly done in the draft agreement (and in the draft RfP document, if there was no agreement). Answer: SKA agrees that the main members of the consortium must reside in a full member country. The MoU states that this is the case. [MoU]. ——— question: “5. Responsibilities. 5.1b. The response to SKAO`s amendments is not a consortium agreement and must be made under a separate agreement.” Answer: Changes to work package benefits are managed as part of the process of monitoring the change in the declaration of work, which takes effect contractually through its inclusion in the programme.
[MoU]. The SKA organization should be a signatory to the DCA and therefore participate in it, as was necessary to achieve the above objectives. SKA Organisation itself would not have been a member of the consortium. This is in some respects comparable to the fact that the SKA organization is the “customer” under the agreement and that each member of the consortium is a “supplier”, together the “suppliers” that make up the consortium itself. ——— question: “6. Dismissal. Clarification: the organization of the consortium project may itself be a defensian party. Answer: Under the DCA, any member of the consortium (including the Lead Organisation Consortium) could be a failing party. Consortium members are free to include termination provisions in their CAs.
[CA]. Letter of Intent (“LoI”). It is expected that the consortia will enter into negotiations with the SKA organization before their certification body is agreed and executed, and that a law by and between consortium members will be introduced in Dies to establish a Memorandum of Understanding prior to the implementation of the CA Template LoIs is available here – Template LoI1 and Template LoI2 – and can be used/modified if necessary. SKA Organisation will not be a party of LoIs. ——— question: “Given that the consortium`s discussions are seriously planned, we would be pleased to see clearly how the SKA plans to formally allocate the pre-construction work and ensure delivery within the volume limit.” Answer: For each work package, the SKA organisation will hold a Memorandum of Understanding with the members of the consortium responsible for the supply of this work package.