——— 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]. ——— question: “We are surprised that the proposed consortium agreement is not a delivery agreement between the parties – the consortium (as a `seller`) and SKAO (as a `customer` for the delivery of the xxxx work package (`product`).” Answer: The Memorandum of Understanding is a delivery agreement with specific services that correspond to the work package concerned and are defined in the attached work statement. [MoU]. The loIs should be signed by all members of the consortium of each proposed consortium by August 30, 2013, i.e. before the start of negotiations on the declarations of work. CAs and MoUs must be signed by all parties by October 4, 2013 so that these documents can be included in the preparations for the SKA Board meeting at the end of October 2013. ——— question: “The structure of ca does not allow to know whether it is an agreement between SKA and the consortium or a consortium agreement. Some statements within the Board are causing this confusion, given that the SKA organization appears to be voting decisively on exclusive consortium issues. This means that we are not dealing with a consortium agreement, but with a contract with the SKA organization.
This is illustrated by: – 6.2. if it finds that the certification body cannot be terminated without the approval of the SKA organization. In order for the certification body to be fully responsible for the work agreed between CA and SKA Organisation, it should also have the right to terminate its existence. It is proposed to organise the transfer of rights and to give the consortium the right to self-determination. 11.2a. proposes that SKA be a member of the consortium`s board of directors, which would give SKA a vote in the consortium`s office – 14.8. Third-party participation is obviously not necessary for the approval of the SKA organization. Only commitments to the SKA organization, as outlined in the CA, should be transferred. Answer: The MoU defines certain obligations for consortium members to provide information to the SKA organization. However, the SKA organization does not impose internal governance on consortia or requires voting rights on the consortium`s board of directors. [MoU].
Internal governance provisions should be incorporated into the CA. [CA]. The following agreements now refer to the SKA work packages: ——— question: “5. Responsibilities. 5.2b. Any member of the consortium working with the SKAO on the definition and work plan of the subsystem is fundamentally wrong! Who is in charge of the consortium? This must be the management of the consortium and other leads. Another role confusion. Answer: The allocation of roles and responsibilities within the consortium is now the responsibility of the consortium members, who must be defined in the negotiations on their certification body. [CA]. ——— question: “The CA PSR focuses (almost entirely) on the management and organization of the consortium itself.
Answer: The new MoU does not require internal management of the consortium, which must be dealt with instead by CA. However, the MoU requires consortium members to provide information deemed necessary by the SKA organization so that it can carry out its mandate to coordinate the SKA project.