You are in:
Last update: 27/06/2024
Resolutions on matters related to contracting
Resolutions on special appeals
The special procurement appeal is an optional administrative appeal that can be lodged against specific actions of the public procurement procedure when they relate to:
- Works contracts with an estimated value of more than 3 million euros, and supply and service contracts with an estimated value of more than 100,000 euros.
- Framework agreements and dynamic purchasing systems aimed at executing a contract as defined in the previous point, as well as contracts based on any of them.
- Works or service concessions with an estimated value of more than 3 million euros.
A bidder files a special contractual appeal against their exclusion from the procurement procedure due to a contamination of envelopes. The appellant bases the appeal on the inadmissibility of the exclusion due to a lack of clarity in the wording of the administrative specifications (PCAP). Following the analysis, the Board concludes that the exclusion is duly motivated.
A special contractual review is filed by two bidders, in the first case against the procurement body’s decision to withdraw from the tender procedure and in the second case, against the decision to exclude them from the tender procedure. In the first case, the appellant considers that the withdrawal is untimely, should have taken place before the submission of tenders and is not properly substantiated. The Board does not accept the appellant's arguments and dismisses the appeal. In the second case, the appellant relies on the alleged invalidity of a paragraph of the PCAP on the grounds that it lays down excessive and disproportionate criteria. The Board holds that, in view of the dismissal of the earlier appeal against the decision to withdraw, there is no longer any need to rule on the second action on account of the supervening loss of subject-matter
A bidder files a special contractual appeal against their exclusion from the procurement procedure due to a contamination of envelopes. The appellant bases the exclusion on a lack of clarity in the PCAP, which led to confusion as to what information was to be submitted in envelope 1. The Board concludes that, although the wording could be improved, it cannot be established that it was conducive to confusion; moreover, it was not challenged at the appropriate time. It therefore decides to dismiss the appeal.
A private individual files a special contractual appeal against the decision approving the tender procedure for the contract. The appellant considers that insufficient reasons have been given to show that there is a pressing need or urgency to award the contract. The Board considers that there are a number of formal defects in the presentation of the appeal, which make it inappropriate to assess the merits of the case, and therefore dismisses the appeal as inadmissible.
A special contractual review is filed by a bidder against the procurement body decision to withdraw from the tender procedure, based on an alleged failure to state reasons for a non-remediable infringement of the procedure rules. After analysing the arguments, the Board accepts the appellant's arguments and therefore decides to void the decision to withdraw and to reinstate the proceedings in order for the procurement body to duly justify the decision.
A bidder files a special contractual appeal against the contract award based on an incorrect and insufficiently reasoned assessment. After its analysis, the Board considers that the tender was correctly assessed and therefore dismisses the appeal.
A private individual files a special contractual appeal against the decision approving the tender procedure for the contract. The appellant considers that the call for tenders is not necessary, as well as a lack of clarity in the solvency, award and special conditions of execution criteria, estimated value of the contract and justification of insufficient means. After analysis, the Board finds that the appeal has not been brought against actions which are the subject of a special appeal and is therefore inadmissible.
A private individual files a special contractual appeal against the decision approving the tender procedure for the contract. The appellant considers that the call for tenders is not necessary, as well as a lack of clarity in the solvency, award and special conditions of execution criteria, estimated value of the contract and justification of insufficient means. After analysis, the Board finds that the appeal has not been brought against actions which are the subject of a special appeal and is therefore inadmissible.
A private individual files a special contractual appeal against the decision approving the tender procedure for the contract. The appellant considers that the tender procedure is not necessary and that the solvency criteria do not respect the principles of proportionality, publicity, equality, non-discrimination and free competition. After analysis, the Board finds that the appeal has not been brought against actions which are the subject of a special appeal and is therefore inadmissible.
A private individual files a special contractual appeal against the decision approving the tender procedure for the contract. The appellant considers that the tender procedure is not necessary and that the solvency criteria do not respect the principles of proportionality, publicity, equality, non-discrimination and free competition. After analysis, the Board finds that the appeal has not been brought against actions which are the subject of a special appeal and is therefore inadmissible.
A bidder files a special contractual appeal against their exclusion from the procurement procedure for failure to state reasons for the abnormally low bid and the subsequent award of the contract to a third party. The appellant considers that its bid justification has not been properly assessed. After analysis, the Board considers that the procurement body has sufficiently reasoned its exclusion decision and that the appeal should therefore be dismissed.
A private individual files a special contractual appeal against the decision approving the tender procedure for the contract. The appellant considers that neither the urgency, the lack of means to carry out the subject-matter of the contract or its link with the applicable sectoral rules have been justified. After analysis, the Board finds that the appeal has not been brought against actions which are the subject of a special appeal and is therefore inadmissible.
A private individual files a special contractual appeal against the decision approving the tender procedure for the contract. The appellant considers that neither the urgency, the lack of means to carry out the subject-matter of the contract or its link with the applicable sectoral rules have been justified. After analysis, the Board finds that the appeal has not been brought against actions which are the subject of a special appeal and is therefore inadmissible.
A bidder files a special contractual appeal against the contract award decision on the grounds that there was an error in the assessment of the score, requests that the agreement be voided and that it be awarded three additional points, which would make it the successful bidder. Subsequently, the bidder requests that the appeal be withdrawn and the Board closes the case.
A special contractual appeal is filed by a bidder excluded on the grounds of not meeting all the technical solvency criteria (experience of the assigned site manager). The appeal is based on the alleged failure to meet the grounds for exclusion and the failure to state reasons for the contested decision. However, the appellant subsequently files an application to withdraw the proceedings, which is why the Board decides to close the case.
A special contractual appeal is filed by a bidder whose bid is not accepted in the procurement procedure as it does not include all the required documents. The appellant claims that it was unable to submit one of the documents due to an error in the electronic tender submission platform. The appellant subsequently requests that the proceedings be withdrawn, which is why the Board decides to close the case.
A bidder files a special contractual appeal against tender specifications on the grounds that the contract price and the approximate volume of the services to be provided were allegedly indeterminate, and that certain provisions of the specifications were not specific enough to prevent companies from being able to submit a tender in full knowledge of their scope. Given that the procurement body decides to withdraw the procurement procedure, the Board considers that the subject matter of the appeal has become moot and dismisses the review as inadmissible.
A special contractual appeal against tender specifications is filed by a bidder on the grounds of an alleged infringement of the general principle of division of the contract into lots. After analysing the arguments, the Board finds that the procurement body has not sufficiently justified the failure to divide into lots and therefore agrees to uphold the appeal and to void the tender in order to restart the procedure.
A special contractual appeal is filed by a bidder against a contract award on various grounds, requesting that the award be voided and the exclusion of the winning company for allegedly failing to meet the technical solvency criteria. After analysing the appellant's arguments, the Board upholds the appellant's arguments and agrees to reinstate the proceedings to the time of the assessment of the criteria subject to value judgement.
A special contractual appeal is filed by a bidder against a contract award based on an allegedly arbitrary assessment of the bids. After analysis, the Board finds that there is no arbitrariness in the PCAP and dismisses the appeal.
A special contractual appeal is filed by a bidder excluded for not submitting the documentation required in the PCAP. The appeal is based on the alleged lack of clarity in the drafting of the specifications. Given that the procurement body decides to withdraw the procurement procedure, the Board considers that the subject matter of the appeal has become moot and dismisses the review as inadmissible.
