| | 32002R2342: m4-138.2Best-value-for money definition    
| 32002R2342 - Implementation of Community (4th generation) - Commission M4 | Article 138.2 | | The tender offering the best value for money shall be the one with the best price-quality ratio, taking into account criteria justified by the subject of the contract such as the price quoted, technical merit, aesthetic and functional characteristics, environmental characteristics, running costs, profitability completion or delivery times, after-sales service and technical assistance. |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | T-59/05
Evropaiki Dynamiki | 56-58 | Q4-97.1
Q4-92.2
M4-138.1
M4-138.2
M4-138.3 | 56 It must be pointed out that, in accordance with Article 97(2) of the Financial Regulation and Article 138 (1) of the Implementing Rules, the contract was awarded, in this case, to the tender offering the best value for money (section 9.4 of the tender specifications, see paragraph 14 above).
57 It must further be borne in mind that, in order to ensure observance of the principles of transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination at the stage of selection of tenders for the award of a contract, Article 97(1) of the Financial Regulation imposes on the contracting authority, when the contract is to be awarded by the best-value-for-money procedure, the obligation to define and set out in the tender specifications the award criteria for evaluating the content of the tenders. Those criteria must, in accordance with Article 138(2) of the Implementing Rules, be justified by the subject of the contract. Under Article 138(3), the contracting authority must also specify, in the contract notice or in the tender specifications, the weighting which it will apply to each of the chosen criteria for determining which tender offers the best value for money.
58 None the less, those provisions leave to the contracting authority the choice of the award criteria on which tenders will be evaluated. However, the aim of the award criteria which the contracting authority intends to adopt must, in all cases, be to identify the tender which offers the best value for money (see, to that effect, Case T-4/01 Renco v Council [2003] ECR II-171, paragraph 65, and Case T-183/00 StrabagBenelux v Council [2003] ECR II-135, paragraphs 73 and 74). | T-59/05
Evropaiki Dynamiki | 59-60 | M4-138.2 | 59 Furthermore, the criteria adopted by the contracting authority in order to identify the tender which offers the best value for money need not necessarily be quantitative or related solely to prices. Even if award criteria which are not expressed in quantitative terms are included in the tender specifications, they may be applied objectively and uniformly in order to compare the tenders and are clearly relevant for identifying the most economically advantageous tender (see, to that effect, Renco v Council, cited in paragraph 58 above, paragraphs 67 and 68).
60 In this case, it is clear that the Commission referred in section 9.3 of the tender specifications to the award criteria which it intended to adopt for awarding the contract to the tender which offered the best value for money, namely, on the one hand, three qualitative criteria (section 9.3.1 of the tender specifications, see paragraph 14 above) and the relative weighting which it intended to apply to each of those criteria and, on the other hand, one quantitative criterion which, in essence, involved determining the total cost of the tender by adding together the weightings of several unit prices (section 9.3.2 of the tender specifications, see paragraph 14 above). | T-59/05
Evropaiki Dynamiki | 61-63 | M4-138.1
M4-138.2 | 61 It is useful to recall, at this point, that the three qualitative criteria challenged by the applicant, and their weighting, were worded as follows:
– ‘quality of the tenderer’s proposal in terms of completeness, clarity and concision, relevance of information and documentation provided, lack of ambiguity (20%);
– the proposed methodology and the organisation of the services to cover the needs of the Commission/DG AGRI; in particular, the measures proposed to ensure the timely availability of adequate resources for the proposed skills, and an effective and efficient project management and communication with the DG AGRI (40%);
– the quality control of the delivered services and the guarantees offered to respect the proposal (40%)’.
62 The applicant does no more than claim that those criteria are vague, questioning how the Commission could objectively evaluate the quality of tenders with regard to each of those criteria. The applicant offers no evidence in support of its allegation from which it can be determined that, when defining those criteria, the Commission disregarded its obligation to observe the principles of transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination.
63 The Court considers that there is nothing in the documents before it to justify any criticism that the Commission exceeded the limits stemming from the abovementioned legislative provisions, as they have been interpreted in the case-law cited (see paragraphs 58 and 59 above), when it chose and defined the award criteria intended to identify the tender offering the best value for money. | T-59/05
Evropaiki Dynamiki | 64-68 | M4-138.2
M4-138.3 | 64 It must be pointed out that the qualitative criteria at issue are criteria which are relevant to identifying the tender which offers the best value for money, given that the various factors taken into consideration by the Commission when defining them, such as the organisation and methodology intended for provision of the services, and the timely availability of skills and material and personal resources, may, unquestionably, affect the proper provision of the services covered by the contract to be awarded and, therefore, the value of the tender itself.
65 Furthermore, it is obvious that the principal function of the three qualitative award criteria challenged by the applicant is to check that the tender of each candidate is capable of ensuring, first, a provision of services of the quality required and suited to the needs and organisation of DG AGRI in terms of the timely availability of human and material resources and, secondly, the existence of appropriate mechanisms to monitor the effective provision of those services, including a project management team capable of ensuring communication with the recipient of the service. The Court finds that those award criteria, although they are not quantitative, unlike the criterion relating to the total cost of the tender in section 9.3.2 of the tender specifications, are not vague and subjective inasmuch as they may be applied in an objective, concrete and uniform manner by the contracting authority.
66 In addition, the Commission indicated, in accordance with the applicable provisions, the relative weighting attributed to each of the quality criteria by means of percentages, thereby informing the tenderers of the importance that the Commission intended to attach to each criterion when making the comparative evaluation of the tenders.
67 In the light of the foregoing, it must be concluded that the applicant has not established to the requisite legal standard that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to define and set out the award criteria in the tender specifications in accordance with the principles of transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination.
68 Consequently, the complaint that the award criteria were vague and subjective must be rejected as being unfounded. | T-148/04
TQ3 Travel Solutions | 48 | Q4-97.2
M4-138.2 | It should also be noted that, under Article 97 of the Financial Regulation, [c]ontracts may be awarded by the automatic award procedure or by the best-value-for-money procedure'. In addition, under Article 138 of the detailed implementing rules, [t]he tender offering the best value for money shall be the one with the best price-quality ratio, taking into account criteria justified by the subject of the contract'. |
|
|
