| | 32004L0018: c3-51Additional documentation and information     
[see also q4-99: Contact with tenderers]| 32004L0018 - Classic (3rd generation) | Article 51 | Article 51
Additional documentation and information
The contracting authority may invite economic operators to supplement or clarify the certificates and documents submitted pursuant to Articles 45 to 50. | | 31993L0037 - Works (2nd generation) | Article 28 | Article 28
Within the limits of Articles 24 to 27, the contracting authority may invite the contractor to supplement the certificates and documents submitted or to clarify them. | | 31993L0036 - Goods (2nd generation) | Article 24 | Article 24
Within the limits of Articles 20 to 23 the contracting authority may invite the suppliers to supplement the certificates and documents submitted or to clarify them. | | 31992L0050 - Services (2nd generation) | Article 34 | Article 34
Within the limits of Articles 29 to 32, contracting authorities may invite the service providers to supplement the certificates and documents submitted or to clarify them. | | 31971L0305 - Works (1st generation) | Article A-27 | Article 27
The authority awarding contracts may, within the limits of articles 23 to 26, invite the contractor to supplement the certificates and documents submitted or to clarify them. | | 31977L0062 - Goods (1st generation) | Article 24 | Article 24
Within the limits of articles 20 to 23 the contracting authority may invite the suppliers to supplement the certificates and documents submitted or to clarify them. |
Community procurement | 32002R2342 - Implementation of Community (4th generation) - Commission M4 | Article 146.3.2 | | However, the evaluation committee may ask candidates or tenderers to supply additional material or to clarify the supporting documents submitted in connection with the exclusion and selection criteria, within a specified time-limit. | | 32005R1261 - First amendment of implementation of Community (4th generation) - Commission M4A1 | Article 1.29.c.i=M4-146.3.2 | 29. Article 146 is amended as follows:
.....
(c) paragraph 3 is amended as follows:
(i) the second subparagraph is replaced by the following: "However, the evaluation committee or the contracting authority may ask candidates or tenderers to supply additional material or to clarify the supporting documents submitted in connection with the exclusion and selection criteria, within the time limit it specifies."; | | 32001R1687 - Fifth amendment of Implementation of Community (3rd generation) - Commission M32A5 | Article 1.39=M32-104.4.3.s2 | Article 104 is replaced by the following:
..... However, the evaluation committee may ask candidates or tenderers to supply additional material or to clarify within a deadline it fixes the supporting documents submitted, where it is a question of documentation for the purpose of determining whether candidates or tenderers satisfy the selection criteria. |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | | T-195/05 Deloitte | 101-103 | M4-146.3.2 | 101. Firstly, regarding whether the Commission ought to have invited Euphet to supply additional information on the conflict of interest problem, it should be recalled that the first subparagraph of Article 146(3) of the Implementing Rules provides that requests to participate and tenders which do not satisfy all the essential requirements set out in the supporting documentation for invitations to tender or the specific requirements laid down therein are to be eliminated. However, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 146(3), the evaluation committee may ask candidates or tenderers to supply additional material or to clarify the supporting documents submitted in connection with the exclusion and selection criteria, within the time-limit specified by it.
102. It is clear from its very wording that the second subparagraph of Article 146(3) of the Implementing Rules gives the evaluation committee the option of requesting from tenderers additional information concerning the supporting documents submitted in relation to the exclusion and selection criteria. It follows that that provision cannot be interpreted as imposing a duty on the evaluation committee to request such information from tenderers (see, to that effect and by analogy, Case T19/95 Adia Interim v Commission [1996] ECR II321, paragraph 44). 103. Accordingly, in the present case, the Commission was right to decide to exclude Euphet's tender from the procedure for award of the contract by reason of a conflict of interest within the meaning of Article 94 of the Financial Regulation and section 9.1.3 of the specifications, without being required to request additional information pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 146(3) of the Implementing Rules. | | T-195/05-R Deloitte | 113 | M4-146.3.2 | 113. First of all, at this stage, serious doubts must be raised as to whether the Commission infringed Article 146(3) of the detailed implementing rules. As the applicant itself recognises, that provision simply offers the Commission a discretionary option. | T-169/00
Esedra | 91-109 | S2-3.2
S2-31.2
S4-34 | 91 Therefore, in accordance with Article 31(2) of Directive 92/50, the contract notice is the relevant document for determining whether the Commission made a serious and manifest error in selecting the application from the group of companies represented by Manieri.
92 Paragraph 13 of the contract notice, relating to information on the service provider's own situation and the formalities necessary for appraising the minimum financial and technical standing required, states that candidates must produce, together with their request to participate and mentioning reference 99/52/IX.D.1, the following documents:
...
(3) copies of the balance sheets and trading accounts for the last three years or if, for any valid reason, the candidate is unable to produce them, any other document proving his financial standing;
(4) a statement of the overall annual turnover in the last three financial years;
(5) a statement of the specific annual turnover in the sector to which the present invitation to tender relates, in the last three financial years;
...
93 In addition, paragraph 9 of the contract notice states that, if the tender is submitted on behalf of a group of service providers, all the members of the group must be jointly and severally responsible for the performance of the contract, while paragraph 12 states that the successful tenderer will be required to furnish a performance bond in the sum of EUR 400 000 before the contract takes effect.
94 Finally, the contract notice allows the Commission a certain discretion because paragraph 15(2) provides that the Commission may automatically reject an application which does not include all the information required in paragraph 13. Therefore the contract notice does not oblige the Commission to reject an incomplete application.
95 On this point, it must be observed that the Commission has a broad discretion in assessing the factors to be taken into account for the purpose of deciding to award a contract following an invitation to tender and the Court's review must be limited to verifying that there has been no serious and manifest error (see the judgments in Case 56/77 Agence Européenne d'Intérims v Commission [1978] ECR 2215, paragraph 20; the case of Adia Intérim v Commission, cited above, paragraph 49, and Case T-139/99 AICS v Parliament [2000] ECR II-2849, paragraph 39).
96 In the present case, the financial standing of Manieri and the other members of the group represented by it was appraised at two levels: at the time when applications were selected and, at a later stage, before the contract in question was awarded.
97 With regard to the first stage, it appears from the file that, when the selection of applications was carried out, Manieri's application was accompanied, firstly, by copies of the balance sheets and trading accounts for the last three years of four of the seven undertakings forming the group represented by Manieri, together with a substitute statement for the other three members (in accordance with paragraph 13(3) of the contract notice) and, secondly, a statement of the overall annual turnover in the last three financial years of each of the seven undertakings (in accordance with paragraph 13(4) of the contract notice) and a statement of the specific annual turnover in the sector to which the invitation to tender relates, in the last three financial years (in accordance with paragraph 13(5) of the contract notice).
98 Therefore, in view of the discretion granted to the Commission by the contract notice, the Commission cannot be criticised for not having rejected Manieri's application merely on the ground that Manieri gave no reason for the absence of copies of the balance sheets and trading accounts of three of the seven members of the group which it represents.
99 It must be observed that the Commission had other information which enabled it to determine the financial standing of the Manieri group in the absence of the balance sheets and trading accounts in question.
100 For example, the letter of 17 June 1999 from the bank Rolo Banca, which was annexed to Manieri's application, stated that Manieri had sufficient financial resources at its disposal. Such a document could be deemed an appropriate statement from a bank for the purposes of Article 31(1)(a) of Directive 92/50 which was in itself sufficient to prove the financial standing of a candidate and could be taken into account by the Commission on the basis of its discretion.
101 Manieri's offer of 23 October 1999 to furnish immediately the bank guarantee for EUR 400 000 mentioned in paragraph 12 of the contract notice also enabled the Commission to regard Manieri's financial standing as sufficient.
102 The same applies to the statement annexed to Manieri's letter of 23 October 1999, in which the seven members of the group represented by Manieri undertook jointly and severally to perform the contract in accordance with paragraph 9 of the contract notice.
103 In the present case these factors appear particularly relevant in so far as the financial standing of candidates for a public services contract must be assessed by reference to their ability to pay their staff and creditors if they are awarded the contract in question rather than by reference to the value of the contract. The draft framework contract accompanying the contract documents states accordingly that the Commission undertakes to pay the amounts due within a period of 60 days, which limits most of the risk associated with the candidate's financial standing to the expenses incurred in the two months during which it may have to allow the Commission credit and not, for example, to the annual value of the contract estimated by the Commission at EUR 4 000 000. In those circumstances a bank certificate, an offer of a guarantee or a joint and several undertaking are particularly appropriate for assessing a candidate's financial standing.
104 Furthermore, the priority given to technical standing over financial standing in the selection of candidates does not mean that financial standing was not considered at all. The conclusions of the assessment panel that the candidates' financial standing was not clear from the turnover figures given because of the different aids and subsidies they had received indicate expressly that a detailed check would have to be made of the proposed tenderer's financial cover before the contract was awarded.
105 In this connection it must be noted that, in conformity with the abovementioned request of the assessment panel, the Commission checked the financial standing of the Manieri group after it had been proposed for receiving the contract.
106 Consequently the balance sheets and the trading accounts of the three members of the group represented by Manieri which were not included with Manieri's application and which the Commission asked for on 13 October 1999 or, at least, the reason for their absence, as required by Article 34 of Directive 92/50, reached the Commission on 3 November 1999, thus completing the application.
107 Subsequently Manieri passed to the Commission a letter dated 3 February 2000 from Deutsche Bank which states that Manieri, taken on its own, has the financial resources at its disposal, it can meet its commitments and has a good reputation. This second letter, in addition to that from Rolo Banca 1473 of 17 June 1999, is further evidence of this applicant's financial standing.
108 It follows from the foregoing that, when considering the financial standing of Manieri and the other members of the group represented by it, the Commission did not disregard the contract notice or the contract documents, nor was there a manifest error of assessment on the Commission's part, nor did it infringe Article 34 of Directive 92/50 or the principle of non-discrimination.
109 Therefore the applicant's complaints relating to the successful tenderer's inadequate financial standing must be dismissed. | 76/81
Transporoute | 9 | W1-25.1.a-b
W1-25.1.c
W1-27 | Thus article 27 states that the authority awarding contracts may invite the contractor to supplement the certificates and documents submitted only within the limits of articles 23 to 26 of the directive, according to which member states may request references other than those expressly mentioned in the directive only for the purpose of assessing the financial and economic standing of the contractors as provided for in article 25 of the directive. |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | N-040216
Eurofins | 1-2 | S2-3.2.noncom-impl
S2-34 | 1. Bestemmelsen i Tjenesteydelsesdirektivets artikel 34 kan ikke antages at give de ordregivende myndigheder ret til – i strid med ligebehandlingsprincippet – at undlade at afvise tilbud, som ikke opfylder de krav, der vedrørende kriterierne for kvalitativ udvælgelse er fastsat i udbudsbekendtgørelsen eller i udbudsbetingelserne. Bestemmelsen kan alene antages at give de ordregivende myndigheder ret til at afkræve virksomheder yderligere oplysninger, hvis det viser sig, at de oplysninger, der er krævet i udbudsbekendtgørelsen eller i udbudsbetingelserne, ikke er tilstrækkelige til den vurdering, som den ordregivende myndighed ønsker at foretage af de virksomheder, der under et begrænset udbud anmoder om prækvalifikation, eller virksomheder, der under et offentligt udbud afgiver tilbud. Bestemmelsen finder derfor ikke anvendelse på den aktuelle situation.
2. Fristen for afgivelse af tilbud var i udbudsbekendtgørelsen fastsat til den 15. august 2003, og det var i udbudsbekendtgørelsen fastsat, at tilbudet skulle være vedlagt serviceattest fra Erhvervs- og Selskabsstyrelsen eller anden fuldgyldig dokumentation for, at tjenesteyderen ikke befinder sig i nogen af de situationer, der er nævnt i Tjenesteydelsesdirektivets artikel 29, stk. 1, litra a, litra b, litra c, litra e eller litra f. Da tilbudet fra klageren ikke var vedlagt den krævede dokumentation vedrørende alle disse punkter, og da denne dokumentation heller ikke efterfølgende blev afleveret inden fristens udløb, var indklagede forpligtet til at afvise klagerens tilbud. Påstanden tages derfor ikke til følge.
.....
K1. Klagen tages ikke til følge vedrørende påstand 1 og påstand 2.
[Påstand 1 Klagenævnet skal konstatere, at indklagede har handlet i strid med Tjenesteydelsesdirektivets ligebehandlingsprincip ved at afvise tilbudet fra klageren med den begrundelse, at klagerens tilbud ikke var vedlagt serviceattest fra Erhvervs- og Selskabsstyrelsen som foreskrevet i udbudsbekendtgørelsens punkt III.2.1.] | N-991217
Renoflex | 6-7 | S2-3.2.contact-impl
S2-23-impl
S2-34-impl
KNL1C1-5-impl | 6. Indklagede har i udbudsbekendtgørelsen opregnet de oplysninger, som en virksomhed, der ønsker at blive prækvalificeret, skal fremsende til kommunen sammen med anmodningen om prækvalifikation, og det er bl.a. på baggrund af EU-udbudsreglernes krav om gennemskuelighed og af hensyn til muligheden for at efterprøve udbydernes dispositioner en selvfølge, at disse oplysninger skal være indeholdt i medfølgende dokumenter. Da Holte Flytte- og Vognmandsforretning ApS ikke sammen med anmodningen om prækvalifikation fremsendte et eller flere dokumenter, hvoraf det fremgår, at »egnet materiel og kapacitet kan stilles til rådighed«, opfylder anmodningen fra denne virksomhed ikke de krav, som indklagede har fastsat.
7. Indklagede har således været forpligtet til at undlade at tage anmodningen fra Holte Flytte- og Vognmandsforretning ApS om prækvalifikation til følge.
K1. Klagenævnet annullerer indklagedes beslutning om at prækvalificere Holte Flytte- og Vognmandsforretning ApS. | N-990604-2
BCP | 1 | G2-na [C3-2.contact]
G2-20.1-impl
G2-24-impl | 1. Det af indklagede stillede krav vedrørende »Virksomhedens særlige forhold « fremgik, dels af selve spørgeskemaet, dels af den skrivelse, hvormed det fremsendtes til klageren. Da klageren ikke medsendte den fornødne dokumentation vedrørende »Virksomhedens særlige forhold«, er klageren med føje udelukket fra den pågældende prækvalifikation.
[Sagsfresmtillingen: Klageren har nedlagt påstand om, at Klagenævnet skal fastslå, at indklagede har handlet i strid med udbudsreglerne ved at have fravalgt klageren som tilbudsgiver i forbindelse med udbudt rammekontrakt for datamater alene under henvisning til, at klageren ikke har fremsendt dokumentation vedrørende konkurs, likvidation, konkursbehandling og faglig hæderlighed samt om at Klagenævnet skal annullere den ulovlige beslutning og pålægge indklagede at lovliggøre udbudsforretningen.
.....
Indklagede har til støtte for påstanden om frifindelse gjort gældende, at udelukkelsen, selv om den er sket på et formelt grundlag, var korrekt. Der er efter direktivets artikel 24 snævre rammer for, hvor megen »efterfølgende aktivitet« en udbyder kan udvise uden at krænke princippet om lige behandling at tilbudsgiverne. Der er ikke efter bestemmelsen nogen ret til for en leverandør til efter opfordring fra udbyderen at råde bod på fejl og forsømmelser.] | N-990604
Acer | 1 | G2-na [C3-2.contact]
G2-20.1-impl
G2-24-impl | 1. Det af indklagede opstillede dokumentationskrav fremgår med al tydelighed af bl.a. det til klageren fremsendte spørgeskema. Idet det alene beror på klagerens eget forhold, at dokumentationskravet ikke rettidigt opfyldtes, tages klagen ikke til følge.
[Sagsfremstillingen: Klageren udfyldte det i skrivelsen nævnte spørgeskema, indsendte dette i udfyldt stand rettidigt til indklagede, men havde overset kravet om, at oplysninger om, at virksomheden ikke er under konkurs m.v., skulle dokumenteres f.eks. ved en såkaldt »serviceattest« udstedt af Erhvervs– og Selskabsstyrelsen, hvorfor indklagede ved skrivelse af 3. februar 1999 meddelte klageren, at virksomheden ikke kunne indgå i udvælgelsen af kvalificerede tilbudsgivere, da der ikke forelå den krævede dokumentation vedrørende virksomhedens forhold. Uanset, klageren ved skrivelse af 4. februar 1999 overfor indklagede beklagede den skete fejl og den 17. februar 1999 til indklagede fremsendte serviceattesten udstedt den 16. februar 1999, fastholdt indklagede afgørelsen.] | N-981127
Turistvognmændenes Landsforening | 3-4 | S2-3.2-impl
S2-17.1.s2-impl
S2-23
S2-29
S2-32 | 3. Oplysningerne ved tilbudet om, at Brørup Taxa rådede over 7 vogne, synes at have været misvisende i henseende til udbudsbetingelsernes krav om oplysning om ressourcer og udstyr, der skulle anvendes ved opgaven, idet Brørup Taxa efter det oplyste ikke havde kørselsbevillinger til at anvende alle 7 vogne ved opgavens udførelse. Det må imidlertid lægges til grund, at amtet ikke kendte forholdet ved kontraktens indgåelse, og der findes intet grundlag for at gå ud fra, at amtet havde pligt til at kontrollere oplysningerne. Endvidere var det efter udbudsbetingelserne tilbudsgiverens ansvar at have de nødvendige tilladelser. Det bemærkes herved, at de bestemmelser i tjenesteydelsesdirektivet, som Turistvognmændenes Landsforening har påberåbt sig, ikke ses at medføre forpligtelse for en ordregiver til at kontrollere rigtigheden af oplysningerne i et tilbud.
4. Amtet var herefter berettiget til at regne med, at tilbudet var afgivet af de 4 vognmænd, og at oplysningerne i tilbudet var rigtige, og amtet overtrådte således ikke EU's ligebehandlingsprincip ved at tage tilbudet i betragtning. Klagen tages derfor ikke til følge.
[Sagsfremstillingen: Amtet burde have foretaget nærmere undersøgelser og ville derved have konstateret oplysningernes urigtighed, jf. tjenesteydelsesdirektivets artikler 23, 29 og 32. Tilbudet var som følge af de nævnte forhold ikke konditionsmæssigt, og amtet har derfor tilsidesat EU's ligebehandlingsprincip ved at tage det i betragtning.] |
|
|
