| | 32004L0018: c3-7.cWorks    
| 32004L0018 - Classic (3rd generation) | Article 7.c | | (c) EUR 6242000 for public works contracts. | | 32004L0017 - Utilities (3rd generation) | Article 16.b | | (b) EUR 6242000 in the case of works contracts. | | 32004R1874 - First joint amendment of Classic and Utilities (3rd generation) | Article 1.1.b=U16.b + 2.1.c=C7.c | (b) in point (b), the amount "EUR 6242000" is replaced by "EUR 5923000".
(c) in point (c), the amount "EUR 6242000" is replaced by "EUR 5923000"; | | 32005R2083 - Fourth joint amendment of Classic and Utilities (3rd generation) | Article 1.1.b=U16.b + 2.1.c=C7.c | (b) in point (b), the amount "EUR 5923000" is replaced by "EUR 5278000".
(c) in point (c), the amount "EUR 5923000" is replaced by "EUR 5278000". | | 32007R1422 - Fifth joint amendment of Classic and Utilities (3rd generation) | Article 1.1.b=U16.b + 2.1.c=C7.c | (b) in point (b), the amount ‘EUR 5 278 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 5 150 000’.
(c) in point (c), the amount ‘EUR 5 278 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 5 150 000’. | | 31993L0037 - Works (2nd generation) | Article 6.1 | Article 6
1. The provisions of this Directive shall apply to public works contracts whose estimated value net of VAT is not less than ECU 5 000 000. | | 31997L0052 - Joint amendment of Classic (2nd generation) | Article 3.1.first part (W6.1.a) | Article 3
Directive 93/37/EEC is hereby amended as follows:
1. In Article 6:
(A) paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be replaced by the following:
'1. This Directive shall apply to:
(a) public works contracts whose estimated value net of value-added tax (VAT) is not less than the equivalent in ecus of 5 000 000 special drawing rights (SDRs); | | 31993L0038 - Utilities (2nd generation) | Article 14.1.c | | (c) ECU 5 000 000 in the case of works contracts. | | 31998L0004 - Amendment of Utilities (2nd generation) | Article 1.1.a=U14.1.a.ii, 14.1.b.iii, 14.c.ii | (ii) ECU 5 000 000 in the case of works contracts;
.....
(iii) the equivalent in ECU of 5 000 000 SDR for works contracts;
.....
(ii) ECU 5 000 000 in the case of works contracts. | | 31971L0305 - Works (1st generation) | Article 7.1 | | Article 7 1. The provisions of titles II, III and iv and article 9 shall apply, under the conditions laid down in article 5, to public works contracts whose estimated value is not less than 1 000 000 units of account. | | 31978L0669 - Third amendment of Works (1st generation) | Article 1=W-7.1 | Article 1
Directive 71/305/eec is amended as follows:
1. Article 7 (1) shall be replaced by the following:
"1. (a ) the provisions of titles ii , iii and iv and article 9 shall apply, under the conditions laid down in article 5 , to public works contracts the estimated value of which net of vat is not less than 1 000 000 European Units of account.
(b) the European unit of account shall be that defined by article 10 of the financial regulation of 21 December 1977 applicable to be general budget of the European communities.
(c ) the exchange value in national currency to be applied shall be the average of the daily value of this currency over the preceding 12 months, calculated on the last day of October every two years , with effect from the following 1 January. This exchange value, calculated by the Commission, shall be published in the official journal of the European Communities during the first days of November.
(d) the method of calculation laid down in subparagraph (c) shall be examined, on the commission's initiative, within the advisory committee for public contracts two years after its initial application
(e) this method shall in any event be reviewed once the council has acted on the proposal for a regulation, submitted by the commission, applying the European unit of account (EUA) to the general budget of the European communities and to the legal acts adopted by the institutions."
2. The following footnote shall be added: " (1) OJ n l 356, 31. 12. 1977, p. 1". | | 31989L0440 - Fourth amendment of Works (1st generation) | Article 1.6=W1-4a.1 & 1.9=W1-7.1 | 6. The following Article is inserted:
Article 4a
1. The provisions of this Directive shall apply to public works contracts whose estimated value net of VAT is not less than ECU 5 000 000.
9. Article 7, 8 and 9 are hereby repealed. | | 31990L0531 - Utilities (1st generation) | Article 12.1.c | | (c) ECU 5 million in the case of works contracts. |
Legislation concerning national procurement of works| DLB-1410/07 - First codification of Third law on National Procurement (NPL3C1) | Article 12.3.s1.p2 | | Stk. 3. Udbydere omfattet af § 1, stk. 2, nr. 1 og 2, kan ikke indhente underhåndsbud på bygge- og anlægsarbejder med en samlet anslået værdi af arbejdet eksklusive moms på mere end 3 mio. kr., | | DL-338/05 - Third law on National Procurement (NPL3) | Article 12.3.s1.p2 | | Stk. 3. Udbydere omfattet af § 1, stk. 2, nr. 1 og 2, kan ikke indhente underhåndsbud på bygge- og anlægsarbejder med en samlet anslået værdi af arbejdet eksklusive moms på mere end 3 mio. kr., | | DBK-758/01 - First order under second law on National Procurement (NPL2BK1) | Article 13.2 | | Stk. 2. Underhåndsbud kan indhentes på bygge- og anlægsarbejder med en anslået samlet værdi ekskl. moms på 1 mio. kr. eller derunder. | | DBK-595/02 - Second order under second law on National Procurement (NPL2BK2) | Article 13.3 | | Stk. 3. Underhåndsbud kan indhentes på bygge- og anlægsarbejder med en anslået samlet værdi ekskl. moms på 2 mio. kr. eller derunder. |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | C-220/05
Auroux | 28-27 | W2-3.1
W2-6.1 | 48. By its second question, the national court asks the Court about the methods for determining the value of the contract at issue, in order to establish whether the threshold laid down in Article 6 of the Directive has been reached.
49. The national court puts forward three possible bases for calculation of that threshold. First, the value of the contract is determined only on the basis of the amounts paid by the contracting authority as consideration for the works which are transferred to it. Second, the value of the contract is constituted by all the sums paid by the contracting authority, that is to say the consideration for the works transferred to it as well as the financial contribution paid in respect of all the works to be executed. Third, the determination of the value of the contract takes account of the total value of the works, including the amounts paid by the contracting authority and those received from third parties as consideration for the works executed on their behalf.
50. It must be observed first of all that, according to the wording of Article 6 of the Directive, its provisions apply to public works contracts whose value reaches the threshold laid down therein. Article 6 does not lay down any rule limiting the amounts to be taken into account in order to determine the value of the contract to the amounts received from the contracting authority.
51. Furthermore, to infer such a rule from Article 6 would be contrary to the spirit and the purpose of the Directive.
52. As is apparent from the 2nd and 10th recitals, the Directive aims to abolish restrictions on freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services in respect of public works contracts in order to open up such contracts to genuine competition (Ordine degli Architetti and Others , paragraph 52). As the 10th recital states, the development of such competition entails the publication at Community level of contract notices containing sufficient information to enable contractors established in the Community to determine whether the proposed contracts are of interest to them. In that regard, the threshold laid down in Article 6 of the Directive serves to ensure that public contracts with a sufficiently high value to justify intra-Community participation are notified to potential tenderers.
53. Since the aim of the procedures for the award of public works contracts laid down in the Directive is precisely to guarantee to potential tenderers established in the European Community access to public contracts of interest to them, it follows that whether the value of a contract reaches the threshold laid down in Article 6 of the Directive should be calculated from the tenderers' perspective.
54. It is clear, in that regard, that, if the value of a contract is constituted by revenue from both the contracting authority and from third parties, the interest of a potential tenderer in such a contract resides in its overall value.
55. Conversely, the argument that only the amounts paid by the contracting authority should be taken into account in the calculation of the value of a contract within the meaning of Article 6 of the Directive would undermine its purpose. The result would be that the contracting authority could award a contract with an overall value exceeding the threshold laid down in Article 6 which might interest other contractors active on the market, without applying the procedures for the award of public works contracts provided for in the Directive.
56. Finally, it must be recalled that, under Article 3 of the Directive, public works concession contracts are subject to the advertising rules laid down by the Directive where the threshold referred to in that provision is reached. Since an essential characteristic of concessions is that the consideration for the works comes either wholly or partly from third parties, it would be contrary to the purpose and scheme which underpin the Directive that, in the context of public works contracts, the amounts coming from third parties were excluded from the calculation of the value of the contract for the purposes of Article 6 of the Directive.
57. Having regard to the foregoing, the answer to the second question must be that, in order to determine the value of a contract for the purpose of Article 6 of the Directive, account must be taken of the total value of the works contract from the point of view of a potential tenderer, including not only the total amounts to be paid by the contracting authority but also all the revenue received from third parties. | C-16/98
France | 74-80 | U2-14.1.c
U2-14.10.2.s3 | 74 The Commission complains that, by artificially splitting the contract for the works at issue, the French authorities infringed the provisions of the Directive as regards the threshold.
75 It must be observed that Article 14(1)(c) established the threshold for the applicability of the Directive at ECU 5 000 000 and that, as regards the lots of a work, Article 14(10), second subparagraph, whilst requiring the value of all the lots to be aggregated, allows derogation from the Directive in respect of lots the estimated value, net of VAT, for which is less than ECU 1 million, provided that the aggregate value of those lots does not exceed 20% of the overall value of the lots.
76 In view of the finding made at paragraph 66 of this judgment, it must be ascertained whether the value of the contracts for electrification exceeds the above thresholds.
77 The documents before the Court show that those contracts, of which there are 19, account for a total estimated value, net of VAT, of FRF 483 000 000 over the three year period envisaged. That sum is well in excess of the threshold of ECU 5 000 000, which, at the material time, was equivalent to FRF 33 966 540.
78 It follows that the French authorities should have applied the Directive to all the lots making up the contract for electrification work, apart from those whose estimated individual value, net of VAT, was below the threshold of ECU 1 million which, at the material time, was equivalent to an amount of FRF 6 793 308, provided that their aggregate value did not exceed 20% of the overall value of the lots.
79 The evidence put forward by the Commission in reply to a question put by the Court shows that, of the electrification contracts only one, the estimated value, net of VAT, of which was FRF 6 000 000, did not exceed the threshold of ECU 1 million. The value of that contract was also less than 20% of the estimated total value, net of VAT, of all the electrification work.
80 The French authorities did not publish an invitation to tender at Community level for the 18 other electrification contracts, but only for six of them. Accordingly, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1)(c), and (10), second subparagraph, of the Directive. | T-29/92
Bouwnijverheid | 236 | W1A2-7.1 | The Court also considers that the applicants may not rely on the threshold of ECU 5 million laid down by Directive 71/305/EEC. As the Commission pointed out in its decision (paragraph 105), the aims pursued by Article 85 of the Treaty and by the directive differ too much for the threshold laid down by the latter to serve as a point of reference for the level at which Article 85 applies. It should be observed that the legal basis of that directive has no connection with Article 85 of the Treaty and that provision is not mentioned in its preamble. It cannot therefore be contended that the threshold laid down in that directive is to guide the Commission in its application of Article 85 of the Treaty. |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | N-070618
KPC Byg | 1-11+K1 | P3A4-2.1.c=C3-7.c
Notice 2007/C 301/01
C3-9.1.1
C3-9.1.2 | Ad påstand 1
1. I licitationsbetingelsernes »Udbudsbrev« af 4. februar 2005 er fastsat, at licitationen gennemføres som en »indbudt/begrænset omvendt licitation«, og at projektet udbydes til en maksimal totalentreprisesum på 44 mio. kr. ekskl. moms. Det er endvidere fastsat, at afgivelse af konditionsmæssige tilbud bliver honoreret med 50.000 kr. ekskl. moms under forudsætning af, at bygherren frit kan anvende det i tilbudene foreslåede eller dele heraf. Den tilbudsgiver, med hvem der indgås totaltentreprisekontrakt, honoreres ikke for afgivelse af tilbud.
2. I licitationsbetingelsernes »Byggeprogram« af 4. februar 2005 er fastsat, at tildelingskriteriet er det »Økonomisk mest fordelagtige bud, vurderet som angivet i »Byggeprogram««, og at vurderingen af de tilbudte løsninger foretages på grundlag af, at den faste økonomiske ramme for den samlede tilbudte totalentreprise skal holdes på maksimalt 44 mio. kr. ekskl. moms.
3. I »Rettelsesblad nr. 06« af 30. marts 2005 er fastsat, at det i byggeprogrammet med tilhørende rumskemaer anførte er bygherrens ideale krav og ønsker, og at det er tilbudsgiverens opgave at belyse, i hvilket omfang disse krav kan opfyldes inden for den afsatte økonomiske ramme på 44 mio. kr. ekskl. moms. Såfremt dele af det i udbudsmaterialet anførte ikke kan indeholdes i tilbudet, skal disse prissættes separat.
4. Klagenævnet finder, at indklagede har handlet i strid med Udbudsdirektivet ved at undlade at udbyde kontrakten efter bestemmelserne i Udbudsdirektivet, da den anslåede værdi af kontrakten overstiger tærskelbeløbet for offentlige bygge- og anlægsarbejder.
5. Ifølge artikel 7, litra c, i Udbudsdirektivet gælder direktivet for offentlige kontrakter, der ikke er omfattet af undtagelsesbestemmelserne i artikel 10 og 11 og artikel 12-18, og hvis anslåede værdi eksklusive moms svarer til eller overstiger nedennævnte tærskelværdi.
6. Efter Udbudsdirektivets artikel 9, stk. 1, beregnes den anslåede værdi af en offentlig kontrakt på grundlag af det samlede beløb eksklusive moms, som den ordregivende myndighed kan komme til at betale. I denne beregning tages der hensyn til det anslåede samlede beløb, herunder enhver form for optioner og eventuelle forlængelser af kontrakten. Hvis den ordregivende myndighed forudser præmier eller betalinger til ansøgere eller tilbudsgivere, skal der tages hensyn hertil ved beregning af kontraktens værdi.
7. Ifølge artikel 2, stk. 1, litra c, i forordning nr. 1874/2004 af 28. oktober 2004 om ændring af Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 2004/17/EF og 2004/18/EF for så vidt angår tærskelværdierne for anvendelse af fremgangsmåderne ved indgåelse af offentlige bygge- og anlægskontrakter ændredes den for denne klagesag relevante tærskelværdi fra »6.242.000 EUR« i artikel 7, litra c, i direktiv 2004/18/EF til »5.923.000 EUR«.
8. Ved meddelelse C 266/3 af 29. oktober 2004 fra Kommissionen om modværdierne af tærskelbeløbene i Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 2004/17/EF og 2004/18/EF, som ændret ved Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 1874/2004, er modværdien i danske kroner (DKK) af tærskelbeløbet 5.923.000 EUR fastsat til 44.019.088.
9. Ved afgørelsen har Klagenævnet lagt vægt på, at indklagede på baggrund af licitationsbetingelserne måtte forudse, at op til 4 tilbudsgivere kan få ret til et honorar på 50.000 kr. ekskl. moms for afgivelse af konditionsmæssigt tilbud, og at disse honorarer skulle afholdes ud over den maksimale totalentreprisesum på 44 mio. kr. ekskl. moms. Klagenævnet finder således, at indklagede i medfør Udbudsdirektivets artikel 9, stk. 1, skulle have medregnet både totalentreprisesummen med 44 mio. kr. ekskl. moms og 4 honorarer á 50.000 kr. ekskl. moms ved tærskelværdiberegningen.
10. Påstanden tages allerede af denne grund til følge.
11. Klagenævnet anser det således for unødvendigt at tage stilling til det, klageren efterfølgende under anbringende af, at det projekt, klagen vedrører, reelt kun er en del af et langt større projekt, har anført om merudgifter på i alt knap 29 mio. kr.
.....
K1. Ad påstand 1 Indklagede har handlet i strid med Udbudsdirektivet ved at udbyde totalentreprisen og udarbejdelsen af projekt til indretning af transport- og autoundervisningscenter i den eksisterende ejendom, som er beliggende Petersmindevej 1/Risingvej 45-47, 5000 Odense C, efter Tilbudsloven og ikke efter Udbudsdirektivet. | N-070220
Bangs Gård | 1-2+K1 | C3-1.2.b
P3A4-2.1.c=C3-7.c-impl
C3-9.1
C3-16.a-impl | 1. Ved den lejekontrakt, som indklagede ønsker at indgå, tilsigter indklagede at få rådighed over et bygge- og anlægsarbejde – i form af en teaterbygning – der svarer til de behov, som er præciseret af indklagede, og den pågældende lejekontrakt er derfor en offentlig bygge- og anlægskontrakt omfattet af Udbudsdirektivet, jf. Udbudsdirektivets artikel 1, stk. 2, litra b.
2. Efter Udbudsdirektivets artikel 9, stk. 1, beregnes den anslåede værdi af en offentlig kontrakt på grundlag af det samlede beløb excl. moms, som den ordregivende myndighed må antages at komme til at betale for ydelsen. Det er i betingelserne fastsat, at den årlige leje ikke må overstige 2,2 mio. kr., og det fremgår af betingelserne, at lejemålet skal være uopsigeligt for indklagede i 30 år. Tages der udgangspunkt i disse tal – svarende til en samlet udgift for indklagede på 66 mio. kr. – overstiger den anslåede værdi af den pågældende lejekontrakt tærskelværdien for bygge- og anlægsarbejder på 39.277.401 kr. Den anslåede værdi af kontakten ligger således ikke under tærskelværdien, og indklagede har derfor handlet i strid med Udbudsdirektivet ved ikke at gennemføre et EU-udbud efter Udbudsdirektivet.
.....
K1. Indklagede har handlet i strid med Udbudsdirektivet ved den 12. oktober 2006 at beslutte at tilvejebringe grundlag for indgåelse af lejekontrakt om Esbjerg Teater, uden forinden at gennemføre EU-udbud efter Udbudsdirektivet vedrørende dette bygge- og anlægsarbejde, uagtet den pågældende lejekontrakts anslåede værdi oversteg tærskelværdien. | N-060203
J. Olsen A/S Entreprenør- & nedrivningsfirmaet | 1-4+K1 | NPL2-na [C3-1.2.b.s1]
NPL2BK2-13.3
C3-16.a-impl | Ad påstand 1
1. § 1 i den dagældende Tilbudslov nr. 450 af 7. juni 2001 må forstås sådan, at de offentlige bygge- og anlægsopgaver, som loven omfattede, svarer til de bygge- og anlægsarbejder, der var omfattet af Bygge- og anlægsdirektivet 93/37. Af artikel 1, a) i Bygge- og anlægsdirektivet fremgår, at direktivet omfattede en offentlig ordregivers udførelse af et bygge- og anlægsarbejde ved et hvilket som helst middel, og Tilbudsloven af 2001 må forstås tilsvarende.
2. Det bemærkes, at den nugældende Tilbudslov nr. 338 af 18. maj 2005 må forstås på samme måde, jf. § 1 i denne lov og artikel 1, stk. 1, b) i det nugældende udbudsdirektiv 2004/18.
3. Indklagede ønskede en genbrugsstation opført. Det var under forløbet uafklaret, om indklagede ønskede at erhverve en genbrugsstation eller blot leje en sådan, og forløbet må ses som en helhed. I hvert fald som følge af disse omstændigheder må indklagede anses for at have ønsket udført en genbrugsstation ved et hvilket som helst middel, hvorfor indklagede skulle gå frem efter Tilbudsloven. Da den anslåede værdi af en genbrugsstation endvidere ubestridt oversteg 2 mio. kr., havde indklagede pligt til at afholde licitation i henhold til Tilbudsloven, jf. § 13, stk. 3, i Tilbudsbekendtgørelsen.
4. Påstanden tages herefter til følge.
.....
K1. Ad påstand 1 Indklagede har handlet i strid med § 13,stk. 3, ved i Tilbudsbekendtgørelsen (bekendtgørelse nr. 595 af 9. juli 2002) ved at have indhentet tilbud på opførelse af en modtagestation i form af underhåndsbud, selvom arbejdets anslåede værdi oversteg 2 mio. kr. | N-961212
Entreprenørforeningens Miljøsektion | 2-3 | U2-14.1.c-impl | 2. Den af indklagede udbudte opgave er af et sådant omfang både i henseende til kvantitet og i henseende til økonomisk omfang, at indklagede på langt sikrere grundlag end sket burde have afklaret spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt opgaven skulle udbydes i EU-udbud eller ej.
3. Nævnet finder, at indklagede på et helt utilstrækkeligt grundlag har undladt at udbyde opgaven, der, da tærskelværdien langt er overskredet, er omfattet af Rådets direktiv 93/38/EØF. |
|
|
