ECJ Public works contracts – Award to the most economically advantageous tender – Award criteria.
There was a disagreement between the parties as to the interpretation of tender documents.
Held: The award criteria must be formulated, in the contract documents or the contract notice, in such a way as to allow all reasonably well-informed and normally diligent tenderers to interpret them in the same way. The court stated: ‘Next, the principle of equal treatment implies an obligation of transparency in order to enable compliance with it to be verified.’
C-19/00, [2001] EUECJ C-19/00, [2001] ECR I-7725
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Unitron Scandinavia and 3-S etc v Ministeriet for Fdevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri ECJ 18-Nov-1999
ECJ Public supply contracts – Directive 93/36/EEC – Award of public supply contracts by a body other than a contracting authority . .
Cited by:
Cited – The Law Society, Regina (on the Application of) v Legal Services Commission CA 29-Nov-2007
The Law Society challenged the new contract proposed for legal aid providers, saying that the Unified Contract reserved too great powers to alter its terms unilaterally, and was in breach of the European Directive on standards for public procurement . .
Cited – Healthcare at Home Ltd v The Common Services Agency SC 30-Jul-2014
The court asked how to apply the concept in European law of ‘The reasonably well-informed and diligent tenderer’. The pursuer had had a contract for the delivery of healthcare services, but had lost it when it was retendered.
Held: When an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Administrative
Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.166766