| | 32004L0018: c3-23.3Formulation of technical specifications    
| 32004L0018 - Classic (3rd generation) | Article 23.3 | 3. Without prejudice to mandatory national technical rules, to the extent that they are compatible with Community law, the technical specifications shall be formulated:
(a) either by reference to technical specifications defined in Annex VI and, in order of preference, to national standards transposing European standards, European technical approvals, common technical specifications, international standards, other technical reference systems established by the European standardisation bodies or - when these do not exist - to national standards, national technical approvals or national technical specifications relating to the design, calculation and execution of the works and use of the products. Each reference shall be accompanied by the words "or equivalent";
(b) or in terms of performance or functional requirements; the latter may include environmental characteristics. However, such parameters must be sufficiently precise to allow tenderers to determine the subject-matter of the contract and to allow contracting authorities to award the contract;
(c) or in terms of performance or functional requirements as mentioned in subparagraph (b), with reference to the specifications mentioned in subparagraph (a) as a means of presuming conformity with such performance or functional requirements;
(d) or by referring to the specifications mentioned in subparagraph (a) for certain characteristics, and by referring to the performance or functional requirements mentioned in subparagraph (b) for other characteristics. | | 32004L0017 - Utilities (3rd generation) | Article 34.3 | 3. Without prejudice to legally binding national technical rules, to the extent that they are compatible with Community law, the technical specifications shall be formulated:
(a) either by reference to technical specifications defined in Annex XXI and, in order of preference, to national standards transposing European standards, European technical approvals, common technical specifications, international standards, other technical reference systems established by the European standardisation bodies or - when these do not exist - national standards, national technical approvals or national technical specifications relating to the design, calculation and execution of the works and use of the products. Each reference shall be accompanied by the words "or equivalent";
(b) or in terms of performance or functional requirements; the latter may include environmental characteristics. However, such parameters must be sufficiently precise to allow tenderers to determine the subject-matter of the contract and to allow contracting entities to award the contract;
(c) or in terms of performance or functional requirements as mentioned in subparagraph (b), with reference to the specifications mentioned in subparagraph (a) as a means of presuming conformity with such performance or functional requirements;
(d) or by referring to the specifications mentioned in subparagraph (a) for certain characteristics, and by referring to the performance or functional requirements mentioned in subparagraph (b) for other characteristics. | | 31993L0037 - Works (2nd generation) | Article 10.2-5 | 2. Without prejudice to the legally binding national technical rules and insofar as these are compatible with Community law, the technical specifications shall be defined by the contracting authorities by reference to national standards implementing European standards, or by reference to European technical approvals or by reference to common technical specifications.
3. A contracting authority may depart from paragraph 2 if:
(a) the standards, European technical approvals or common technical specifications do not include any provision for establishing conformity, or, if technical means do not exist for establishing satisfactorily the conformity of a product to these standards, European technical approvals or common technical specifications;
(b) use of these standards, European technical approvals or common technical specifications would oblige the contracting authority to acquire products or materials incompatible with equipment already in use or would entail disproportionate costs or disproportionate technical difficulties, but only as part of a clearly defined and recorded strategy with a view to change-over, within a given period, to European standards, European technical approvals or common technical specifications;
(c) the project concerned is of a genuinely innovative nature for which use of existing European standards, European technical approvals or common technical specifications would not be appropriate.
4. Contracting authorities invoking paragraph 3 shall record, wherever possible, the reasons for doing so in the tender notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities or in the contract documents and in all cases shall record these reasons in their internal documentation and shall supply such information on request to Member States and to the Commission.
5. In the absence of European standards or European technical approvals or common technical specifications, the technical specifications:
(a) shall be defined by reference to the national technical specifications recognized as complying with the basic requirements listed in the Community directives on technical harmonization, in accordance with the procedures laid down in those directives, and in particular in accordance with the procedures laid down in Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products(6) ;
(b) may be defined by reference to national technical specifications relating to design and method of calculation and execution of works and use of materials;
(c) may be defined by reference to other documents.
In this case, it is appropriate to make reference in order of preference to:
(i) national standards implementing international standards accepted by the country of the contracting authority;
(ii) other national standards and national technical approvals of the country of the contracting authority;
(iii) any other standard.
(6) OJ No L 40, 11. 2. 1989, p. 12. | | 31993L0036 - Goods (2nd generation) | Article 8.2-5 | 2. Without prejudice to the legally binding national technical rules, in so far as these are compatible with Community law, the technical specifications mentioned in paragraph 1 shall be defined by the contracting authorities by reference to national standards implementing European standards, or by reference to European technical approvals or by reference to common technical specifications.
3. A contracting authority may depart from paragraph 2 if:
(a) the standards, European technical approvals or common technical specifications do not include any provision for establishing conformity or technical means do not exist for establishing satisfactorily the conformity of a product to these standards, European technical approvals or common technical specifications;
(b) the application of paragraph 2 would prejudice the application of Council Directive 86/361/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the initial stage of the mutual recognition of type approval for telecommunications terminal equipment(10) or Council Decision 87/95/EEC of 22 December 1986 on standardization in the field of information technology and telecommunications(11) or other Community instruments in specific service or product areas;
(c) use of these standards, European technical approvals or common technical specifications would oblige the contracting authority to acquire supplies incompatible with equipment already in use or would entail disproportionate costs or disproportionate technical difficulties, but only as part of a clearly defined and recorded strategy with a view to change-over, within a given period, to European standards, European technical approvals or common technical specifications;
(d) the project concerned is of a genuinely innovative nature for which use of existing European standards, European technical approvals or common technical specifications would not be appropriate.
4. Contracting authorities invoking paragraph 3 shall record, wherever possible, the reasons for doing so in the tender notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities or in the contract documents and in all cases shall record these reasons in their internal documentation and shall supply such information on request to Member States and to the Commission.
5. In the absence of European standards, European technical approvals or common technical specifications, the technical specifications:
(a) shall be defined by reference to the national technical specifications recognized as complying with the basic requirements listed in the Community directives on technical harmonization, in accordance with the procedures laid down in those directives, and in particular in accordance with the procedures laid down in Directive 89/106/EEC(12) ;
(b) may be defined by reference to national technical specifications relating to design and method of calculation and execution of works and use of materials;
(c) may be defined by reference to other documents. In this case, it is appropriate to make reference in order of preference to:
(i) national standards implementing international standards accepted by the country of the contracting authority;
(ii) other national standards and national technical approvals of the country of the contracting authority;
(iii) any other standard.
(10) OJ No L 217, 5. 8. 1986, p. 21. Directive as amended by Directive 91/263/EEC (OJ No L 128, 23. 5 1991, p. 1).
(11) OJ No L 36, 7. 2. 1987, p. 31.
(12) OJ No L 40, 11. 2. 1989, p. 12. | | 31992L0050 - Services (2nd generation) | Article 14.2-5 | 2. Without prejudice to the legally binding national technical rules and insofar as these are compatible with Community law, such technical specifications shall be defined by the contracting authorities by reference to national standards implementing European standards or by reference to European technical approvals or by reference to common technical specifications.
3. A contracting authority may depart from paragraph 2 if:
(a) the standards, European technical approvals or common technical specifications do not include any provisions for establishing conformity, or technical means do not exist for establishing satisfactorily the conformity of a product with these standards, European technical approvals or common technical specifications;
(b) the application of paragraph 2 would prejudice the application of Council Directive 86/361/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the initial stage of the mutual recognition of type approval for telecommunications terminal equipment(8), or Council Decision 87/95/EEC of 22 December 1986 on standardization in the field of information technology and telecommunications(9) or other Community instruments in specific service or product areas;
(c) these standards, European technical approvals or common technical specifications would oblige the contracting authority to use products or materials incompatible with equipment already in use or would entail disproportionate costs or disproportionate technical difficulties, but only as part of a clearly defined and recorded strategy with a view to the transition, with a given period, to European standards, European technical approvals or common technical specifications;
(d) the project concerned is of a genuinely innovative nature for which use of existing European standards, European technical approvals or common technical specifications would not be appropriate.
4. Contracting authorities invoking paragraph 3 shall record, wherever possible, the reasons for doing so in the contract notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities or in the contract documents and in all cases shall record these reasons in their internal documentation and shall supply such information on request to Member States and to the Commission.
5. In the absence of European standards or European technical approvals or common technical specifications, the technical specifications:
(a) shall be defined by reference to the national technical specifications recognized as complying with the basic requirements listed in the Community directives on technical harmonization, in accordance with the procedures laid down in those directives, and in particular in accordance with the procedures laid down in Directive 89/106/EEC(10);
(b) may be defined by reference to national technical specifications relating to design and method of calculation and execution of works and use of materials;
(c) may be defined by reference to other documents.
In this case, it is appropriate to make reference in order of preference to:
(i) national standards implementing international standards accepted by the country of the contracting authority;
(ii) other national standards and national technical approvals of the country of the contracting authority;
(iii) any other standard.
(8) OJ No L 217, 5. 8. 1986, p. 21. Amended by Directive 91/263/EEC (OJ No L 128, 23. 5. 1991, p. 1).
(9) OJ No L 36, 7. 2. 1987, p. 31.
(10) OJ No L 40, 11. 2. 1989, p. 12. | | 31993L0038 - Utilities (2nd generation) | Article 18.2-4+6-8 | 2. The technical specifications shall be defined by reference to European specifications, where these exist.
3. In the absence of European specifications, the technical specifications should as far as possible be defined by reference to other standards having currency within the Community.
4. Contracting entities shall define such further requirements as are necessary to complete European specifications or other standards. In so doing, they shall prefer specifications which indicate performance requirements rather than design or description characteristics, unless the contracting entity has objective reasons for considering that such specifications are inadequate for the purposes of the contract.
6. Contracting entities may derogate from paragraph 2 if:
(a) it is technically impossible to establish satisfactorily that a product conforms to the European specifications;
(b) the application of paragraph 2 would prejudice the application of Council Directive 86/361/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the initial stage of the mutual recognition of type approval for telecommunications terminal equipment(14) , or of Council Decision 87/95/EEC of 22 December 1986 on standardization in the field of information technology and telecommunications(15) ;
(c) in the context of adapting existing practice to take account of European specifications, use of those specifications would oblige the contracting entity to acquire supplies incompatible with equipment already in use or would entail disproportionate cost or disproportionate technical difficulty. Contracting entities which have recourse to this derogation shall do so only as part of clearly-defined and recorded strategy with a view to a changeover to European specifications;
(d) the relevant European specification is inappropriate for the particular application or does not take account of technical developments which have come about since its adoption. Contracting entities which have recourse to this derogation shall inform the appropriate standardizing organization, or any other body empowered to review the European specification, of the reasons why they consider the European specification to be inappropriate and shall request its revision;
(e) the project is of a genuinely innovative nature for which use of European specifications would not be appropriate.
7. Notices published pursuant to Article 21 (1) (a) or Article 21 (2) (a) shall indicate any recourse to the derogations referred to in paragraph 6.
8. This Article shall be without prejudice to compulsory technical rules in so far as these are compatible with Community law.
(14) OJ No L 217, 5. 8. 1986, p. 21.
(15) OJ No L 36, 7. 2. 1987, p. 31. | | 31971L0305 - Works (1st generation) | Article 10.1.s2 | | Such technical specifications may be defined by reference to national standards. | | 31989L0440 - Fourth amendment of Works (1st generation) | Article 1.10=W1-10.2-5 | 2. Without prejudice to the legally binding national technical rules and in so far as these are compatible with Community law, such technical specifications shall be defined by the contracting authorities by reference to national standards implementing European standards, or by reference to European technical approvals or by reference to common technical specifications.
3. A contracting authority may depart from paragraph 2 if:
(a) the standards, European technical approvals or common technical specifications do not include any provision for establishing conformity, or technical means do not exist for establishing satisfactorily the conformity of a product to these standards, European technical approvals or common technical specifications;
(b) use of these standards, European technical approvals or common technical specifications would oblige the contracting authority to acquire products or materials incompatible with equipment already in use or would entail disproportionate costs or disproportionate technical difficulties, but only as part of a clearly defined and recorded strategy with a view to change-over, within a given period, to European standards, European technical approvals or common technical specifications;
(c) the project concerned is of a genuinely innovative nature for which use of existing European standards, European technical approvals or common technical specifications would not be appropriate.
4. Contracting authorities invoking paragraph 3 shall record, wherever possible, the reasons for doing so in the tender notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities or in the contract documents and in all cases shall record these reasons in their internal documentation and shall supply such information on request to Member States and to the Commission.
5. In the absence of European standards or European technical approvals or common technical specifications, the technical specifications:
(a) shall be defined by reference to the national technical specifications recognized as complying with the basic requirements listed in the Community directives on technical harmonization, in accordance with the procedures laid down in those directives, and in particular in accordance with the procedures laid down in Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on construction products (12);
(b) may be defined by reference to national technical specifications relating to design and method of calculation and execution of works and use of materials;
(c) may be defined by reference to other documents.
In this case, it is appropriate to make reference in order of preference to:
(i) national standards implementing international standards accepted by the country of the contracting authority;
(ii) other national standards and national technical approvals of the country of the contracting authority;
(iii) any other standard.
(12) OJ No L 40, 11. 2. 1989, p. 12. | | 31977L0062 - Goods (1st generation) | Article 7.1.s2 & 7.1.2 | Such technical specifications may be defined by reference to appropriate standards.
In this case it is appropriate to make reference, in order of preference, to:
1. Community standards which are binding by virtue of an act of the Communities;
2. Other community standards (in particular ECSC standards) or European standards (in particular ESC and CENELEC standards) accepted by the country of the contracting authority;
3. International standards accepted by the country of the contracting authority (in particular ISO and IEC standards);
4. The national standards of the country of the contracting authority;
5. Any other standard. | | 31988L0295 - Second amendment of Goods (1st generation) | Article 8.2-5=G1-7.2.5 | 2. Without prejudice to the legally binding national technical rules in so far as these are compatible with Community law, such technical specifications shall be defined by the contracting authorities by reference to national standards implementing European standards, or by reference to common technical specifications.
3. A contracting authority may depart from the principle laid down in paragraph 2, if:
(a) the standards do not include provision for establishing conformity, or technical means do not exist to establish satisfactorily conformity of a product to these standards;
(b) the application of paragraph 2 would prejudice the application of Council Directive 86/361/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the initial stage of the mutual recognition of type approval for telecommunications terminal equipment (6), or Council Decision 87/95/EEC of 22 December 1986 on standardization in the field of information technology and telecommunications (7) or other Community instruments in specific service or product areas;
(c) use of these standards would oblige the contracting authority to acquire supplies incompatible with equipment already in use or would entail disproportionate costs or disproportionate technical difficulties, but only as part of a clearly defined and recorded strategy with a view to changeover, within a determined period, to European standards or common technical specifications;
(d) the project concerned is of a genuinely innovative nature for which use of existing standards would not be appropriate.
4. Contracting authorities invoking paragraph 3 shall record, unless it is impossible, the reasons for doing so in the tender notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities and in all cases shall record these reasons in their internal documentation and shall supply such information on request to Member States and to the Commission.
5. In the absence of European standards or common technical specifications, the technical specifications may be defined, without prejudice to the principles of equivalence and mutual recognition of national technical specifications, by reference to other documents. In this case it is appropriate to make reference in order of preference to:
(a) national standards implementing international standards accepted in the country of the contracting authority;
(b) other national standards of the country of the contracting authority;
(c) any other standard.
(8) OJ No L 217, 5. 8. 1986, p. 21.
(9) OJ No L 36, 7. 2. 1987, p. 31. | | 31990L0531 - Utilities (1st generation) | Article 13.2-4+6-8 | 2. The technical specifications shall be defined by reference to European specifications where these exist.
3. In the absence of European specifications, the technical specifications should as far as possible be defined by reference to other standards having currency within the Community.
4. Contracting entities shall define such further requirements as are necessary to complement European specifications or other standards. In doing so, they shall prefer specifications that indicate performance requirements rather than design or description characteristics unless the contracting entity has objective reasons for considering that such specifications are inadequate for the purposes of the contract.
6. Contracting entities may derogate from paragraph 2 if:
(a) it is technically impossible to establish satisfactorily that a product conforms to the European specifications;
(b) the application of paragraph 2 would prejudice the application of Council Directive 86/361/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the initial stage of the mutual recognition of type approval for telecommunications terminal equipment(15), or of Council Decision 87/95/EEC of 22 December 1986 on standardization in the field of information technology and telecommunications(16);
(c) in the context of adapting existing practice to take account of European specifications, use of these specifications would oblige the contracting entity to acquire supplies incompatible with equipment already in use or would entail disproportionate cost or disproportionate technical difficulty. Contracting entities which have recourse to this derogation shall do so only as part of a clearly defined and recorded strategy with a view to a change-over to European specifications;
(d) the relevant European specification is inappropriate for the particular application or does not take account of technical developments which have come about since its adoption. Contracting entities which have recourse to this derogation shall inform the appropriate standardizing organization, or any other body empowered to review the European specification, of the reasons why they consider the European specification to be inappropriate and shall request its revision;
(e) the project is of a genuinely innovative nature for which use of European specifications would not be appropriate.
7. Notices published pursuant to Article 16 (1) (a) shall indicate any recourse to the derogations referred to in paragraph 6.
8. This Article shall be without prejudice to compulsory technical rules insofar as these are compatible with Community law.
(15) OJ No L 217, 5. 8. 1986, p. 21.
(16) OJ No L 36, 7. 2. 1987, p. 31. |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | C-507/03
Ireland | 21-24 | S2-9
S2-14.2-5
S2-16.3-4 | 21. The first point to be noted here is that none of the parties denies that, in the present case, the contract in question does indeed come within the scope of application of Directive 92/50 and that the services relating to social benefit payments in question belong to the non-priority category of services listed in Annex I B thereto.
22. According to the wording of Article 9 of Directive 92/50, [c]ontracts which have as their object services listed in Annex I B shall be awarded in accordance with Articles 14 and 16'.
23. Those specific provisions, in Articles 14 and 16 of Directive 92/50 respectively, require contracting authorities to define the technical specifications by reference to national standards implementing European standards which must be given in the general or contractual documents relating to each contract and to send a notice of the results of the award procedure to the Publications Office.
24. It is thus clear from a combined reading of Articles 9, 14 and 16 of Directive 92/50 that when, as in the present case, contracts concern services which fall under Annex I B, the contracting authorities are bound only by the obligations to define the technical specifications by reference to national standards implementing European standards which must be given in the general or contractual documents relating to each contract and to send a notice of the results of the award procedure to the Publications Office. The other procedural rules provided for by that directive, including those relating to the obligations to invite competing bids by means of prior advertising, are, by contrast, not applicable to those contracts. |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | N-060905
Joca Trading | 1-5+K1 | C2A1-2.1.b=G2-5.7.noncom
G2-8.2 | Ad påstand 1
1. I tilbud af 15. august 2004 har Humus ApS tilbudt en beholder af typen »140 IB 250« i kategorien »140 l« og angivet beholderens faktiske størrelse til 135 l.
2. Beskrivelsen er i strid med de volumenkrav, der er fastsat i udbudsbetingelsernes Kontraktbilag 1: Specifikation afsnit 2.1. »Antal beholdere« samt Kontraktbilag 2: Tilbudsliste afsnit 1. »Tilbudsliste« og afsnit 2.1 »Tilbud på levering af standard affaldsbeholdere monteret med chip« kategori »140 l«, da det angivne faktiske volumen er mindre end 140 l.
3. Det kan ikke føre til et andet resultat, at beholderens samlede volumen ifølge kalibreringscertifikatet af 24. maj 2005 fra Force Technology er 140,08±0.77 l, idet indklagede ikke har godtgjort, at det forsøg, der ligger til grund for kalibreringscertifikatet, har ført til et retvisende resultat.
4. Heller ikke bestemmelsen i Indkøbsdirektivets artikel 8 kan føre til et andet resultat.
5. Påstanden tages derfor til følge.
.....
K1. Ad påstand 1 Indklagede har handlet i strid med Indkøbsdirektivets artikel 5, stk. 7, ved at tage tilbudet af 15. august 2004 fra Humus ApS i betragtning, uanset at tilbudet, der omfattede beholdere med en faktisk størrelse på 135 l, ikke opfyldte de volumenkrav, der var fastsat i udbudsbetingelsernes Kontraktbilag 1: Specifikation afsnit 2.1. »Antal beholdere« samt Kontraktbilag 2: Tilbudsliste afsnit 1. »Tilbudsliste« og afsnit 2.1. »Tilbud på levering af standard affaldsbeholdere monteret med chip« kategori »140 l«, og som var grundlæggende elementer i udbudsbetingelserne.
[Indklagede har gjort gældende,
at det var i strid med Indkøbsdirektivets artikel 8 og ligebehandlingsprincippet at efterspørge beholderkategorier, som ikke var omfattet af DS/EN 840-standarden,
at at denne fravigelse fra DS/EN 840-standarden må betragtes som en ulovlig teknisk specifikation i strid med Indkøbsdirektivets artikel 8,
at et tilbud, som i øvrigt overholder udbudsmaterialets krav og de officielle europæiske standarder på området, ikke i sig selv kan betragtes som ukonditionsmæssigt,] | N-060905
Joca Trading | 6-10+K2 | C2A1-2.1.b=G2-5.7.noncom
G2-8.2 | Ad påstand 2
6. I tilbud af 15. august 2004 har Humus ApS tilbudt en beholder af typen »770 IB AL PI 200« i kategorien »800 l« og angivet beholderens faktiske størrelse til 759 l.
7. Beskrivelsen er i strid med de volumenkrav, der er fastsat i udbudsbetingelsernes Kontraktbilag 1: Specifikation afsnit 2.1. »Antal beholdere« samt Kontraktbilag 2: Tilbudsliste afsnit 1. »Tilbudsliste« og afsnit 2.1 »Tilbud på levering af standard affaldsbeholdere monteret med chip« kategori »800 l«, da det angivne faktiske volumen er mindre end 800 l.
8. Det kan ikke føre til et andet resultat, at beholderens samlede volumen ifølge kalibreringscertifikatet af 30. august 2004 fra Force Technology er 830,6±6,1 l, idet indklagede ikke har godtgjort, at det forsøg, der ligger til grund for kalibreringscertifikatet, har ført til et retvisende resultat.
9. Indkøbsdirektivets artikel 8 kan heller ikke føre til et andet resultat.
10. Påstanden tages derfor til følge.
.....
K2. Ad påstand 2 Indklagede har handlet i strid med Indkøbsdirektivets artikel 5, stk. 7, ved at tage tilbudet af 15. august 2004 fra Humus ApS i betragtning, uanset at tilbudet, der omfattede beholdere med en faktisk størrelse på 759 l, ikke opfyldte de volumenkrav, der var fastsat i udbudsbetingelsernes Kontraktbilag 1: Specifikation afsnit 2.1. »Antal beholdere« samt Kontraktbilag 2: Tilbudsliste afsnit 1. »Tilbudsliste« og afsnit 2.1. »Tilbud på levering af standard affaldsbeholdere monteret med chip« kategori »800 l«, og som var grundlæggende elementer i udbudsbetingelserne. | N-060905
Joca Trading | 12-15+K3 | C2A1-2.1.b=G2-5.7.noncom
G2-8.2 | Ad påstand 4
12. Tilbud af 13. august 2004 fra Norba A/S omfatter 170 stk. beholdere, der er beskrevet som »500 4-hj«. Beholdernes volumen må anses for at være angivet med henvisning til den nominelle volumen og ikke den faktiske volumen.
13. Beholderen opfylder ikke de volumenkrav, der er fastsat i udbudsbetingelsernes Kontraktbilag 1: Specifikation afsnit 2.1 »Antal beholdere« samt Kontraktbilag 2: Tilbudsliste afsnit 1. »Tilbudsliste« og afsnit 2.1. »Tilbud på levering af standard affaldsbeholdere monteret med chip« kategori »400 l«, da den nominelle volumen er mere end 10 pct. højere end 400 l, og den faktiske volumen ikke er oplyst.
14. Indkøbsdirektivets artikel 8 kan ikke føre til et andet resultat.
15. Påstanden tages derfor til følge.
.....
K3. Ad påstand 4 Indklagede har handlet i strid med Indkøbsdirektivets artikel 5, stk. 7, ved at tage tilbudet af 13. august 2004 fra Norba A/S i betragtning, uanset at tilbudet, der omfattede beholdere med en faktisk størrelse på 500 l, ikke opfyldte de volumenkrav, som var fastsat i udbudsbetingelsernes Kontraktbilag 2: Tilbudsliste afsnit 1. »Tilbudsliste« og afsnit 2.1. »Tilbud på levering af standard affaldsbeholdere monteret med chip« kategori »400 l«, og som var grundlæggende elementer i udbudsbetingelserne. | N-060905
Joca Trading | 16-19+K4 | C2A1-2.1.b=G2-5.7.noncom
G2-8.2 | Ad påstand 5
16. Tilbudet af 13. august 2004 fra Norba A/S omfatter 250 stk. beholdere, der er beskrevet som »770 4-hj«. Beholdernes volumen må som anført ad påstand 4 anses for at være angivet med henvisning til den nominelle volumen og ikke den faktiske volumen.
17. Beholderen opfylder ikke de volumenkrav, der er fastsat i udbudsbetingelsernes Kontraktbilag 1: Specifikation afsnit 2.1. »Antal beholdere« samt Kontraktbilag 2: Tilbudsliste afsnit 1. »Tilbudsliste« og afsnit 2.1 »Tilbud på levering af standard affaldsbeholdere monteret med chip« kategori »800 l«, idet den nominelle volumen er mindre end 800 l, og den faktiske volumen ikke er oplyst.
18. Indkøbsdirektivets artikel 8 kan ikke føre til et andet resultat.
19. Påstanden tages derfor til følge.
.....
K4. Ad påstand 5 Indklagede har handlet i strid med Indkøbsdirektivets artikel 5, stk. 7, ved at tage tilbudet af 13. august 2004 fra Norba A/S i betragtning, uanset at tilbudet, der omfattede beholdere med en faktisk størrelse på 770 l, ikke opfyldte de volumenkrav, som var fastsat i udbudsbetingelsernes Kontraktbilag 1: Specifikation afsnit 2.1. »Antal beholdere« og Kontraktbilag 2: Tilbudsliste afsnit 1. »Tilbudsliste« og afsnit 2.1. »Tilbud på levering af standard affaldsbeholdere monteret med chip« kategori »800 l«, og som var grundlæggende elementer i udbudsbetingelserne. | N-060905
Joca Trading | 22+K5 | C2A1-2.1.b=G2-5.7.noncom
G2-8.2 | Ad påstand 9
22. Da indklagede har erkendt klagens rigtighed, tages påstanden til følge.
.....
K5. Ad påstand 9 Indklagede har handlet i strid med Indkøbsdirektivets artikel 5, stk. 7, ved at tage tilbudet af 13. august 2004 fra H.E.W. A/S i betragtning, uanset at tilbudet ikke opfyldte udbudsbetingelsernes Kontrakt afsnit 5. »Betaling og prisregulering«, som var grundlæggende elementer i udbudsbetingelserne. | N-020402
ISS Danmark | 7-8 | S2-14.2-5
S2-II.1 | 7. Klagenævnet finder ikke anledning til at tage stilling til, om bilag II til Tjenesteydelsesdirektivet og dermed direktivets artikel 14 omfatter tjenesteydelser, da spørgsmålet er uden betydning for sagen. Artikel 14, stk. 1, kan under alle omstændigheder ikke forstås sådan, at bestemmelsen foreskriver anvendelse af en standard, der først er offentliggjort samtidig med udbudsbetingelsernes udsendelse, således som det i den foreliggende sag er tilfældet med den europæiske standard EN 13549. Der er heller ikke oplyst grundlag for ISS' synspunkt om, at Insta 800 skal betragtes som en forhåndsimplementering af EN 13549, således at uoverensstemmelser mellem udbudsbetingelserne og EN 13549 skulle være en overtrædelse af Tjenesteydelsesdirektivets artikel 14, fordi udbudsbetingelserne henviste til Insta 800.
8. Uanset om bilag II til Tjenesteydelsesdirektivet og dermed direktivets artikel 14 omfatter tjenesteydelser, er den europæiske standard EN 13549 herefter uden betydning for sagen, og påstanden kan allerede af denne grund ikke tages til følge.
[Påstand 4 Klagenævnet skal konstatere, at indklagede har overtrådt Tjenesteydelsesdirektivets artikel 14, stk. 2 og 4, ved i udbudsmaterialet at have fraveget tekniske standarder uden tilstrækkeligt grundlag eller begrundelse.
.....
Sagsfremstillingen: ISS har anført: Insta 800 er en forhåndsimplementering af den europæiske standard EN 13549. Endvidere strider udbudsbetingelsernes angivelser om kvalitetskontrol som nævnt mod Insta 800 og dermed mod EN 13549, hvilket er en overtrædelse af Tjenesteydelsesdirektivets artikel 14.
Rigshospitalet har anført: Tjenesteydelsesdirektivets artikel 14 finder ikke anvendelse på EN 13549, hvilket allerede fremgår af, at bilag II til direktivet, til hvilket der henvises i artikel 14, stk. 1, ikke omfatter tjenesteydelser. Udbudet kan under alle omstændigheder ikke være omfattet af EN 13549, fordi denne standard først blev offentliggjort samtidig med udbudsbetingelsernes udsendelse med frist for implementering til den 30. november 2001, og det bestrides, at Insta 800 skal opfattes som en forhåndsimplementering af EN 13549. Hertil kommer, at det i første række var DS 2451-10, som udbudsbetingelserne henviste til.] | N-000811
Kirkebjerg | 2-6+K1-3 | W2-10.1-impl
W2-10.2-5-impl
W2-10.6 | 2. Som anført af arkitekt Knudsen er der tradition i den danske byggebranche for at anvende referenceprodukter ud fra en opfattelse om, at henvisning til et referenceprodukt er den bedste og mest præcise angivelse af, hvad udbyderen ønsker. Henvisninger til et referenceprodukt tenderer imidlertid tilsyneladende mod at medføre uklarhed med hensyn til, hvad udbyderen ønsker. Dette er også tilfældet for så vidt angår udbudsbetingelsernes henvisning i den foreliggende sag til et bestemt sengestuepanel som referenceprodukt. Det fremgår således ikke klart og utvetydigt af udbudsbetingelserne, på hvilke punkter et tilbudt sengestuepanel kan adskille sig fra referenceproduktet og på hvilke punkter ikke.
3. Det anførte om uklarhed i udbudsbetingelsernes angivelser om sengestuepaneler bestyrkes af Totalrådgivningsgruppens skiftende holdning til, hvorledes disse angivelser skulle forstås. Totalrådgivningsgruppen opfattede til at begynde med nærmest de tilbud, der omfattede fabrikatet J.M. Aluflex 2000, som alternative og ukonditionsmæssige, men skiftede senere mening på dette punkt efter juridisk rådgivning. Ikke en gang Totalrådgivningsgruppen selv har således haft en klar og konsekvent gennemført opfattelse af, hvorledes udbudsbetingelsernes angivelser om sengestuepaneler skulle forstås.
4. Hertil kommer, at udbudsbetingelsernes bestemmelser om sengestuepaneler, navnlig sagens bilag 4, indeholder en lang række specifikationer, hvorfor angivelsen af fabrikatet Fagerhult umiddelbart kan forekomme overflødig og derfor kan forstås som et reelt krav om, at det var dette fabrikat og ikke andre fabrikater, der skulle anvendes, således at henvisningen til »ligestillede « fabrikater var en formalitet. Kirkebjerg forstod efter det foreliggende udbudsbetingelsernes angivelser om sengestuepaneler på denne måde.
5. Klagenævnet må herefter konstatere, at udbudsbetingelsernes angivelser om sengestuepaneler har været en overtrædelse af det krav, der må anses indeholdt i EU's udbudsregler om, at et udbud skal indeholde en klar og nøjagtig beskrivelse af det udbudte.
6. Henvisningen til referenceproduktet Fagerhult har endvidere været en overtrædelse af Bygge- og anlægsdirektivets artikel 10 stk. 6, idet der efter denne bestemmelse kun må anføres et bestemt fabrikat i et udbud, hvis der ikke er mulighed for at give en beskrivelse af kontraktsgenstanden ved hjælp af specifikationer, som er tilstrækkeligt nøjagtige og forståelige for alle interesserede. Det er imidlertid ikke oplyst, at det ønskede sengestuepanel ikke skulle kunne beskrives ved hjælp af sådanne specifikationer. Tværtimod synes henvisningen til referenceproduktet at være overflødig, jf. bemærkningerne ovenfor om, at dette forhold har medvirket til uklarhed i udbudsbetingelsernes angivelse om sengestuepaneler. | N-000621
Arriva Danmark | 1-6+K1 | S2-14.2-5 | A. Indklagedes formulering af udbudsbetingelserne for de øvrige tilbudsgivere.
1. Indklagede har oplyst, at indklagede ved gennemførelsen af det aktuelle udbud – ligesom det var sket ved en række tidligere udbud – helt bevidst har fastsat forskellige udbudsbetingelser for den aktuelle entreprenør og de øvrige tilbudsgivere.
2. For de andre tilbudsgivere, som ved afgivelsen af deres tilbud er uden kendskab til lønforholdene for de chauffører, som på dette tidspunkt er beskæftiget på den pågældende rute, et der fastsat en korrektionsregel, som indebærer, at der ved indgåelsen af kontrakt skal ske en korrektion af den vogntimeafhængige betaling, således at denne betaling forhøjes i forhold til tilbudsprisen, hvis lønomkostningerne på tidspunktet for kontraktstart viser sig at være højere end det niveau, der følger af forudsætningen fastsat i udbudsbetingelserne, ligesom denne betaling formindskes, hvis lønomkostningerne på tidspunktet for kontraktstart viser sig at være lavere end det niveau, der følger af den nævnte forudsætning. Bestemmelsen for de øvrige tilbudsgivere er i udbudsbetingelserne formuleret således:
»Byderne skal ved kalkulation af tilbudspriser på udbudsenheder omfattende kørsel fra andet selskab regne med, at de chauffører, der forventes at overgå til ansættelse hos byderen, lønmæssigt er indplaceret på mellemste løntrin/skalatrin svarende til løntrin 4 i overenskomsten mellem Combus og SiD, løntrin 5 i RA-tillægsoverenskomsten, skalatrin 19 i overenskomsten mellem Amtsrådsforeningen og SiD og skalatrin 20 i overenskomsten mellem Amtsrådsforeningen og FOA.
Når det efter overtagelse af kørslen kan konstateres, hvilke chauffører der i praksis er overgået til ansættelse i det nye selskab, korrigeres den vogntimeafhængige betaling efter den faktiske, gennemsnitlige løntrins/ skalatrinsindplacering for disse chauffører ved kontraktstart.«
3. Udformningen af den anførte bestemmelse vedrørende de øvrige tilbudsgivere er i strid med EU-udbudsreglerne, da den efter sit indhold påbyder disse tilbudsgivere ved beregningen af tilbudsprisen vedrørende de vogntimeafhængige priser at kalkulere med de forudsatte lønforhold vedrørende chaufførerne, uagtet indklagede ikke har haft nogen saglig grund til at foreskrive bestemte kalkulationsmetoder ved fastsættelsen af de vogntimeafhængige priser. Indklagede har derfor handlet i strid med EUudbudsreglerne ved at udforme den pågældende bestemmelse som sket. Indklagede har imidlertid oplyst, at det ikke med formuleringen har været tilsigtet at fastsætte regler for tilbudsgivernes kalkulation, men alene at gøre det klart for de øvrige tilbudsgivere, hvilket udgangspunkt der ville blive anvendt ved den senere justering i opadgående eller nedadgående retning af de vogntimeafhængige priser i forbindelse med kontraktsindgåelsen. Klageren har endvidere oplyst, at klageren har opfattet bestemmelsen, som den har været tænkt, og det er Klagenævnets vurdering, at de øvrige tilbudsgivere næppe kan antages at have opfattet bestemmelsen som en forskrift om at foretage kalkulationerne på en bestemt måde.
B. Indklagedes formulering af udbudsbetingelserne for den aktuelle entreprenør.
4. For den virksomhed, der på udbudstidspunktet udfører den pågældende kørsel , og som derfor ved afgivelsen af tilbud er bekendt med lønforholdene for de chauffører, der på dette tidspunkt er beskæftiget på ruten, er der ikke fastsat nogen korrektionsregel. Bestemmelsen vedrørende den aktuelle entreprenør er i udbudsbetingelserne formuleret således: »Der sker ingen efterfølgende korrektion af betalingen for de udbudsenheder, der vindes af selskaber, som på tilbudstidspunktet selv udfører kørslen på de pågældende udbudsenheder/linier.«
5. Indklagede har oplyst, at indklagede ønskede at få oplyst det gennemsnitlige løntrin/skalatrin for de chauffører, der på tidspunktet for udløbet af fristen for afgivelse af tilbud faktisk udførte kørslen på den pågældende rute. Denne oplysning skulle indhentes hos den aktuelle entreprenør. Indklagede ønskede at få denne oplysning af hensyn til sin budgetlægning og altså ikke til brug under udbudsforretningen. I stedet for – som det ville være naturligt – at få denne oplysning ved en henvendelse til den aktuelle entreprenør helt uafhængigt af udbudet, indføjede indklagede følgende bestemmelse i udbudsbetingelserne: »For tilbud, der omfatter udbudsenheder/linier, hvorpå byderne selv udfører kørslen på tilbudstidspunktet, skal det oplyses i tilbudsblanketten, hvilket løntrin/skalatrin der gennemsnitligt er regnet med for bydernes egne medarbejdere på de pågældende udbudsenheder/linier.«
6. Udformningen af den anførte bestemmelse er i strid med EUudbudsreglerne, da den efter sit indhold påbyder den aktuelle entreprenør ved beregningen af tilbudsprisen på de vogntimeafhængige priser at kalkulere med de aktuelle lønforhold vedrørende chauffører, uagtet indklagede ikke har haft nogen saglig grund til at foreskrive bestemte kalkulationsmetoder for denne tilbudsgivers fastsættelse af de vogntimeafhængige priser i tilbudet. Indklagede har derfor handlet i strid med EU-udbudsreglerne ved at udforme den pågældende bestemmelse som sket. Indklagede har imidlertid oplyst, at det med den valgte fremgangsmåde – at indhente den ønskede oplysning i forbindelse med modtagelse af tilbud fra den virksomhed, der aktuelt udførte kørslen, i stedet for at indhente denne oplysning uden forbindelse med udbudsforretningen – ikke har været tilsigtet at fastsætte regler for denne tilbudsgivers kalkulation, men alene at få de pågældende oplysninger fra denne tilbudsgiver. Klageren har endvidere oplyst, at klageren har opfattet bestemmelsen, som den har været tænkt, og at klageren således ikke ved sine kalkulationer af de vogntimeafhængige priser har følt sig bundet af bestemmelsen.
.....
K1. Indklagede, Hovedstadsområdets Trafikselskab, har handlet i strid med Forsyningsvirksomhedsdirektivet ved i udbudsbetingelserne uden at have nogen saglig grund herfor at foreskrive, at tilbudsgiverne – både den aktuelle entreprenør og de øvrige tilbudsgivere – i deres tilbud skal fastsætte de vogntimeafhængige priser på grundlag af nærmere angivne forudsætninger. | N-970709
Vognmand Bomholt | 2 | S2-14.2-5 | 2. Et krav om anvendelse af containere på 30 m³ ses ikke i sig selv at være i strid med artikel 14 i tjenesteydelsesdirektivet. |
|
|
