| | 32004L0018: c3-25.1Indicate    
| 32004L0018 - Classic (3rd generation) | Article 25.1 | Article 25
Subcontracting
In the contract documents, the contracting authority may ask or may be required by a Member State to ask the tenderer to indicate in his tender any share of the contract he may intend to subcontract to third parties and any proposed subcontractors. | | 32004L0017 - Utilities (3rd generation) | Article 37.s1 | Article 37
Subcontracting
In the contract documents, the contracting entity may ask, or may be required by a Member State to ask, the tenderer to indicate in his tender any share of the contract he intends to subcontract to third parties and any proposed subcontractors. | | 31993L0037 - Works (2nd generation) | Article 20.1 | Article 20
In the contract documents, the contracting authority may ask the tenderer to indicate in his tender any share of the contract he may intend to subcontract to third parties. | | 31993L0036 - Goods (2nd generation) | Article 17.1 | Article 17
In the contract documents, the contracting authority may ask the tenderer to indicate in his tender any share of the contract he may intend to subcontract to third parties. | | 31992L0050 - Services (2nd generation) | Article 25.1 | Article 25
In the contract documents, the contracting authority may ask the tenderer to indicate in his tender any share of the contract he may intend to subcontract to third parties. | | 31993L0038 - Utilities (2nd generation) | Article 27.1 | Article 27
In the contract documents, the contracting entity may ask the tenderer to indicate in his tender any share of the contract which he may intend to subcontract to third parties. | | 31989L0440 - Fourth amendment of Works (1st generation) | Article 1.16=W1-20b.1 | Article 27
In the contract documents, the contracting entity may ask the tenderer to indicate in his tender any share of the contract which he may intend to subcontract to third parties. | | 31990L0531 - Utilities (1st generation) | Article 21.1 | Article 21
In the contract documents, the contracting entity may ask the tenderer to indicate in his tender any share of the contract he may intend to subcontract to third parties. |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | C-314/01
Siemens | 41-47 | S2-25.1
S2-32.2.c
S2-32.2.h | 41. This question is based on the premiss that a provision in an invitation to tender which prohibits recourse to subcontracting for material parts of the contract is contrary to Directive 92/50, as interpreted by the Court in Holst Italia.
42. It must be borne in mind in this regard that Directive 92/50, which is designed to eliminate obstacles to the freedom to provide services in the award of public service contracts, expressly envisages, in Article 25, the possibility for a tenderer to subcontract a part of the contract to third parties, as that provision states that the contracting authority may ask that tenderer to indicate in its tender any share of the contract which it may intend to subcontract. Furthermore, with regard to the qualitative selection criteria, Article 32(2)(c) and (h) of Directive 92/50 makes express provision for the possibility of providing evidence of the technical capacity of the service provider by means of an indication of the technicians or technical bodies involved, whether or not belonging directly to the undertaking of that service provider, and which the latter will have available to it, or by indicating the proportion of the contract which the service provider may intend to subcontract.
43. As the Court ruled in paragraphs 26 and 27 of Holst Italia , it follows from the object and wording of those provisions that a party cannot be eliminated from a procedure for the award of a public service contract solely on the ground that that party proposes, in order to carry out the contract, to use resources which are not its own but belong to one or more other entities. This means that it is permissible for a service provider which does not itself fulfil the minimum conditions required for participation in the procedure for the award of a public service contract to rely, vis-à-vis the contracting authority, on the standing of third parties upon whose resources it proposes to draw if it is awarded the contract.
44. However, according to the Court, the onus rests on a service provider which relies on the resources of entities or undertakings with which it is directly or indirectly linked, with a view to being admitted to participate in a tendering procedure, to establish that it actually has available to it the resources of those entities or undertakings which it does not itself own and which are necessary for the performance of the contract (Holst Italia , paragraph 29).
45. As the Commission of the European Communities has correctly pointed out, Directive 92/50 does not preclude a prohibition or a restriction on the use of subcontracting for the performance of essential parts of the contract precisely in the case where the contracting authority has not been in a position to verify the technical and economic capacities of the subcontractors when examining the tenders and selecting the lowest tenderer.
46. It follows that the premiss on which the second question is based would prove to be accurate only if it were to be established that Point 1.8 of the invitation to tender prohibits, during the phase of the examination of the tenders and the selection of the successful tenderer, any recourse by the latter to subcontracting for the provision of essential services under the contract. A tenderer claiming to have at its disposal the technical and economic capacities of third parties on which it intends to rely if the contract is awarded to it may be excluded only if it fails to demonstrate that those capacities are in fact available to it.
47. Point 1.8 of the invitation to tender does not appear to relate to the examination and selection phase of the procedure for award of the contract, but rather to the phase of performance of that contract and is designed precisely to avoid a situation in which the performance of essential parts of the contract is entrusted to bodies whose technical and economic capacities the contracting authority was unable to verify at the time when it selected the successful tenderer. It is for the Bundesvergabeamt to establish whether that is indeed the case. |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | N-070903
SP Medical | 22+K4 | C3-2.noncom-impl
C3-25.1-impl
C3-44.1-impl | Ad påstand 10
22. Af de af indklagede anførte grunde tages påstanden ikke til følge.
......
K4. Klagen tages ikke til følge vedrørende påstand 1-7 og 9-10.
[Påstand 10 Klagenævnet skal konstatere, at indklagede har handlet i strid med Udbudsdirektivet ved ikke at afvise tilbudet fra Utsch AG, uanset denne tilbudsgiver ikke opfylder udbudsbetingelsernes pkt. 5 om tydeligt at angive om underleverandører skal benyttes, idet det af tilbuddet fra Utsch AG ikke fremgår, at man faktisk vil benytte sig af underleverandører vedrørende historisk korrekte nummerplader.
.....
Klageren har gjort gældende, at oplysningerne om underleverandør først fremkom den 10. januar 2007.
Indklagede har gjort gældende, at det er uden betydning, at oplysningen om underleverandør først fremkom efter tilbudsfristens udløb. Oplysningerne om underleverandør indgik ikke i vurderingen. UTSCH afgav tilbud på historisk korrekte nummerplader, og ved tilbuddets afgivelse var UTSCH’s organisation ikke fastlagt. Kravet om oplysning om underleverandør er en ordensforskrift, og indklagede kan afvise underleverandører efter rammeaftalens pkt. 11.] | N-070810
MT Højgaard | 1-3+K1 | C3-2.noncom-impl
C3-25.1-impl
C3-47.2-3-impl
C3-48.3-4-impl | Ad påstand 1
Ad: A
1. Pihl & Søns angivelse om, at spilddage grundet vejrlig forudsættes tillagt tidsplanen kan ikke forenes med byggesagsbeskrivelsen og er en unødvendig angivelse, såfremt den skulle forstås som en bekræftelse af det i udbudsmaterialet anførte. Angivelsen må derfor anses for et forbehold overfor byggesagsbeskrivelsens angivelser om vejrligsdage.
Ad: B
2. Oplysningerne i Pihl & Søns tilbud om tilbudsgivere på de enkelte fagentrepriser opfylder ikke kravene i udbudsbetingelserne om referencer og CV’er for underentreprenører, som findes at angå de valgte underentreprenører.
3. Påstand 1 tages derfor til følge.
.....
K1. Ad påstand 1 Indklagede har handlet i strid med ligebehandlingsprincippet i udbudsdirektivets artikel 2 ved at tage tilbudet fra Pihl & Søn i betragtning, uagtet at dette tilbud var ukonditionsmæssigt
A) da bestemmelsen i tilbudets punkt 8 »spilddage grundet vejrlig forudsættes tillagt tidsplanen« udgør et forbehold over for byggesagsbeskrivelsens punkt 8.3, hvorefter der kun gives tidsfristforlængelse som følge af usædvanligt vejrlig, i det omfang arbejdet ligger på den kritiske vej i tidsplanen, der ikke kan prissættes og
B) da tilbudet ikke i overensstemmelse med kravene i byggesagsbeskrivelsens pkt. 3 ad AB 92 § 2, stk. 6, og tilbudslisten pkt. 2 var vedlagt referencer og CV’er for underentreprenører. [Does not consider if this goes beyond C3-25.1, when not relying on C3-47.2-3 or C3-48.3-4. As for the issue of use of CVs in award criteria, se pt. 14+K4 under C3-44.1 and C3-53.1] |
|
|
