Temporary Staff Services in the Health Sector in Oppdal Municipality

Tilleggsinformasjon

Justification for cancellation

Cancellation of the contest for framework agreements for the procurement of temporary staff services in the health sector in Oppdal municipal health temporary staff.

We refer to the tender announced in DOFFIN/TED on 21 January 2021.

Upon review of the procurement documents in connection with questions received from the suppliers, it has been revealed that a breach of the procurement regulations occurred, meaning that the municipality is obliged to cancel the competition.

The contest was held in violation of the law and regulations on public procurement (PPR) in that section 5.1 of the tender documents states the award criterion which in the municipality's assessment, does not meet the affiliation requirement, cf. (PPR) § 8-1 (3). Refer to KOFA case 2019/446, premiss 23 and 24 are repeated:

(23) In the view of the Appeals Board, there is efficient use of the society resources, Cf. in so much as Act § 1, or Part II, the award criteria will be suitable to identify the best offer. They must therefore evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the competing tenders. Such award criteria ‘Tenderer's experience with equivalent works’ and the associated documentation requirement were described in the tender documentation, there will be an assessment of the number of equivalent projects, without a closer assessment of which relevant experiences are suitable, the complexity of the projects or quality of the work carried out. To the best of the Appeals Board's knowledge, it is also such that the award criteria has been used in the tender evaluation. The complainant has

assessed the lists of reference projects, but has for example not collected the contracting authority's experiences with the tenderers.opinion. According to the Appeals Board's the award criteria is thus up to judging the strengths and weaknesses of the offered services.

(24) The complainant has, after this, used the regulation § 8-11 (3) to apply an award criteria that was not suitable to identify the best offer.

Use of illegal award criteria is a mistake that cannot be corrected under way in the contest and the error can therefore not be correct without cancellation. Refer to Kofa-case 2011/81 condition 32:

‘(32) An award criteria will normally have great significance for the tenderers, both in the question of participation in the contest and in the design of the offer. The significance may vary with the weight the relevant award criteria is given in the evaluation. As a starting point, it should be assumed that any illegal award criteria may have affected the outcome of the contest, and this will normally trigger an obligation for the contracting authority to cancel the contest. On the basis that the award criteria in the present case should be weighted by 30 %, it is clear that the main rule concerning cancellation also applies in the present case.

In addition, in case HR-2019-1801-A section 88, the Supreme Court stated that the contracting authority is in a situation where it is uncertain if there is an obligation to cancel, one has the right to cancel, also a justifiable basis where there is a real legal uncertainty, on a point that is not of a trivial nature, whether a mistake has been made that gives rise to the obligation to cancel.

Oppdal Municipality has for the above-named reasons decided to cancel the ongoing contest.

The contest is cancelled pursuant to PPR § 10-4. The duty to give grounds, cf. PPR § 10-4 (2), is hereby considered met.

A new contest will be announced as soon as the necessary changes have been made to the tender documentation.

We apologise for the inconvenience and hope your company has the opportunity to participate in the pending contest.

Visma notice: https://opic.com/id/afiedccbsj

Tilleggsinformasjon

The contest was held in violation of the law and regulations on public procurement (PPR) in that section 5.1 of the tender documents states the award criterion which in the municipality's assessment, does not meet the affiliation requirement, cf. (PPR) § 8-1 (3). Refer to KOFA case 2019/446, premiss 23 and 24 are repeated:

Tilleggsinformasjon

(23) In the view of the Appeals Board, there is efficient use of the society resources, Cf. in so much as Act § 1, or Part II, the award criteria will be suitable to identify the best offer. They must therefore evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the competing tenders. Such award criteria ‘Tenderer's experience with equivalent works’ and the associated documentation requirement were described in the tender documentation, there will be an assessment of the number of equivalent projects, without a closer assessment of which relevant experiences are suitable, the complexity of the projects or quality of the work carried out. To the best of the Appeals Board's knowledge, it is also such that the award criteria has been used in the tender evaluation. The complainant has

Tilleggsinformasjon

assessed the lists of reference projects, but has for example not collected the contracting authority's experiences with the tenderers.opinion. According to the Appeals Board's the award criteria is thus up to judging the strengths and weaknesses of the offered services.

Tilleggsinformasjon

‘(32) An award criteria will normally have great significance for the tenderers, both in the question of participation in the contest and in the design of the offer. The significance may vary with the weight the relevant award criteria is given in the evaluation. As a starting point, it should be assumed that any illegal award criteria may have affected the outcome of the contest, and this will normally trigger an obligation for the contracting authority to cancel the contest. On the basis that the award criteria in the present case should be weighted by 30 %, it is clear that the main rule concerning cancellation also applies in the present case.

Tilleggsinformasjon

In addition, in case HR-2019-1801-A section 88, the Supreme Court stated that the contracting authority is in a situation where it is uncertain if there is an obligation to cancel, one has the right to cancel, also a justifiable basis where there is a real legal uncertainty, on a point that is not of a trivial nature, whether a mistake has been made that gives rise to the obligation to cancel.