| | 32004L0018: c3-47.2-3Other entities    
| 32004L0018 - Classic (3rd generation) | Article 47.2-3 | 2. An economic operator may, where appropriate and for a particular contract, rely on the capacities of other entities, regardless of the legal nature of the links which it has with them. It must in that case prove to the contracting authority that it will have at its disposal the resources necessary, for example, by producing an undertaking by those entities to that effect.
3. Under the same conditions, a group of economic operators as referred to in Article 4 may rely on the capacities of participants in the group or of other entities. | | 32004L0017 - Utilities (3rd generation) | Article 54.5 | 5. Where the criteria referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 include requirements relating to the economic and financial capacity of the economic operator, the latter may where necessary and for a particular contract rely on the capacity of other entities, whatever the legal nature of the link between itself and those entities. In this case the economic operator shall prove to the contracting entity that the necessary resources will be available to it, for example by delivering an undertaking by those entities to that effect.
Under the same conditions, a group of economic operators as referred to in Article 11 may rely on the capacities of participants in the group or of other entities. |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | T-59/05
Evropaiki Dynamiki | 84-92 | M4-136.3-impl | 84 It is appropriate to examine the applicant’s argument that the Commission, in taking the view that the consortium formed by IBM and ARHS Developments satisfied the selection criterion relating to economic and financial capacity, even though the overall financial position of ARHS Developments was negative, committed a manifest error of assessment.
85 In essence the question is whether, as is claimed by the applicant, the tender specifications in this case required compliance with the selection criterion relating to economic and financial capacity by all of the parties which submitted a joint tender as members of a consortium or as subcontractors. It must also be determined whether the reply to that question is dependent on the legal nature of the links between the parties which decided to jointly submit their tender, whether those are links characteristic of those between members of a consortium or links characteristic of subcontracting.
86 First of all, it is useful to recall the content of the provisions of the tender specifications relating to the information which must, when a tender is submitted, be supplied to the contracting authority to allow examination of compliance with the exclusion and selection criteria, namely sections 8.2.2 and 8.2.3 of the specifications (see paragraph 13 above). That information must be provided by each of the members of a consortium, where the tender is submitted by a consortium, or by each of the subcontractors proposed at the time of submission of the tender or in the future, in the case where the tenderer envisages making use of subcontractors.
87 In addition, as regards information for the selection criterion relating to economic and financial capacity, section 8.2.3.1 of the specifications states that, where a company has been operating for less than three years, proof must be furnished that its financial standing is adequate.
88 Next, as regards the provisions concerning the assessment of compliance with the exclusion criteria, it is clear that section 9.1 of the specifications states that ‘[i]n the case of joint tenders (consortium) or subcontractors, these exclusion criteria will be applied to all the individual organisations proposed by the tenderer’, and that the decision to exclude a tenderer will be taken on the basis of the information which all the tenderers, either a single entity or all members of a joint offer as members of consortium or as subcontractors, have to supply in accordance with the requirements of section 8.2.2 of the specifications.
89 Lastly, as regards the provisions of the specifications concerning the assessment of compliance with the selection criteria, namely section 9.2.1 on examination of economic and financial standing, and section 9.2.2 corresponding to professional and technical capacity, it is clear that those provisions merely state that the decision relating to selection of tenderers will be taken on the basis of the information supplied by the tenderers in accordance with the requirements of sections 8.2.3.1 and 8.2.3.2 of the specifications and, where applicable, on the basis of other information which the Commission may judge to be relevant. However, it is noteworthy that those provisions do not, unlike the provisions on exclusion criteria, state that, in the case of joint tenders (consortium) or subcontractors, those selection criteria will be applied to all the organisations in the tenderer’s proposal.
90 The applicant’s reliance on the provisions referred to above does not therefore support its claim that, in this case, both IBM and ARHS Developments, which jointly submitted the successful tender, were required individually to demonstrate a sound economic and financial capacity for the previous three years, irrespective, furthermore, of the legal nature of the links between them.
91 That conclusion cannot be invalidated by the fact that, under section 8.2.3 of the specifications, the information relating to economic and financial capacity there referred to must be supplied by all parties submitting the joint tender. There is no provision in the tender specifications which specifies how that information must be used by the contracting authority when assessing compliance with the selection criteria, in particular the criterion concerning the economic and financial capacity of the tenderer.
92 It follows that, in this case, the Commission was at liberty, by reason of its broad discretion as regards the factors to be taken into consideration when a public contract is awarded, to make an overall assessment of the information provided by each of the two companies which jointly submitted the successful tender and to conclude that, taken together and regard being had to the fact that they were in some respects interdependent, those companies jointly possessed the economic and financial capacity necessary to satisfy the relevant selection criterion. Contrary to what is claimed by the applicant, there is no provision of the specifications in this case from which it can be inferred that the Commission was obliged to examine separately the economic and financial capacity of each of the two companies which jointly submitted their tender and to conclude that those two companies individually satisfied the relevant selection criterion. | T-59/05
Evropaiki Dynamiki | 93-96 | M4-136.3-impl | 93 In any event, having regard to the legal nature of the links between IBM and ARHS Developments, the Commission was entitled to refrain from establishing that ARHS Developments had complied with the selection criterion relating to economic and financial capacity. In fact, as is clear from the nonconfidential version of the successful candidate’s tender placed on the case-file by the Commission (pages 18, 29 and 35), the legal status of that company is, in the context of the call for tenders at issue, that of a subcontractor, and not that of a member of a consortium as is claimed by the applicant.
94 As is correctly observed by the Commission, the legal links characteristic of a subcontracting relationship differ from those which characterise the relationship of members of a consortium inasmuch as, in the case of subcontracting, the sole party responsible for the proper performance of the contract is the tenderer to which the contract has been awarded, not the subcontractor. In the present case, it was laid down in sections 7.3 and 7.4 of the specifications, and in Article 9.1.2 of the draft framework contract, that, in the case of subcontracting, the contractor was to remain solely responsible for the due performance of the contract. IBM remained, therefore, ultimately solely responsible for the due performance of the contract.
95 Moreover, since ARHS Developments had been operating in the market for less than three years, it was obliged, in accordance with section 8.2.3.1 of the specifications, only to demonstrate that it possessed, at the time of lodging its tender and for the purposes of performance of the contract, adequate financial standing. It is clear from the non-confidential version of the tender of the successful tenderer (pages 57 and 58) that ARHS Developments, operating in the market since 2003, submitted the information required for assessment of the selection criterion relating to economic and financial capacity in a detailed and objective manner, and that information, moreover, has not been directly disputed by the applicant.
96 In those circumstances, the Commission could reasonably form the view, without exceeding the limits set on the exercise of its broad discretion in awarding a contract, that examination of the economic and financial capacity of the two companies which jointly submitted the successful tender justified the conclusion that the selection criterion relating to economic and financial capacity had been satisfied. In addition, taking account of the role in the tender reserved to IBM and its financial soundness, which is moreover undisputed by the applicant, the Commission was also justified in forming the view that the fact that the overall financial situation of ARHS Developments was negative was not such as to place in question the economic and financial capacity required by the tender specifications. | T-59/05
Evropaiki Dynamiki | 97-99 | M4-136.3-impl | 97 In addition, and to the extent to which it is evident that ARHS Developments was a subcontractor of IBM, it is not possible to accept the applicant’s argument which seeks to demonstrate that the Commission treated differently two similar situations and, consequently, infringed the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination in the exercise of its broad discretion, inasmuch as, in this case, by contrast to what the Commission had done in the DG TAXUD procurement procedure, it did not require the provision of a guarantee covering ARHS Developments.
98 As the applicant rightly acknowledges, in the last-mentioned procurement procedure, IBM and ARHS Developments submitted their tender jointly in the form of a consortium. That is not the position here. In the instant case, it has been established that ARHS Developments was the subcontractor of the tendering company, IBM, which, under the provisions of the specifications and of the draft framework contract, was solely responsible for performance of the contract. In the case of a consortium, as a general rule all its members are bound to the contract and jointly and severally responsible for its due performance, which explains why DG TAXUD requested a guarantee from IBM, given that the overall financial situation of the other tendering member of the consortium, ARHS Developments, was negative. It follows that, contrary to what is claimed by the applicant, since the situations are not similar, the Commission was entitled to treat them differently, and, consequently, the Court cannot hold that there was any infringement of the principle of equal treatment.
99 In the light of all of the foregoing, it must be concluded that the applicant has not established that, in taking the view that the successful tenderer satisfied the selection criterion relating to economic and financial capacity, notwithstanding the fact that the overall financial situation of the company operating as subcontractor, ARHS Developments, was negative, the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment. | C-399/98
Ordine degli Architetti | 92 | S2-na [C3-48.3-4] | 92 Along the same lines, the Court ruled that Directive 92/50 permits a service provider to establish that it fulfils the economic, financial and technical criteria for participation in a tendering procedure for the award of a public service contract by relying on the standing of other entities, regardless of the legal nature of the links which it has with them, provided that it is able to show that it actually has at its disposal the resources of those entities which are necessary for performance of the contract (see Case C-176/98 Holst Italia [1999] ECR I-8607). | C-176/98
Holst Italia | 23-31 | S2-23
S2-na [C3-47.2-3]
S2-na [C3-48.3-4] | 23 The Court observes first of all that, as is apparent from the sixth recital in the preamble thereto, Directive 92/50 is designed to avoid obstacles to freedom to provide services in the award of public service contracts, just as Directives 71/304 and 71/305 are designed to ensure freedom to provide services in the field of public works contracts (Ballast Nedam Groep I, paragraph 6).
24 To that end, Chapter 1 of Title VI of Directive 92/50 lays down common rules on participation in procedures for the award of public service contracts, including the possibility of subcontracting part of the contract to third parties (Article 25) and of the submission of tenders by groups of service providers without their being required to assume a specific legal form in order to do so (Article 26).
25 In addition, the criteria for qualitative selection laid down in Chapter 2 of Title VI of Directive 92/50 are designed solely to define the rules governing objective assessment of the standing of tenderers, particularly as regards financial, economic and technical matters. One of those criteria, provided for in Article 31(3), allows tenderers to prove their financial and economic standing by means of any other document which the contracting authority considers appropriate. A further provision, contained in Article 32(2)(c), expressly states that evidence of the service provider's technical capability may be furnished by an indication of the technicians or technical bodies, whether or not belonging directly to the service provider, on which it can call to perform the service (see, to the same effect, as regards Directive 71/305, Ballast Nedam Groep I, paragraph 12).
26 From the object and wording of those provisions, it follows 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 (see, to the same effect, as regards Directives 71/304 and 71/305, Ballast Nedam Groep I, paragraph 15).
27 It is therefore 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.
28 However, such recourse to external references is subject to certain conditions. As stated in Article 23 of Directive 92/50, the contracting authority is required to verify the suitability of the service providers in accordance with the criteria laid down. That verification is intended, in particular, to enable the contracting authority to ensure that the successful tenderer will indeed be able to use whatever resources it relies on throughout the period covered by the contract.
29 Thus, where, in order to prove its financial, economic and technical standing with a view to being admitted to participate in a tendering procedure, a company relies on the resources of entities or undertakings with which it is directly or indirectly linked, whatever the legal nature of those links may be, it must 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 (see, to the same effect, as regards Directives 71/304 and 71/305, Ballast Nedam Groep I, paragraph 17).
30 It is for the national court to assess the relevance of the evidence adduced to that effect. In the context of that assessment, Directive 92/50 does not permit the exclusion, without due analysis, of specific types of proof or the assumption that the service provider has available to it resources belonging to third parties merely by virtue of the fact that it forms part of the same group of undertakings.
31 Consequently, the answer to be given to the question referred must be that Directive 92/50 is to be interpreted as permitting a service provider to establish that it fulfils the economic, financial and technical criteria for participation in a tendering procedure for the award of a public service contract by relying on the standing of other entities, regardless of the legal nature of the links which it has with them, provided that it is able to show that it actually has at its disposal the resources of those entities which are necessary for performance of the contract. It is for the national court to assess whether the requisite evidence in that regard has been adduced in the main proceedings. | C-5/97
Ballast Nedam | 8-14 | W1A4-20
W1-na [C3-47.2-3]
W1-na [C3-48.3-4]
L71.304-gen | 8 For its part, the Belgian Government contends, with reference to the judgment of the Court in Joined Cases 27/86, 28/86 and 29/86 CEI and Others [1987] ECR 3347, that the Member States enjoy a margin of discretion in assessing the classification criteria to be satisfied by a contractor upon examination of an application for registration lodged by a dominant legal person of a group, even if the condition laid down by the Court is satisfied.
9 The reference to that case is not relevant. Whilst, as the Court pointed out at paragraph 22 of the judgment in CEI and Others, the criteria for classification in the various official lists of recognized contractors provided for in Article 28 of Directive 71/305 are not harmonized, that is not true of some of the qualitative selection criteria laid down in Articles 23 to 28, in particular references attesting to contractors' financial and economic standing and their technical knowledge and ability provided for in Articles 25 and 26. It is clear from the judgment in BNG I that the condition laid down by the Court therein specifically relates to references for demonstrating the technical, financial and economic standing of a company seeking registration on an official list of approved contractors.
10 In that judgment, the Court stated first that a holding company which does not itself execute works may not, because its subsidiaries which do carry out works are separate legal persons, be precluded on that ground from participation in public works contract procedures (paragraph 15).
11 It went on to state that it is for the contract-awarding authorities, as Article 20 of Directive 71/305 specifies, to check the suitability of contractors in accordance with the criteria referred to in Articles 25 to 28 of that directive (paragraph 16).
12 Finally, the Court explained that when a company produces references relating to its subsidiaries in order to prove its economic and financial standing and technical knowledge, it must establish that, whatever the nature of its legal link with those subsidiaries, it actually has available to it the resources of the latter which are necessary for carrying out the contracts. It is for the national court to assess, in the light of the factual and legal circumstances before it, whether such proof has been produced in the main proceedings (paragraph 17).
13 It follows from all the foregoing considerations that a holding company which does not itself carry out works may not be precluded from participating in procedures for the award of public works contracts, and, therefore, from registration on an official list of approved contractors if it shows that it actually has available to it the resources of its subsidiaries necessary to carry out the contracts, unless the references of those subsidiaries do not themselves satisfy the qualitative selection criteria mentioned in Articles 23 to 28 of Directive 71/305.
14 The reply to the question submitted must therefore be that Directives 71/304 and 71/305 are to be interpreted as meaning that the authority competent to decide on an application for registration submitted by a dominant legal person of a group is under an obligation, where it is established that that person actually has available to it the resources of the companies belonging to the group that are necessary to carry out the contracts, to take account of the references of those companies in assessing the suitability of the legal person concerned, in accordance with the criteria mentioned in Articles 23 to 28 of Directive 71/305. | C-389/92
Ballast Nedam | 18 | W1A4-20
W1-na [C3-47.2-3]
W1-na [C3-48.3-4] | The reply to the question referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling must therefore be that Council Directive 71/304/EEC of 26 July 1971 concerning the abolition of restrictions on freedom to provide services in respect of public works contracts and on the award of public works contracts to contractors acting through agencies or branches and Council Directive 71/305/EEC of 26 July 1971 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts must be interpreted as meaning that they permit, for the purposes of the assessment of the criteria to be satisfied by a contractor when an application for registration by the dominant legal person of a group is being examined, account to be taken of companies belonging to that group, provided that the legal person in question establishes that it actually has available the resources of those companies which are necessary for carrying out the works. It is for the national court to assess whether such proof has been produced in the main proceedings. |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | N-080208
Haubjerg Interiør | 1+K1 | C3-2.noncom-impl
C3-2.trans-impl
C3-47.2 | Ad påstand 1
1. Af udbudsbekendtgørelsens punkt 4.1.2 fremgår, at ansøgernes soliditetsgrad i hvert af de seneste tre regnskabsår skal have været mindst 15 %. Klagerens soliditetsgrad udgjorde i 2004 12,24 %. Herefter, og idet indklagede ikke er forpligtet til at oplyse tilbudsgivere om reglen i Udbudsdirektivets artikel 47, stk. 2, har indklagede ikke handlet i strid med Udbudsdirektivet ved at afvise klagerens anmodning om prækvalifikation med den begrundelse, at de regnskabsoplysninger, som klageren havde fremsendt sammen med anmodningen om prækvalifikation, ikke opfyldte kravene i udbudsbekendtgørelsen.
Herefter bestemmes:
K1. Klagen tages ikke til følge.
[Påstand 1 Klagenævnet skal konstatere, at indklagede har handlet i strid med Udbudsdirektivet ved at afvise klagerens anmodning om prækvalifikation med den begrundelse, at de regnskabsoplysninger, som klageren havde fremsendt sammen med anmodningen om prækvalifikation, ikke opfyldte kravene i 2. udbudsbekendtgørelsen vedrørende soliditet for regnskabsåret 2004, uagtet de regnskabsoplysninger, der blev fremsendt sammen med anmodningen om prækvalifikation, opfyldte betingelserne i udbudsbekendtgørelsen om soliditet for regnskabsåret 2004.
.....
Klageren har gjort gældende, at det ikke fremgår at udbudsbekendtgørelsen, at de økonomiske mindstekrav, som klageren skulle opfylde for at blive prækvalificeret, kunne opfyldes gennem den økonomiske og finansielle formåen hos en tredjemand, hvis ressourcer klageren råder over, jf. Udbudsdirektivets artikel 47, stk. 2. Afvisningen af klagerens anmodning om prækvalifikation er derfor foretaget på fejlagtigt grundlag, og indklagede bør derfor revurdere klagerens anmodning om prækvalifikation og i den forbindelse give klageren lejlighed til at fremsende dokumentation for økonomisk formåen hos tredjemand, hvis ressourcer klageren råder over.] | 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] | N-050913
Navigent | 18-20 | C2A1-1.6.p1=S2-23.1-impl
S2-36.1
S2-na [C3-47.2-3] | 18. Indklagede har vedrørende underkriterium 4, Kvaliteten af tilbudsgivers certificeringsproces, fastsat en række egnede delkriterier. Der er ikke grundlag for at antage, at indklagede i strid hermed har lagt vægt på, hvor de tilbudte medarbejdere var ansat. Der henvises i øvrigt til det anførte ad påstand 2.
19. Uanset, at »kvalitetssikring« ikke er fastsat som et delkriterium til underkriterium 4, finder Klagenævnet, at det ikke som påstået er i strid med udbudsreglerne ved bedømmelsen af underkriterium 4, Kvaliteten af tilbudsgivers certificeringsproces, at lægge vægt på, om tilbudet beskriver, hvorledes den tilbudte kvalitet kan sikres. Klagerens tilbud indeholder da også en vis beskrivelse heraf, men indklagede har vurderet, at det vindende tilbud på dette punkt var bedre end klagerens. Denne vurdering ses ikke foretaget i strid med udbudsreglerne.
20. Påstanden tages derfor ikke til følge.
[Påstand 8 Klagenævnet skal konstatere, at indklagede har handlet i strid med Tjenesteydelsesdirektivets artikel 36 og det EU-udbudsretlige ligebehandlingsog gennemsigtighedsprincip ved i forbindelse med bedømmelsen af underkriterium 4 at have lagt vægt på, om de involverede medarbejdere er ansat hos tilbudsgiveren selv, og på, om tilbudet indeholder beskrivelse af kvalitetssikring, uanset at det ikke fremgår af udbudsbetingelserne, at der skulle være forskel mellem bedømmelsen af egne medarbejdere og medarbejdere benyttet via leverandør, og uanset at de nævnte kriterier ikke er egnede til at fastlægge det økonomisk mest fordelagtige bud, men er udvælgelseskriterier, som burde være iagttaget i forbindelse med den foretagne prækvalifikation.] | N-011026
Eterra | 1-7+K1 | G2-6.3.a
G2-na [C3-47.2-3]
G2-na [C3-48.3-4] | 1. Ved gennemførelsen af et udbud efter forhandling efter Indkøbsdirektivets artikel 6, stk. 3, litra a, er udbyderen frit stillet med hensyn til, hvilke virksomheder udbyderen vil opfordre til at deltage i det pågældende udbud efter forhandling, og indklagede var således ikke forpligtet til at opfordre tilbudsgiver nr. 2, Ehuset A/S, og tilbudsgiver nr. 6, klageren, til at deltage i udbudet. Den 2. september 2000 besluttede indklagede imidlertid, at disse 2 virksomheder skulle deltage i udbudet efter forhandling, og denne beslutning blev meddelt de 2 virksomheder ved skrivelsen af 22. september 2000. På denne baggrund har Klagenævnet vedrørende klagerens påstand 1 og 2 foretaget en vurdering af, om indklagede havde en saglig grund til efterfølgende at træffe beslutning om, at klageren alligevel ikke skulle deltage i udbudet efter forhandling.
2. Følgende oplysninger fremgår ikke af klagerens skrivelser af 31. oktober og 2., 10. og 17. november 2000:
- at tilbudsgiverens selskabsnavn på dette tidspunkt var ændret fra »Merkantildata A/S« (binavn »Merkantildata Danmark A/S«) til »Eterra A/S«,
- at Eterra A/S var et helejet datterselskab af Merkantildata Danmark A/S (CVR nr. 21 47 87 76),
- at selskabsnavnet for Avenir Management Consulting A/S på dette tidspunkt var ændret til »Ementor A/S«, 1 2 18.
- at Ementor A/S er et helejet datterselskab af Merkantildata Danmark A/S (CVR nr. 21 47 87 76).
3. Klageren har i anmodningen om prækvalifikation og i tilbudet anført, at Merkantildata A/S er »hovedleverandør«, men har samtidig vedrørende punktet »Beskrivelse af evt. samarbejdspartnere eller underleverandører« i de fastsatte minimumskrav ved prækvalifikationen anført »Ikke relevant«. Det fremgår imidlertid af klagerens skrivelse af 10. november 2000, at Ementor Denmark A/S »i forbindelse med kontraktens opfyldelse vil virke som underleverandør til Merkantildata Danmark A/S, der overfor Esbjerg Kommune vil fremstå som hovedleverandør«.
4. I Klagerens skrivelse af 10. november 2000 er det videre anført følgende: »Tilbudet er afgivet af og kontrakten indgås med Merkantildata Danmark A/S«. Merkantildata Danmark A/S var imidlertid på dette tidspunkt selskabet CVR nr. 21 47 87 76, som ikke var prækvalificeret, og som ikke havde afgivet tilbud, mens det selskab, som var prækvalificeret, og som havde afgivet tilbud, var selskabet CVR nr. 71 13 07 11.
5. Det følger af det anførte, at indklagede, da kommunen den 28. november 2000 besluttede alligevel ikke at inddrage klageren i udbudet efter forhandling, ikke på grundlag af de oplysninger, som kommunen havde modtaget fra klageren, kunne vide, at en eventuel kontrakt skulle indgås med Eterra Danmark A/S, ligesom kommunen ikke kunne vide, om Eterra Danmark A/S skulle opfylde kontrakten dels selv, dels med bistand af underentreprenører uden for koncernen, om Eterra Danmark A/S skulle opfylde kontrakten dels selv, dels med bistand fra andre selskaber i koncernen, eller om Eterra Danmark A/S skulle opfylde kontrakten dels selv, dels med bistand både fra andre selskaber i koncernen og fra underentreprenører uden for koncernen. Specielt fremgik det ikke af klagerens oplysninger, på hvilket retligt grundlag tilbudsgiveren havde mulighed for at disponere over mcare-systemet.
6. Disse forhold indebar, at indklagede var fuldt berettiget til den 28. november 2000 at beslutte, at klageren alligevel ikke skulle deltage i udbudet efter forhandling. Indklagedes afgørelse byggede således ikke på en vurdering af, om klageren faktisk havde mulighed for at opfylde en eventuel kontrakt, men alene på det forhold, at klageren ikke på en klar og gennemskuelig måde havde givet indklagede oplysninger, som viste, at det forholdt sig således. Klageren havde således ikke – som det er anført i EF-domstolens dom, sag C-176/98, Holst Italia SpA mod Comune de Cagliari – bevist, at selskabet virkeligt rådede over de virksomheders ressourcer, der var nødvendige for at opfylde kontrakten med indklagede.
7. Klagenævnet tager derfor ikke påstand 1 og 2 til følge.
.....
K1. Klagen tages ikke til følge. |
|
|
