The ruling finds the content of bids may change significantly as a result of negotiations.

In its appeal, Semetron, which had been taking part in the mobile field hospital procurement and lost out to a joint bid from two other companies, argued that the competitors declared successful did not meet the tender qualification requirements, adding their joint bid was not in compliance with its technical specifications.

Semetron also claimed that the tender winners had altered their final offer beyond what was permitted in the tender documents, and that its costs were unjustifiably low.

In short, the joint bid had been changed after the negotiations to a greater extent than allowed.

However, the Tartu-based Supreme Court found that a competitive negotiated procurement procedure is by its very nature multi-phased, with the aim being to reach the optimum possible offer via negotiations. All conditions may be negotiated, save for evaluation criteria and minimum requirements, the court found.

This allows the contracting authority to procure exactly what meets its needs and align the conditions with what companies can offer. If the tender documents don't allow immediate selection of the best offer, initial bids are only indicative. The final evaluated bid is usually submitted after negotiations and may differ from the earlier one, it was argued.

The public procurement review committee, the first-tier administrative court and the second-tier circuit court had dismissed Semetron's appeal.

The Supreme Court upheld these decisions, though it did alter the circuit court's reasoning.

On November 7, 2024, the State Defense Investment Center (RKIK) awarded the field hospital tender to MDSC Systems and Maru Metall after their €7.6 million joint bid.

Semetron, which had placed second in the tender with a bid half a million euros costlier, contested this decision.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!