The National Appeals Chamber agreed with the arguments of the Law Firm’s advocates and attorneys presented in their response to the appeal against the Ordering Party’s decision on the selection of the bid submitted by the Law Firm’s Client in the course of the public procurement procedure conducted as an open tender.
The Appellant accused the Ordering Party of violating a number of provisions of the public procurement procedure, which in its view should result in the rejection of the Law Firm’s Client’s bid. The Appellant claimed that the Law Firm’s Client misled the Ordering Party as to the fulfillment of the conditions for participation in the proceedings, as contrary to the information provided in the bid, it did not have experience in VR filmmaking, i.e. services identical to those covered by the contract. The appellant also alleged that the bid of the Law Firm’s Client contained an abnormally low price.
The Law Firm’s advocates and attorneys contested all of the Appellant’s claims, claiming first and foremost that the Law Firm’s Client has extensive experience in the VR film production industry, as evidenced by the references submitted to the Ordering Party by the Law Firm’s Client. The Law Firm’s lawyers also pointed out that the experience gained by the law firm’s Client, including the VR film production technology it uses, allowed it to submit a competitive bid.
In view of the fact that the claims presented in the proceedings by the Law Firm’s advocates and attorneys were accepted, the National Appeals Chamber dismissed the appeal filed by the participant in the public procurement proceedings in its entirety.