The Law Firm’s advocates and attorneys have once again successfully represented the Client’s interests before the National Appeal Chamber (KIO).
The Law Firm’s Client participated in a public procurement procedure for bus transport services. The Client’s tender was deemed by the Ordering Party to be the most advantageous. The proceedings before the KIO concerned the examination of an appeal lodged by a contractor whose tender had been ranked third in the tender ranking.
The grounds for the appeal essentially challenged the correctness of the selection of the most advantageous tender submitted by the Client. Firstly, the appellant argued that the Client had not met the conditions for participation in the procedure, as it did not in fact possess the experience required by the Contracting Authority. The second ground of the appeal concerned the fact that the Client’s tender should have been rejected by the Contracting Authority as containing a grossly low price, given that the Client had failed to fulfil the obligation to duly demonstrate that the price quoted in its tender reflected the market price.
In the proceedings before the National Appeal Chamber (KIO), the Client participated as an intervener on the Ordering Party’s side; consequently, the role of the Law Firm’s lawyers was to put forward arguments supporting the validity of the Ordering Party’s decision to select the Client’s tender as the most advantageous.
During the proceedings before the National Appeal Chamber (KIO), the Law Firm’s advocates and solicitors demonstrated that the grounds for the appeal were unfounded. The KIO found that, contrary to the appellant’s assertions, the Client possessed the necessary experience to meet the eligibility criteria for participation in the public procurement procedure. In this regard, the Chamber concurred with the arguments put forward by the Law Firm’s lawyers during the hearing, according to which the appellant had failed to substantiate its allegation. It is worth emphasising that, in this respect, the KIO, in its reasoning for the judgment, explicitly referred to the arguments presented by the Law Firm’s advocates and solicitors concerning the burden of proof imposed on the appellant.
Furthermore, the Chamber found that the Client’s tender did not contain a grossly low price. In the KIO’s view, the explanations regarding the grossly low price provided by the Client addressed the full scope of issues set out in the Contracting Authority’s request for clarification. In these circumstances, it cannot be argued that the Client’s explanations were insufficient, as, in the KIO’s view, the scope of a contractor’s explanations is determined by the content of the Contracting Authority’s request, which specifies which circumstances affecting the price should be explained.
Effective representation of the Client before the National Appeal Chamber (KIO) enabled the Client to conclude a contract for the performance of a public procurement contract worth PLN 194,000.00.