The Supreme Court (Supreme Court) has rejected the cassation complaint of JSC “Rīgas siltums” in the claim against the Procurement Monitoring Bureau (PMB) and SIA “Rīgas namu pārvaldnieks” (RNP) regarding the procurement of heating network maintenance, confirms the court representative Rasma Zvejniece.
AT assessed the company’s cassation appeal against the judgment of the Administrative District Court rejecting the company’s request to annul the PMB decision. Both RNP and PMB are defendants in the case.
AT today rejected the cassation appeal of “Rīgas siltuma” against the judgment of the Administrative District Court, which upheld the decision adopted by the PMB in the announced open tender “Maintenance of the heat supply system”.
In its judgment, the Senate acknowledged the conclusions of the Administrative District Court that the understanding of the applicant – “Rīgas siltums” – about the content of the tender and the submitted tender itself differed significantly from the requirements specified in the regulations.
LETA has reported that in November 2016, RNP announced a procurement for “Maintenance of Heat Supply Systems”. The general partnership “Siltumserviss Rīga” won the procurement. The offer of “Rīgas siltums” was recognized as non-compliant with the requirements included in the procurement documentation, ie the company had incorrectly filled in the financial offer.
On 30 June 2017, Rīgas siltums submitted an application to the PMB regarding the procurement results, but evaluating the company’s arguments and RNP explanations, the Bureau also acknowledged that RNP had acted in accordance with the procurement regulations and reasonably acknowledged .
In connection with this decision, in the spring of 2018, Rīgas siltums was forced to lay off 230 employees.
At the court hearing, the Senate heard a representative of “Rīgas siltuma” and representatives of the defendants – RNP and IUB – to find out how to interpret the norms of the procurement regulations according to which the applicant had to fulfill its financial offer.
The court explained which types of costs were to be included in the section of the financial offer for the basic services to be provided in accordance with the procurement regulations and what types of costs were to be included in the section on additional services.
In the case, the customer’s RNP announced an open tender “Maintenance of the heat supply system”. In the procurement, the tender was also submitted by “Rīgas siltums”, whose tender was recognized by the contracting authority as not complying with the requirements of the technical tender and the financial tender set forth in the regulations.
In the form of “Rīgas siltuma” financial offer for additional works in several series of items the price was indicated as 0.00 euros, and the customer, evaluating the applicant’s arguments about the formation of specific prices, concluded that the applicant has filled in the basic services section of the financial offer incorrectly, because it included costs, which had to be included in the section of the financial offer on ancillary services.