Award criteria Jari Kallio European Commission Directorate General Internal Market and Services Unit C/1 – International Aspects of Public Procurement NB: The information in this presentation is not binding for the European Commission and does not present an official position of the European Commission Megnézni 1) Reform szövegét 2) exec summaryt

Award Criteria Main objective: Main principles applicable To ensure that tenders are assessed in an impartial, objective manner and under conditions of effective competition Main principles applicable Equal treatment and transparency  indication in advance of the award criteria and of their relative weighting to allow tenderers to prepare their tenders Contracting authorities are free to choose award criteria and their weighting in conformity with EU law Two criteria only: the lowest price and the most economically advantageous tender (MEAT)

Award criteria vs. Selection criteria Assessement of the tenderer' s suitability and comparaison of offers may take place simultaneously but they are two distinct procedures governed by different rules (see Case 31/87, para. 16) Contracting authorities can only choose award criteria aimed at identifying the tender which is economically the most advantageous or the lowest priced Selection criteria (such as the tenderers’ experience, manpower and equipment) cannot be used to compare offers (see case C-532/06, para 29-32)

Lowest Price Can be adopted in all cases but is better suited to simple contracts (v.g. standard supplies) where a sensitive analysis is not required Contract must be awarded to the lowest priced bid but the contracting authority may reject “abnormally low offers” Abnormally low offers can only be excluded following a contradictory procedure (see Art. 55 Dir. 2004/18)

Most economically advantageous tender (MEAT) The PP Directives do not set out an exhaustive list of the sub-criteria which may be chosen, thus the contracting authority can chose other ones besides (or instead) price, quality, delivery date, product life, aesthetic, after sales service, etc. Sub-criteria does not need to be of a purely economical nature but, as a whole, must allow to determine the tender that offers best value for money Criteria must be stated so to allow all reasonably well-informed and normally diligent tenderers to interpret them in the same way

Most economically advantageous tender (MEAT) Criteria must be linked to the subject matter of the contract i.e. relate to the needs of the contracting authority as defined in the subject of the contract (see cases C-513/99 and C-448/01) Criteria must be specific and susceptible of an objective and uniform application i.e must never confer unrestricted freedom of choice on contracting authorities Specific - as opposed to vague; they must allow contractors to plan their tenders to take into account the way in which the assessment will be made (opinion of advocate general Jacobs on case C-19/00)g Objective application - as opposed to subjective application; they must be expressed in measurable terms and their application capable of external verification

Most economically advantageous tender (MEAT) Disclosure of the award criteria Criteria and respective weighting must be indicated in the contract notice or in the tender documents. If weighting is not possible for demonstrable reasons, the criteria shall be indicated by descending order of importance (Art. 53 (2) of Dir. 2004/18/EC) The principle of transparency requires the disclosure of the existence, scope and relative importance of all the elements which a contracting authority takes into account to determine the MEAT (see case C-532/06, para. 37) In other words “A contracting authority cannot apply weighting rules or sub-criteria which it has not previously brought to the tenders’ attention.” (see case C-532/06, para. 38)

Most economically advantageous tender (MEAT) Application of the award criteria The obligation of transparency means that the adjudicating authority must interpret the award criteria in the same way throughout the entire procedure When tenders are being assessed, the award criteria must be applied objectively and uniformly to all tenderers (see case C-19/00, pars. 43-44) Any subsequent refinement of the CA’s evaluation methodology to include elements which had not been disclosed before submission of tenders is prohibited unless they do not alter the criteria, don’t affect the preparation of tenders and are non-discriminatory (see case-331/04)

Most economically advantageous tender (MEAT) Use of criteria related to social or environmental characteristics The criteria must meet 4 conditions: Be linked to the subject matter of the contract Not confer an unrestricted freedom of choice on the Contracting Authority Be expressly mentioned in the tender documents or in the notice Comply with all the fundamental principles of EU law

Most economically advantageous tender (MEAT) Use of criteria related to social or environmental characteristics Criteria may address “lyfe-cycle costing” of a product i.e. Include in the purchasing decision all the costs that will be incurred during the lifetime of the product or service (production, operating and end-of-lige costs) Criteria may also refer to social requirements, in response in particular to the needs - defined in the specifications of the contract - of particularly disadvantaged groups of people which benefit from the works, supplies or services awarded

5. Topics for discussion Conformity assessment – what kind of evidence can be used by suppliers to prove their tender's conformity with the technical specifications set by the CA? Control of quality: how and when? MEAT criteria and the staff of the supplier as the indicator of possible quality of the intellectual services to be provided. How does the CA have to select properly the best MEAT criteria to ensure the maximum performance of the contract? What is the most prevalent MEAT parameters, which ensure maximum quality of contract, without increasing the price?