The new recovery company (SNR) had submitted an offer as part of the public procurement procedure launched by COM in 2019 for the removal of shipwrecks and came in second place, behind Koole Contractors. The amount of his service amounted to 5,87 million euros, 3,52 million more than the company selected on July 4 by the executive council. Believing that she had been injured, she challenged the community's decision.
It first applied to the judge hearing the application for interim measures before the administrative court on 15 July to ask him for the decision to reject his offer and to order the COM to resume the procedure at the stage of analyzing the offers, failing to cancel the whole procedure.
SNR argued that Koole Contractors, a Dutch company, did not have the necessary authorization to carry out the activity of removal of end-of-life boats (BHU) and therefore that "the contract was awarded irregularly in reason for non-compliance with the general requirements applicable to classified installations ”. It also considered that the elected officials "irregularly eliminated its offer" because they did not, in its view, demonstrate the "economically less advantageous nature of its offer". "The COM has carried out an insufficiently incorrect analysis of the offers," she added.
The examination of the case revealed that "having regard to the conditions under which it intervened, the decision to sign the contract would have had the sole purpose of obstructing referral by a company of the judge of pre-contractual summary proceedings", explains this the latter who ultimately considered SNR's conclusions aimed at suspending or canceling the contract procedure "not applicable". By order of August 5, SNR's request was dismissed.
Eleven days later, SNR again seized the judge in summary proceedings to ask him again to cancel the rejection of his offer, but also to order the COM to resume the procedure as well as to communicate to him the documents relating to the disputed consultation with a penalty of 150 euros per day late. SNR put forward the same arguments as during its previous referral and obtained a new rejection of its request on the grounds of not having seized in time the judge established by the law of summary proceedings. (soualigapost.com)
6,995 total views
No comments