Škoda Transtech has contested parts of the Finnish Market Court’s ruling that upheld its exclusion from the Helsinki tram procurement process. The company has filed an appeal with Finland’s Supreme Administrative Court to challenge certain aspects of the decision to exclude it from the tender for supplying new trams for Helsinki.
According to the company, the decision is based on an incorrect assessment of the technical component of its bid. For this reason, Škoda Transtech has lodged an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland and is also requesting interim measures to suspend the signing and implementation of the contract until a final ruling is issued.
“The Market Court assessed the technical part of Škoda Transtech’s offer in an overly formalistic manner, effectively turning our proactive and cooperative approach towards the contracting authority into a presumed material change to the bid, and thus concluding that it did not meet the technical requirements of the tender,” said Petr Novotný, CEO of Škoda Group.
Škoda Transtech took part in the tender for 183 new trams for Helsinki, launched by Helsinki Metropolitan Area Transport. The dispute reached the Market Court after the contracting authority decided to exclude the company from the procedure, while simultaneously making what the company describes as unfounded allegations against Škoda Transtech.
Technical offer complies with tender requirements
According to Škoda Transtech, the Market Court based its decision on a formalistic interpretation of the technical section of the bid, which does not reflect either its actual content or the technical parameters of the proposed solution. The company maintains that these fully comply with the tender documentation.
“This decision deeply concerns us and we consider it a dangerous precedent. If sound and functional technical solutions can be excluded based on an ambiguous and overly formal interpretation of details, and if any clarification can be treated as a material change to a bid, then the fairness of public procurement in Europe is at risk – and ultimately, passengers will pay the price. The ruling ignores the quality of the technical solution and its impact on passengers. We do not agree with this approach and will defend ourselves firmly,” Novotný added.
Škoda Transtech firmly rejects any suggestion that its technical solution raises safety concerns. The company states that such claims are not supported by the bid or its technical parameters and damage the reputation of Škoda products, which carry millions of passengers worldwide every day.
Concerns over fairness of the procedure
Škoda Transtech expressed surprise that alleged irregularities and ambiguities in the procurement process were overlooked, while the Market Court focused on technical details. According to the company, the way the contracting authority managed the procedure raises serious questions about fairness. In particular, it points to significant changes in evaluation criteria at different stages of the process, which it says were not sufficiently examined by the court.
“By changing the evaluation criteria just before the final stage of the procurement process, the contracting authority effectively redesigned the entire procedure. Despite this unexpected change, it refused to extend the deadline for final bids. After submissions, instead of carrying out a genuine evaluation, it focused on finding arguments to exclude the local bidder offering trams manufactured in Finland, using any marginal formal detail for that purpose. We want the Supreme Administrative Court to determine whether this approach complies with public procurement law,” said Zdeněk Sváta, Chairman of the Board of Škoda Transtech and COO of Škoda Group.
Furthermore, since the selection of Stadler’s bid is conditional on approval by the city councils of Helsinki and Vantaa to increase the procurement budget, this suggests that Stadler’s offer exceeds the available budget and is therefore higher than Škoda Transtech’s bid.
For these reasons, Škoda Transtech is calling for a full review of the case by Finland’s Supreme Administrative Court and, as previously stated, a suspension of the signing and implementation of the contract until a final decision is reached.
Share on: 
