Škoda Transtech has publicly disagreed with parts of a recent decision made by the Finnish Market Court to exclude the company from the tender for the supply of new trams for the capital city of Helsinki.
According to the company; the ruling represents results of what they have deemed to be an ‘incorrect assessment’ of the technical part of its bid.
The Škoda Group previously provided trams to Tampereen Raitiotie Oy,
© Škoda Group
This has led Škoda Transtech to file an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland whilst simultaneously requesting an interim measure to suspend both the signing and execution of the contract until such time as a final decision of the Supreme Administrative Court has been reached.
Petr Novotný, CEO of Škoda Group, said:
The Market Court assessed the technical part of Škoda Transtech’s bid in a purely formalistic manner, effectively turning our proactive and cooperative approach towards the contracting authority against us as alleged material change of the bid and thereby concluded on its non-compliance with the technical requirements of the tender.
The tender in question was for the supply of 183 trams for use in Helsinki, and was launched by the Helsinki Metropolitan Area Transport company. Škoda Transtech has stated that the dispute reached the Market Court after the contracting authority ‘decided to exclude the company from the tender while simultaneously disseminating unsubstantiated allegations [about Škoda Transtech]’.
Parameters of Škoda Transtech’s offered technical solution are, according to the company, ‘fully compliant’ with tender requirements, with the Market Court allegedly having based its decision on a ‘formalistic interpretation of the technical part of Škoda Transtech’s bid that does not reflect either the substance of the bid or the actual technical parameters of the proposed solution’.
Petr Novotný added:
This decision deeply concerns us, and we consider it a dangerous precedent. If technically sound and functional solutions can be excluded on the basis of an ambiguous and formalistic interpretation of details and any explanation provided can be considered as material change of the bid, the very fairness of public procurement in Europe is at risk – and ultimately it is the travelling public who will pay the price. The decision disregards the quality of the offered technical solution and what will be the impact on the travellers.
We disagree with such an approach and will vigorously defend ourselves against it.
Škoda Transtech has stated that it ‘firmly rejects’ any possible suggestion that its technical solution might raise safety concerns or risks, claiming that such claims are neither supported by the bid of by the technical parameters and thus serve to damage the wider reputation of Škoda products.
Zdeněk Sváta, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Škoda Transtech and COO of Škoda Group, said:
We are disappointed. We submitted a competitive bid and a solution that would have represented a significant technological advancement in the operation and safety of tram transport in Helsinki.
Our goal was to succeed in a fair and transparent procurement process. We appealed the Market Court’s decision and, at the same time, requested an interim measure to prevent the contract from being awarded until a final decision is made.
The company has said that it has been ‘surprised’ at how ‘irregularities and ambiguities’ of the tender procedure were overseen as the Market Court ‘decided rather to focus on technical details’.
Škoda Transtech has stated that the contracting authority’s conduct of the procurement procedure raises serious questions about its overall fairness, including material changes to the evaluation criteria during different stages of the procedure, which, according to the company, were neither sufficiently reviewed nor taken into account by the Market Court.
Sváta added:
By altering the evaluation criteria just before the final phase of the procurement process the contracting authority de facto redesigned the procurement. Despite such surprising turn, the contracting authority refused to extend the deadline for submission of the final bid.
After submission of the final bids, instead of real evaluation, it rather focused on finding arguments why and how to exclude the domestic participant offering trams manufactured in Finland and used every formalistic marginal detail for such purpose. If this is not against procurement laws is what we want to find out in the appeal proceeding before the Supreme Administrative Court.
The company has stated that since the selection of Stadler’s offer by the contracting authority is conditional to an approval by the city councils of Helsinki and Vantaa to increase the budget allocated to this procurement, this would suggest that the price offered by Stadler is higher than such allocated budget, and also thereby also higher than the price offered by Škoda Transtech.
As a result, Škoda Transtech has announced that it will be seeking a full review of the case before the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland and has requested a suspension of the signing and execution of the contract until a final decision is reached.