Search
Contact
27.02.2015 | KPMG Law Insights

Public procurement law: Correction of incorrect tenders possible at any time

Dear Readers,

February is always a short month. Our newsletter adapts to this – at least in terms of the number of articles – for once. The reason is simple, but hopefully will convince you anyway: Not much happened in the month of February. The EU Commission has been reticent with news in the area of education and research, and there is nothing spectacular to report from the “Union framework front” either. But we still have a bit of “EU” for you: As part of the HORIZON 2020 funding program, there is further funding for top researchers who want to bring their innovations to market with the help of a financial injection from the EU.

We also do not want to withhold from you the fact that there has been a critical look at universities by the anti-corruption organization Transparency International. There are fears that the independence of universities will be jeopardized due to their – more or less close – relationships with business. So far so good, criticism can be made fruitful. But if e.g. contract research as a whole is placed under general suspicion because of the financial involvement of commercial enterprises, this is decidedly going too far. The German Rectors’ Conference thinks so, and so do we.

We wish you interesting reading!

Sincerely yours

Public Sector Team of KPMG Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH

Mathias Oberndörfer Dr. Anke Empting

Lawyer Attorney

Public procurement law: Incorrect tenders may be corrected at any stage of the procedure

The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf has given public contracting authorities a treat in its decision of January 12, 2015: A public contracting authority that discovers a significant error in the award documents before the contract is awarded may still correct it even if the tender has already taken place.

The fact that there is a fundamental right of the contracting authority to make corrections of significant errors in the award documents before awarding the contract is nothing new. Now, however, the OLG Düsseldorf has ruled that even a submission that has already taken place does not preclude such an error correction. This is because the contracting authority cannot, in principle, be obliged to award a contract on the basis of a call for tenders which it has identified as being defective. The decision as to how and to what extent the contracting authority rectifies an identified tendering error is subject to its freedom of design.

According to the court, first of all, there is a possibility for the contracting authority to postpone the entire procedure.

However, according to the OLG Düsseldorf, it is also conceivable that the contracting authority limits itself to individual sub-items in connection with the deferral if these sub-items do not influence the price structure of the overall offer in a relevant manner. If the order of bidders changes in a second bidding round, this must be accepted by the companies participating in the competition. This applies all the more so in the case of pure price competition, where even a minor deviation in the bid prices can be decisive for the award decision.

Here the minds of the jurisprudence divide

The Dresden Higher Regional Court sets clear limits as far as the relegation of the proceedings to partial positions and the resulting change of price structures is concerned. The limits consist of a so-called “de minimis threshold”. According to the Dresden Higher Regional Court in its ruling of July 23, 2013, if the price items to be corrected account for approx. 15% of the bid totals, it is necessary to obtain new bids in order to counteract distortions of competition.

However, the OLG Düsseldorf does not fully share this view: fair competition can no longer be guaranteed if the items affected by the change co-determine the price structure of the offers in other respects and affect the price structure of the offer in a relevant manner. In this respect, both courts go one way. The fork in the road here lies in the fact that the OLG Düsseldorf does not want to tie such an influence to a “threshold value” of approx. 15% of the bid amounts. It sees ambiguities arising already from the question on which basis such a “de minimis threshold” should be determined. For example, the average of the bids submitted could be used, or the best bid or the contract value estimated in advance by the contracting authority, which is generally not made public, could be used as a basis.

However, the OLG Düsseldorf also takes a critical view of the de minimis threshold set by the OLG Dresden because it does not see any substantive arguments that would make it seem plausible that individual prices of a bid have an influence on the other price components of the bid on the basis of their percentage share in the total contract value.

The Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court refrained from referring the matter to the Federal Court of Justice. Such a referral is intended by law whenever a Higher Regional Court wishes to deviate from the legal opinion of another Higher Regional Court. In this case, submission is therefore not necessary, since the question in dispute between the OLG in connection with the “de minimis threshold” is not relevant to the decision in the dispute.

Explore #more

06.11.2024 | In the media

Interview in stores + stores magazine on the topic: “Companies need AI rules”

Evaluating application videos using AI, translating employment contracts via smartphone or using AI analyses for target agreements and salary discussions – all of this is…

31.10.2024 | In the media, Legal Financial Services

Statement by Ulrich Keunecke in the in-house counsel on the topic of capital market compliance

For private equity investors, going public is the most common exit strategy when investing in a company.
However, family businesses and SMEs can also gain…

30.10.2024 | In the media

Guest article in ZURe on the topic of reporting channels under the Whistleblower Protection Act and the Supply Chain Due Diligence Act

The dual obligation to implement reporting channels in accordance with the HinSchG and LkSG poses major personnel and administrative challenges for practitioners, especially in times…

25.10.2024 | In the media

Guest article in the Audit Committee Quarterly: New regulations on the remuneration of works councils

On June 28, 2024, the German Bundestag passed the Second Act Amending the Works Constitution Act (BetrVG). This amendment is intended to increase legal certainty…

23.10.2024 | In the media

Guest article in the Neue Zeitschrift für Gesellschaftsrecht: Update Gesellschafterdarlehen: Risks in M&A transactions

Christian Hensel and Daniel Dörstling have published a new article on the insolvency-proof handling of shareholder loans in the context of M&A transactions in the…

21.10.2024 | KPMG Law Insights

EU deforestation regulation forces companies to act

Anyone who trades in or uses the raw materials soy, oil palm, cattle, coffee, cocoa, rubber and wood and certain products made from them should…

18.10.2024 | Deal Notifications

KPMG Law advises Adiuva Capital on the acquisition of a majority stake in Advellence Solutions AG and Sharedien AG

KPMG Law Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH and KPMG Law Switzerland (KPMG Law) advised the owner-managed investment company Adiuva Capital GmbH (Adiuva) on the due diligence, structuring and…

18.10.2024 | KPMG Law Insights

BAG: Showering can be working time

Can showering be working time? The Federal Labor Court had to decide on this question (BAG, judgment of April 23, 2024 – 5 AZR 212/23

11.10.2024 |

Deforestation regulation: The most common mistakes made by companies

The very name of the regulation is misleading. “Deforestation Ordinance” sounds more like a set of rules for agriculture or forestry. But it…

11.10.2024 | In the media

Guest article in the Asset Management Guide 2024: The Fund Market Strengthening Act – Flexibilization and Debt Fund reloaded

On August 5, 2024, the Federal Ministry of Finance published the draft bill for the Act to Strengthen the German Fund Market and Implement Directive…

Contact

Mathias Oberndörfer

Geschäftsführer
Bereichsvorstand Öffentlicher Sektor KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft

Theodor-Heuss-Straße 5
70174 Stuttgart

Tel.: +49 711 781923410
moberndoerfer@kpmg-law.com

© 2024 KPMG Law Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH, associated with KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a public limited company under German law and a member of the global KPMG organisation of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a Private English Company Limited by Guarantee. All rights reserved. For more details on the structure of KPMG’s global organisation, please visit https://home.kpmg/governance.

 KPMG International does not provide services to clients. No member firm is authorised to bind or contract KPMG International or any other member firm to any third party, just as KPMG International is not authorised to bind or contract any other member firm.

Scroll