ľ¹Ï¸£ÀûÓ°ÊÓ

In an interview with Aanbestedingscafe.nl, prof. mr. Elisabetta Manunza and prof. dr. Jan Telgen point out that unsound award methods are not sufficiently contested in procedures before the Courts. These procedures merely address the question whether the used method was transparent and non-discriminatory, leaving the substance of the method, which actually decides who will be award a public contract, untouched.

The  Aanbestedingswet 2012 (Dutch Public Procurement Act 2012) merely obliges contracting authorities to disclose the weighting of the award criteria. The underlying method is, however, not regulated. As a consequence, it is possible that the so-called ‘relative scoring method’ is frequently used in the Netherlands. In other  EU-countries, such as Portugal, this method is prohibited. ‘‘A substantial problem of this method is that the ranking between two operators may depend on the score of a third operator’’, according to Telgen. This is unprofessional, because it shows the contracting authority’s unawareness about how important the differences between the various bids are for this authority . Moreover, this method leaves space for manipulation.

In the end, Manunza concludes that, even without more explicit regulation, it is possible to address methods, such as the relative award method, in legal procedures. She argues that the Courts should, in addition to transparency and equality, should look at the substance of a method. This would result in asking questions about how award methods work and what the effects of its application are. Although it is understandable that, in interim relief procedures, judges act passively, lawyers should still use the possibilities that the law provides to address the objectivity of an award method.