Interesting Lithuanian case on contracting authorities’ liability for false statements in tender documentation [Guest post* by Dr Deividas Soloveičik] — How to Crack a Nut

Posted by

This New Guest Post by Dr. Dividas Soloveičik Discusses an Interesting Discussion of a Recent Lithuanian Supreme Court Ruling on the Liability of the Contraction Authority for Tender Docunimentation. The Case May Be Particularly Relevant in the Context of Tenders for Public Service Contracts Or Concessions, For Example, In Relation to Estimand From Thirty Suppliers. However, in the Context of Concessions, Any Liability of the Type Discussed by DR. Soloveičik Discussed Cold Be Problematic if IS Seen AS Reducing or Neutralizing the Transfer of Risk to the Concessionaire. So Actoally a Very Interesting Case.

Creation of Procurement Documents?

The Supreme Court of Lithuania Has Recently Rulede on the Obligation of Purchassers to Be Accurate in the Preparation Document, as Well as on the liability. A Few Things to Note Before Starting Point. FIRST, In FACT, The Court’s Decision Deals with Domestic Issues and Has Mainly (Possibly Only) A Local Effect Only. On the Other Hand, and Secondly, it is a good Example, of and, I Believ, Easily Replicable Despite the Jurisdiction Or a Legal System. In Other Words, I Believe The Conclusions of the Court Reflect a Concept that Should Turn Into A Good Example Applicable Practice Worldwide. Third, The Litigation of the Court of Justice Of the National Counds of the Mamber States on the Principle of Transparency Is Extensive, Namey that this Principle Contains. In Fact, this is the sitting in the original clar and precise statement Presented in the Procurement Documents was Later, During the Contract Execution Phase.

TheFore, The Case of Energijos Parkas Dealt with the Facts in Which The Public Buyer Organized An Open Tender for the Procurement of Landfill Gas Fire and Utilization Serviceses. IT ShOULD BE MENTIONED THAT THE PRECUREMENT WAS Not Organized Under the EU Public Procurement Directives, and Neithr the Public Procurement Act. The Court, However, Explicitly Stated that Judgment It Had Made.

The Facts of the Case Were The Following. The Public Purchaser Drafted the Tender Documentation for the Purchase of the ABOVE SERVICES. In Order to have the Technical Specification More Explicit, It Referred to the Report of the Engineers, a Third Party. The Latter Report Describes The Parameters REGARDING THE POSSIBLE MINIMUM GAS EXTRACTION AMOUNT with The Clear Reference that this evaluation was solid. During the Excetment of the Contract it Appedared the Possible Amount of Extracted Gas Also Not the Minimum of the Mental OFENEDER OF. TheFore, The Winning Bidder Claimed That The False Statements of the Procurement Documents, Which Cold Not Beryfied During the Procurement, Caused Thin To Lose. EUR.

The Court Began Its Reasoning from the Reference to Two Main Legal Aspects. FIRST, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE SITUATION IN QUESTION WAS VERY SIMILAR to that of A Pre-CONTRACT ORDER. Through The Court’s Determination, The Court Continued That in Such Cases, The General Obligation Was Generally Accepted. Secondly, The Supreme Court Stated. .

Interesting Lithuanian case on contracting authorities' liability for false statements in tender documentation [Guest post* by Dr Deividas Soloveičik] — How to Crack a Nut case

AFTER STATING THIS, The COURT RULED THEET IS No Difference in Situations When The Purchaser Uses The Material Prepared by the Third Party. The Supreme Court Stated that in Such Cases, The Contracting Authority Must Take The Risk It Later Appears that Basic Information in the ProCurement Documentation was incunciation was incunciation was incunciation was incunciation propmentation propmentation. . This Rule Applies to Cases Where The Contracting Authority Refers to the Information Provided by the Third Parties.

The Court’s Reasoning Is Important in Many Practical Aspects. . In Other Words, The Person Who Gives the Information. Third, Lithuanian Supreme Court Precedent Holds Up the Ecosystem of Legitimate Expectations for Open Tenders and Procurements. It is Important for Bidders to Know that Not event of Information That the Contracting Authority Has Given in the Procurement Documentation Can. And if it later appErs during the execution of the public contraact that business -case was -built from false assumptions, therma entitled to Fair Compensation for Damage Damages. In Conclusion, I Believed that Such an Approach IS Highly Adaptive and Has Cross-Border Implications Elsewhere in Different Jurisdictions ares.

Dr. Dividas soloveičik, ll.M

Dr. Dividas Sooloveičik is a Partner and Head of the Public Procurement Practice at Cobalt Lithuania. European Commission, On the Legal Aspects of Public Procurement and Pre-Commercial Procurement.

Dr. Soloveičik IS an Associate Professor and Researcher of Commercial Law at Vilnius University and Contributor On Law Shifting. IT ALSO Cooprates Closely with Globally Recognized Academic Members of the Legal Profession. SINCE 2011 Mciarb. Dr. Soloveičik is a member of the chartered Institute of arbitrators; SINCE 2016 He is A Mamber of the European Support for Innovation Procurement – Eafip.


Review Date
Author Rating
Software Name
Interesting Lithuanian case on contracting authorities’ liability for false statements in tender documentation [Guest post* by Dr Deividas Soloveičik] — How to Crack a Nut
Software Name
All OS
Software Category
MP3 and Audio

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *