Case T-640/22: Action brought on 13 October 2022 — Westpole Belgium and Unisys Belgium v Parliament
Date: 2022-10-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, consortium, group of companies, information technology industry, provision of services, public procurement, services contract, tendering








C_2022451EN.01002201.xml










28.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 451/22






Action brought on 13 October 2022 — Westpole Belgium and Unisys Belgium v Parliament
(Case T-640/22)
(2022/C 451/27)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Westpole Belgium (Vilvoorde, Belgium), Unisys Belgium (Machelen, Belgium) (represented by: A. Vercruysse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


principally, annul the Parliament’s decisions:






—


awarding Lot 7 of the tender entitled ‘PE/ITEC-ITS19-External Provision of IT Services’ to the first three tenderers listed below:






—


Rank 1: OneCode, a group of economic operators led by the Belgian branch of NTT Data Spain S.L.U. and whose co-contractors are ARHS Developments S.A., SWORD Technologies S.A. and SOGETI Luxembourg S.A.; headquarters of the group of economic operators: B-1000 Brussels (Belgium), rue de Spa 8;










—


Rank 2: Consortium APC, a group of economic operators led by Atos Luxembourg PSF and whose co-contractors are PWC EU Services and Computer Resources International Luxembourg; headquarters of the group of economic operators: L-3364 Leudelange (Luxembourg), rue du Château d’Eau 12;










—


Rank 3: FACI2T Consortium, a group of economic operators led by CTG IT Solutions S.A. and whose co-contractors are Fujitsu Technology Solutions N.V./S.A., Netcompany Intrasoft S.A. and AXIANSEU — DIGITAL SOLUTIONS S.A., headquarters of the group of economic operators: L-8070 Bertrange (Luxembourg), rue des Mérovingiens 7;














—


not awarding that tender to the consortium InfraExpert, of which the above mentioned applicants are members — a consortium created for the purpose of submitting a tender in the award procedure at issue, as well as signing and performing the framework contract and the specific agreements which may be signed following the award of the tender — decision refusing to award the contract of which the applicants were informed by registered letter of 3 October 2022, reference GEDA (2022) 27063;














—


in the alternative and as an interim measure, if the Court considers that it should be given further information:










—


order the above mentioned defendant to produce the following documents:






—


decision(s) concerning ‘the unusual circumstances related to a possible exclusion situation of several tenderers’, which are referred to in the defendant’s requests for extension of the validity period of the tenders in the award procedure at issue;










—


sworn statement by the OneCode consortium and/or the Belgian branch of NTT Data Spain S.L.U.;










—


reasons for the exclusion of EVERIS S.L.U. from Lots 3 and 8 of the tender at issue;










—


answer of the successful tenderers for the contract at issue to Part C ‘Technical evaluation questionnaire’ of the technical specifications;










—


answers (questionnaire + Excel price table) of the successful tenderers to Annex II to the technical specifications ‘Price evaluation form (Lots 1-10)’ — or, at the very least, the relevant extracts for Lot 7.









Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging likely infringement of Articles 136 and 140 of Regulation 2018/1046. (1) The applicants submit that the defendant failed to take account of the administrative and judicial decisions made in relation to a member of the consortium that was the highest-ranked tenderer.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 160 of Regulation 2018/1046. The applicants submit that, by failing to exclude at least one abnormally low tender, the defendant unlawfully rejected the applicants’ tender.










3.


Third plea in law, relating to reservations concerning the technical evaluation and alleging a possible infringement of Article 160 of Regulation 2018/1046 in that regard. The applicants submit, in particular, that the technical evaluation of the tenders, which accounts for 70 % of the weighting of the award criteria, is based too heavily on subjective assessments for the General Court to be able to carry out a reasonable review.






(1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014 and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1).