natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It is therefore necessary to examine whether, but for that defect, the tendering procedure in question could have had a different outcome.
Seega tuleb uurida, kas juhul kui seda rikkumist poleks olnud, oleks kõnealuse pakkumismenetluse tulemus võinud olla teistsugune.
(iii) The relevance to the bids for the contested contract of the information belatedly made available by the Commission
iii) Komisjoni poolt hilinemisega kättesaadavaks tehtud teabe asjakohasus seoses vaidlusaluse hankelepingu sõlmimiseks tehtud pakkumustega
If it were established that the information belatedly provided to the tenderers other than the successful tenderer was irrelevant for the purpose of preparing bids for the contested contract, a delay in communicating that information would not, in any event, represent an advantage for the successful tenderer and would not therefore constitute a procedural defect amounting to an infringement of the principle of equal treatment as between tenderers, as the applicant claims.
Esimese Astme Kohus tuletab meelde, et juhul kui peaks tõendatama, et teave, mis tehti teistele pakkujatele peale eduka pakkuja kättesaadavaks hilinemisega, ei oma vaidlusaluse hankelepingu sõlmimiseks tehtavate pakkumuste koostamise seisukohast tähtsust, ei kujuta selle hilinenud edastamine endast mitte mingil moel eduka pakkuja jaoks soodustust ning seega ei saa seda käsitleda menetlusveana, mille tagajärjeks on pakkujate võrdse kohtlemise põhimõtte rikkumine, nagu seda väidab hageja.
(1) The relevance of the information on the acquisition of the Autonomy software
1) Autonomy tarkvara omandamist puudutava teabe asjakohasus
With regard to the relevance of the information on the acquisition of the Autonomy software, the Court notes, first of all, that it is apparent from the parties’ common descriptions that that software is a complex classification tool enabling final users to carry out searches in a number of contexts and, in particular, in a number of languages.
Esimese Astme Kohus nendib seoses Autonomy tarkvara omandamist puudutava teabe asjakohasusega esiteks, et poolte kokkulangevatest kirjeldustest nähtub, et Autonomy tarkvara on kompleksne klassifitseerimisprogramm, mis võimaldab lõppkasutajatel teostada uuringuid erinevates kontekstides ning ennekõike paljudes keeltes.
Secondly, it is clear from the description of the contested contract at point 4 of Volume A of the tendering specifications that tenderers for that contract were required in their bids to submit proposals which could ensure the development of the technical infrastructure used by the contractors for the other lots and the Commission, such as, for example, ‘the Web Content Management System’, and that the successful tenderer for the contested contract was also required to ‘develop new tools and features, some of which [are] for experimental purposes’.
Teiseks märgib Esimese Astme Kohus, et vaidlusaluse hankelepingu tehnilise kirjelduse A-osa punktis 4 toodud kirjeldusest nähtub, et selle hankelepingu sõlmimiseks pakkumusi esitavad pakkujad peavad oma pakkumustes tegema ettepanekuid selle kohta, kuidas tagada teiste osade lepingutäitjate ja komisjoni poolt kasutatava tehnilise infrastruktuuri areng, eelkõige „[Interneti] sisuhaldussüsteem”, ning et vaidlusaluse hankelepingu sõlmimiseks edukaks tunnistatav pakkuja peab arendama „ka uusi vahendeid ja uusi funktsioone, neist osa eksperimentaalselt”.
Thirdly, account must be taken of the fact that, according to point 6.2.3.3 of Volume B of the tendering specifications, headed ‘Indexing, Specific Views and Taxonomies’, there exists for the tenderers for the contested contract ‘the possibility to make use of available products to implement, for example, “taxonomy building”, but these should have long-term application and be consistent with the CORDIS architecture’.
Kolmandaks tuleb arvestada asjaolu, et vastavalt tehnilise kirjelduse B-osa punktile 6.2.3.3 – pealkirjaga „Indekseerimine, spetsiifilised vaatepunktid ja taksonoomilised süsteemid” – on vaidlusaluse hankelepingu pakkujatel „võimalus kasutada olemasolevaid tooteid, et luua näiteks taksonoomiline süsteem, kuid seda peab saama kasutada pikka aega ning see peab olema ühildatav CORDIS-e ülesehitusega”.
It is apparent from the description of the tasks to be carried out by a tenderer for the contested contract and from point 6.2.3.3 of Volume B of the tendering specifications that the tenderers for the contested contract were free to propose any complex taxonomy software available on the market, including the Autonomy software.
Esimese Astme Kohus leiab, et vaidlusaluse hankelepingu pakkujate ülesannete kirjeldusest ning tehnilise kirjelduse B-osa punktist 6.2.3.3 nähtub, et vaidlusaluse hankelepingu pakkujatel oli vabadus teha ettepanekuid igasuguse turul kättesaadava kompleksse taksonoomia tarkvara – sh Autonomy tarkvara – kasutamiseks.
It follows that the simple fact that the Commission purchased the Autonomy software during the tendering procedure did not lead it to evaluate a bid proposing a different complex research tool less favourably.
Siit järeldub, et ainuüksi asjaolu, et komisjon omandas Autonomy tarkvara pakkumismenetluse kestel, ei kallutanud teda andma madalamat hinnangut pakkumusele, milles on tehtud ettepanek kasutada mõnda muud kompleksset uuringuprogrammi.
For the sake of completeness, that finding is also supported by the fact that the evaluation report states, with regard to the first award criterion, that the bid submitted by the second-placed tenderer for the contested contract was considered by the Evaluation Committee to be of very high quality, that tenderer having proposed another system, which was ‘innovative’ as regards indexing and taxonomy, which demonstrates that, in that regard, the Commission adhered to the relevant conditions laid down in the tendering specifications.
Täielikkuse huvides tuleb märkida, et seda järeldust kinnitab ka asjaolu, et hindamisaruandes on lepingu sõlmimise esimese kriteeriumi osas mainitud, et hindamiskomisjon pidas vaidlusaluse hankelepingu sõlmimisel paremuselt teiseks tunnistatud pakkuja tehtud pakkumust väga hea kvaliteediga pakkumuseks, kusjuures viidatud pakkuja oli teinud ettepaneku kasutada üht teist süsteemi, mis oli indekseerimise ja taksonoomia seisukohast „uudne”, mis näitab, et komisjon on tehnilises kirjelduses ette nähtud asjassepuutuvatest tingimustest kinni pidanud.
It follows that, throughout the tendering procedure, the knowledge that the Commission had acquired the Autonomy software could not have had any significance for the purpose of evaluating the bids.
Siit järeldub, et teadmine komisjoni poolt Autonomy tarkvara omandamise kohta ei saanud kogu pakkumismenetluse kestel kuidagi mõjutada pakkumuste hindamist.
In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers, with regard to the information on the acquisition of the Autonomy software, that the applicant has failed to demonstrate sufficiently how knowledge of the acquisition of the Autonomy software by the Commission could have constituted an advantage of any kind for the successful tenderer in bidding for the contested contract.
Esimese Astme Kohus leiab kõike eeltoodut arvestades, et mis puudutab Autonomy tarkvara omandamist puudutavat teavet, siis hageja ei ole suutnud piisavalt tõendada, milles võis seisneda soodustus, mille edukas pakkuja sai vaidlusaluse hankelepingu jaoks pakkumuse tegemisel seeläbi, et ta teadis, et komisjon on omandanud Autonomy tarkvara.
(2) The relevance of the information contained in the documentation on the CORDIS technical architecture and source code
2) CORDIS-e tehnilist ülesehitust ja allikakoodi käsitlevates dokumentides sisalduva teabe asjakohasus
First, as regards the allegedly incomplete documentation on the CORDIS technical architecture, the Court notes that the defendant does not dispute that the general purpose of the technical information on CD 1 and CD 2 was to supplement that already included in the tendering specifications.
Mis esiteks puudutab väidetavalt ebatäielikku teavet CORDIS-e tehnilise ülesehituse kohta, siis Esimese Astme Kohus nendib, et kostja ei vaidle vastu sellele, et CD-l 1 ja CD-l 2 toodud tehniline teave oli üldiselt mõeldud täiendama tehnilises kirjelduses esitatud teavet.
Secondly, with regard to the asset list, the Court considers that the applicant explained convincingly, and in such a manner that the Commission has not been able to counter its assertions, that knowledge of the materials and software used at that time could have assisted in the preparation of the applications to be provided by a tenderer for the contested contract, since such a tenderer had to ensure, first, the interoperability of the new hardware and existing hardware and, second, that the new applications functioned with the existing hardware.
Teiseks, mis puudutab inventarinimestikku, siis Esimese Astme Kohus on seisukohal, et hageja on veenvalt selgitanud, ja ilma et kostja oleks suutnud tema väiteid ümber lükata, et see, kui kõnealusel ajal kasutatavad riist- ja tarkvara oleks olnud teada, oleks vaidlusaluse hankelepingu pakkujal aidanud oma pakkumust ette valmistada, kuna pakkuja pidi kõigepealt välja selgitama esiteks uute ja seniste seadmete sobivuse ning teiseks uute programmide funktsioneerimise koos olemasolevate seadmetega.
It follows that knowledge of the technical information made available belatedly by the Commission and contained on CD 1 and CD 2 as well as in the asset list could have constituted added value for tenders for the contested contract.
Siit järeldub, et sellel, kui pakkujale oleks olnud kättesaadav tehniline teave, mille komisjon tegi kättesaadavaks hilinemisega ning mis oli esitatud CD-l 1 ja CD-l 2 ning inventarinimestikus, oleks vaidlusaluse hankelepingu sõlmimiseks tehtavate pakkumuste jaoks olnud lisaväärtus.
As regards the source code, point 4 of Volume A of the tendering specifications requires tenderers for the contested contract to put forward in their bids proposals which could ensure the development of the technical infrastructure used by the contractors for the other lots and the Commission, ‘such as … the Web Content Management System’ and ‘the Information Dissemination System’, and requires the successful tenderer for the contested contract to ‘also develop new tools and features’.
Allikakoodi osas tuletab Esimese Astme Kohus meelde, et tehnilise kirjelduse A-osa punktis 4 on nõutud, et vaidlusaluse hankelepingu sõlmimiseks pakkumusi esitavad pakkujad peavad oma pakkumuses tegema ettepanekuid selle kohta, kuidas tagada teiste osade lepingutäitjate ja komisjoni poolt kasutatava tehnilise infrastruktuuri – eelkõige „[Interneti-saidi] sisuhaldussüsteemi” ja „infoedastussüsteemi” – areng, ning et vaidlusaluse hankelepingu sõlmimiseks edukaks tunnistatav pakkuja peab arendama „ka uusi vahendeid ja uusi funktsioone”.
It is therefore apparent that prior knowledge of the basic technical information referred to in the above paragraphs represented an advantage for the purpose of drafting a tender.
Järelikult tuleb nentida, et eelmistes punktides mainitud põhimõttelise tähtsusega tehnilise teabe eelnev tundmine kujutas endast soodustust pakkumuse koostamisel.
In fact, the management and dissemination of complex data to be provided by a contractor for Lot 1 of CORDIS are generally carried out by special application software.
Tegelikult hallatakse ja levitataksegi kompleksset teavet, mida CORDIS-e osa nr 1 jaoks pakkumust esitav pakkuja pidi esitama, üldiselt spetsiaalsete tarkvaraprogrammidega.
There is therefore no doubt that full knowledge of the source code for the management and dissemination applications of the earlier version of CORDIS was necessary for the purpose of the development of new tools and features which could be integrated into the new version of CORDIS.
Seega ei ole kahtlust, et CORDIS-e varasema versiooni haldamis- ja levitamisprogrammide allikakoodi täielik tundmine oli vajalik selliste uute vahendite ja uute funktsioonide arendamiseks, mida saaks integreerida CORDIS-e uude versiooni.
Moreover, the applicant has demonstrated convincingly that, in order to use the calculation model on which the Cocomo2 software is based — that software frequently being used to calculate the effort required to carry out a given project in the field of new technology — it is necessary to estimate the number of lines of source code for the project, and the defendant has not put forward any facts capable of countering that assertion.
Lisaks on hageja veenvalt tõendanud – ja kostja ei ole suutnud esitada asjaolusid, mis selle ümber lükkaksid –, et arvestusviis, millel põhineb Cocomo 2 tarkvara, mida kasutatakse sageli uute tehnoloogiate valdkonna projektide elluviimiseks vajaliku töömahu väljaarvutamiseks, nõuab projekti allikakoodi ridade arvu.
Consequently, knowledge of the source code for the earlier version of CORDIS would clearly have been necessary in order for it to be possible to base the calculations for the source code for the new version on a reasonable estimate.
Järelikult oli CORDIS-e varasema versiooni allikakoodi tundmine vajalik, et tema uue versiooni allikakoodiga seotud kalkulatsioonid põhineksid tõsiseltvõetavatel hinnangutel.
The Court therefore concludes that the fact that the existing contractor and the successful tenderer had exclusive knowledge of the technical architecture of CORDIS, of the hardware and software used at the time and, especially, of the source code was liable to confer upon that tenderer, at least in part, an unjustified advantage at the opening of the tendering procedure.
Seega teeb Esimese Astme Kohus järelduse, et asjaolu, et üksnes senine lepingutäitja ja edukas pakkuja olid täielikult teadlikud CORDIS-e tehnilisest ülesehitusest, sel ajal kasutatavast riist- ja tarkvarast ning ennekõike allikakoodist, võis anda kõnealusele pakkujale pakkumismenetluse avamisel vähemalt osaliselt põhjendamatu soodustuse.
Accordingly, given that the defendant does not dispute that the technical information belatedly made available to the prospective tenderers could have constituted added value for the bids for the contested contract, it cannot be precluded that the contested conduct on the part of the Commission may have given rise to an advantage for the existing contractor and the successful tenderer in tendering for the contested contract.
Järelikult, arvestades et kostja ei vaidle vastu sellele, et tehniline teave, mis tehti potentsiaalsetele pakkujatele kättesaadavaks hilinemisega, võis vaidlusaluse hankelepingu pakkumuste jaoks kujutada endast lisaväärtust, asub Esimese Astme Kohus seisukohale, et ei ole välistatud, et komisjonile etteheidetav käitumine võis anda senisele lepingutäitjale ja edukale pakkujale vaidlusaluse hankelepingu jaoks pakkumuste tegemisel soodustuse.
Therefore, by failing to communicate certain technical information as soon as possible to all the tenderers, the Commission committed a breach of procedure by disregarding the applicant’s right to be informed.
Seega, kuna komisjon ei edastanud kõigile pakkujatele nii varakult kui võimalik teatud tehnilist teavet, pani ta toime menetlusnormi rikkumise seeläbi, et rikkus hageja õigust informeeritusele.
It is therefore necessary to determine whether that breach of procedure undermined the equality of opportunity of the tenderers in that, but for that breach, the tendering procedure at issue might have resulted in the contested contract being awarded to the applicant.
Niisiis tuleb kontrollida, kas selline menetlusnormi rikkumine kahjustas pakkujate võimaluste võrdsust nii, et juhul, kui sellist rikkumist poleks toimunud, oleks kõnealuse pakkumismenetluse tulemusena võidud vaidlusalune hankeleping sõlmida hagejaga.
However, that would not be the case if, in spite of the fact that the Commission failed to provide all the tenderers from the beginning of the tendering procedure with all the technical information on the earlier version of CORDIS, it were to be established that the information thus withheld was irrelevant for the purpose of the applicant’s bid.
Sellegipoolest ei ole sellise juhtumiga tegemist siis, kui peaks tõendatama, et vaatamata asjaolule, et komisjon ei edastanud pakkumismenetluse algusest peale kõigile pakkujatele kogu CORDIS-e varasemat versiooni puudutavat tehnilist teavet, ei ole sel moel edastamata jäetud teave hageja pakkumuse seisukohast asjakohane.
(iv) The relevance to the applicant’s bid of the information belatedly made available by the Commission for the applicant’s bid
iv) Komisjoni poolt hilinemisega kättesaadavaks tehtud teabe asjakohasus hageja pakkumuse seisukohast
(1) The effect of the delay in making certain technical information available on the quality of the applicant’s bid
1) Teatava tehnilise teabe hilinemisega kättesaadavaks tegemise mõju hageja esitatud pakkumuse kvaliteedile
In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the delay in communicating the technical information in question could potentially have entailed for all the tenderers, with the exception of the successful tenderer, wasted efforts and a waste of time, which could therefore have had an effect on the quality of the applicant’s bid.
Esimese Astme Kohus leiab eeltoodut arvestades, et kõnealuse tehnilise teabe hilinenud edastamine võis kõigile pakkujatele peale eduka pakkuja tähendada asjatuid jõupingutusi ja ajakaotust ning seega võis see mõjutada hageja pakkumuse kvaliteeti.
Notwithstanding that finding in principle, it must be noted that, in the present case, even full knowledge of the information in question could not, in any event, have had a decisive impact on the overall assessment of the applicant’s bid.
Vaatamata sellele põhimõttelisele konstateeringule tuleb märkida, et käesoleval juhul ei oleks isegi see, kui kogu kõnealune teave oleks olnud täielikult teada, mingil juhul mõjutanud hageja pakkumusele antud üldist hinnangut otsustaval määral.
First of all, the applicant submits that knowledge of that information would have improved, in particular, the value of its bid in terms of quality, in the light primarily of the first award criterion (technical merit) (see paragraph 117 above).
Hageja väidab selles osas esiteks, et kõnealuse teabe olemasolu oleks tõstnud eelkõige tema pakkumuse väärtust kvalitatiivselt, arvestades eelkõige lepingu sõlmimise esimest kriteeriumi (tehniline väärtus) (vt eespool punkt 117).
It must be recalled that point 3.3 of Volume A of the tendering specifications provides that the maximum number of points that could be awarded under that criterion was 35 and that the applicant’s bid was awarded 21.6 points.
Esimese Astme Kohus meenutab, et tehnilise kirjelduse A-osa punkti 3.3 kohaselt võis selle kriteeriumi osas saada maksimaalselt 35 punkti ning et hageja pakkumusele anti 21,6 punkti.
Secondly, the applicant submits that the fourth comment on the second award criterion (‘good but generic mention of design patterns and software reuse’) is negative and that that is due to the fact that information on how CORDIS operated at that time was lacking.
Teiseks väidab hageja, et lepingu sõlmimise teist kriteeriumi puudutav neljas märkus („Tarkvarakontseptsioonide tüüpide ja taaskasutamise osas hea, kuid üldine info”) on negatiivne ning seda seetõttu, et tal puudus sel ajal CORDIS-e kasutamist puudutav teave.
That assertion is too vague, given that it is apparent from point 6.2.1 of Volume B of the tendering specification that, with regard to the contested contract, the tenderers were required only to describe the basic requirements for the technical and functional development of the new version of CORDIS.
Tuleb märkida, et see väide on liiga ebamäärane, kuna tehnilise kirjelduse B-osa punktist 6.2.1 nähtub, et vaidlusaluse hankelepingu jaoks peavad pakkujad kirjeldama üksnes CORDIS-e uue versiooni tehnilise arengu ja funktsioneerimise põhilisi tingimusi.
Moreover, it is clear that that comment is only one of the six comments made in the assessment of the second award criterion, for which a maximum of 25 points can be awarded, 14.8 points being awarded to the applicant’s bid.
Lisaks tuleb nentida, et see märkus on vaid üks kümnest teise lepingu sõlmimise kriteeriumi osas tehtud märkusest, kusjuures teise kriteeriumi raames võidi anda maksimaalselt 25 punkti ja hageja pakkumus sai 14,8.
In that regard, it is apparent from the table in the Evaluation Committee’s report that the formula used to establish the most cost-effective offer for the purpose of point 3.3 of Volume A of the tendering specifications and to calculate the price-quality ratio of the various bids was as follows:
Esimese Astme Kohus märgib selles osas, et hindamiskomisjoni aruandes toodud tabelist nähtub, et valem, mida kasutatakse „kõige soodsama kulude ja tasuvuse suhte” kindlaksmääramiseks tehnilise kirjelduse A-osa punkti 3.3 mõttes ning eri pakkumuste kvaliteedi ja hinna suhte väljaarvutamiseks, on järgmine:
By applying that formula to the bid tendered by the applicant, that is, by inserting the total price of the applicant’s bid (EUR 6 095 001.16) and, first, the maximum number of points attainable under the first award criterion (35) and, second, the number of points the applicant’s bid was actually awarded under criteria Nos 2 to 4, namely 14.8, 12.8 and 12.8 points respectively (see paragraph 24 above), the following ratio is given:
Kohaldades seda valemit hageja pakkumuse suhtes, st sisestades hageja pakkumuse koguhinna (6 095 001,16 eurot) ning esiteks lepingu sõlmimise esimese kriteeriumi raames antava maksimaalse punktisumma (35 punkti) ja teiseks punktid, mis hageja esitatud pakkumusele kriteeriumide 2–4 raames tegelikult anti, st vastavalt 14,8, 12,8 ja 12,8 punkti (vt eespool punkt 24), saame järgmise tulemuse:
Given that the successful tenderer obtained a price-quality ratio of 12.56, the calculation demonstrates that, even if the applicant had been able, from the beginning of the tendering procedure, to prepare its bid in full knowledge of the technical information which it was lacking or which was made available to it only belatedly, and even if, as a result of that, it had obtained the maximum number of points under the first qualitative criterion (namely 35 points), the price-quality ratio of its bid would, in any event, have been lower than that of the successful tenderer, as the price of the applicant’s bid was relatively high.
Arvestades, et eduka pakkuja puhul oli kvaliteedi ja hinna suhe 12,56, näitab arvutus, et isegi kui hagejale oleks see tehniline teave, mis ei olnud talle kättesaadav või mis edastati hilinemisega, olnud pakkumismenetluse algusest peale pakkumuse koostamisel täielikult teada, ja isegi kui ta oleks selle tulemusena esimese kvalitatiivse kriteeriumi raames saanud maksimaalpunktid (st 35 punkti), oleks tema pakkumuse kvaliteedi ja hinna suhe olnud igal juhul vähem soodsam kui eduka pakkuja oma, kuna hageja pakkumuse hind oli suhteliselt kõrge.
The Court therefore finds that it is clear that, however much it might be criticised, the Commission’s conduct could in any event, in the present case, have had any impact on the award of the contested contract to the successful tenderer only to the extent that the price of the applicant’s bid was actually affected by the late provision of the technical information.
Esimese Astme Kohus nendib seega, et on selge, et komisjoni käitumine – ükskõik kui palju seda ka ei kritiseeritaks – võis käesoleval juhul mõjutada hankelepingu sõlmimist eduka pakkujaga vaid selles osas, et tehnilise teabe edastamine hilinemisega mõjutas reaalselt hageja pakkumuse hinda.
(2) The effect of the delay in making certain technical information available on the price of the applicant’s bid
2) Teatava tehnilise teabe hilinemisega kättesaadavaks tegemise mõju hageja pakkumuse hinnale
Having regard to the overall effect of the belated communication of the technical information in question, the Court asked the applicant to demonstrate how, in its view, the contested conduct on the part of the Commission had placed the applicant at a disadvantage in determining the price of its bid.
Esimese Astme Kohus palus – arvestades kõnealuse tehnilise teabe hilinemisega edastamise üleüldist mõju – hagejal ära näidata, mil moel asetas komisjonile etteheidetav käitumine hageja tema arvates pakkumuse hinna kindlaksmääramisel ebasoodsamasse olukorda.