natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In its opinion, the European Commission made, in summary, the following points:
Komisij a je v svojem mnenju navedla:
The complainant contacted the Commission’s departments several times during the tender procedure.
Pritožnik je med razpisnim postopkom za oddajo naročila nekajkrat navezal stike z oddelki Komisije.
The Commission considered that the complainant’s behaviour could be regarded as an a empt to gain access to confidential information on the tender procedure.
Komisij a je menila, da bi se vedenje pritožnika lahko smatralo kot poskus pridobitve zaupnih informacijglede postopka za oddajo naročila.
Moreover, the Commission expressed “its strong disapproval of the manner in which the complainant used the arbitration procedure (...)
Komisij a je poleg tega izrazila “močno neodobravanje načina, kako je pritožnik izkoristil arbitražni postopek (...).
The complaint seems to have been lodged solely in order to influence the Commission’s departments during the tender procedure”.
Zdi se, da je bila pritožba vložena samo zato, da bi v postopku za oddajo naročila to vplivalo na oddelke Komisije.” e.”
The contract was awarded in accordance with the procedural rules in force, in particular with Section 4 of the Manual of Procedures.
Naročilo je bilo oddano v skladu z veljavnimi postopkovnimi pravili, zlasti poglavjem 4 Priročnika o postopkih.
The complainant’s tender was rejected because it was less cost-effective. ective.
Ponudba pritožnika je bila zavrnjena zato, ker je bila dražja.
Concerning the criteria for awarding the contract, the invitation to tender stipulates that “The fi financial off er must show the following; the full budget for the services described in the terms of reference for one, the first, year.
Glede kriterijev za dodelitev naročila povabilo k oddaji ponudbe določa, da “mora finančna ponudba izkazovati naslednje: celoten proračun za storitve, opisane v razpisnih pogojih za eno, to je prvo leto.
This budget will be the basis of the assessment of the offer.”
Ta proračun bo osnova za oceno ponudbe.”
Section 11.10.02 of the Manual of Procedures defines the rules for the financial assessment of tenders.
Oddelek 11.10.02 Priročnika o postopkih določa pravila za finančno oceno ponudb.
Point B of the le er of clarification sent to the complainant on 20 June 2001 should not be used outside its context and outside the provisions of the invitation to tender and the tender dossier.
Točka B pojasnilnega pisma, poslanega pritožniku 20. junij a 2001, se ne sme uporabljati izven vsebine in izven določb povabila k oddaji ponudbe ter spisov ponudbe.
Although the clarification le er was sent to all tenderers, the complainant was the only one to use this point to challenge the tendering procedure, which demonstrates the lack of logic in his interpretation of it.
Čeprav je bilo pojasnilno pismo poslano vsem ponudnikom, je bil pritožnik edini, ki je to točko uporabil za izpodbijanje postopka za oddajo naročila, kar kaže na pomanjkanje logike pri njegovi interpretaciji. i.
For monitoring contracts, the financial evaluation is always made on the basis of global pricing.
Finančna ocena za nadzorne pogodbe se vedno opravi na podlagi celotne cene.
This issue has never been raised in previous invitations to tender.
V predhodnih povabilih k oddaji ponudbe to vprašanje ni bilo nikoli postavljeno.
Given that the complainant was the successful tenderer for the previous monitoring system, he should have been well acquainted with the tendering rules.
Ob upoštevanju dejstva, da je bil pritožnik uspešen ponudnik za predhodni nadzorni sistem, bi moral biti dobro seznanjen s pravili za oddajo naročila.
The European Commission’s Advisory Commi ee on Procurement and Contracts (herea er ACPC) delivered a favourable opinion on the Commission’s choice on 19 September 2001.
Svetovalni odbor za javna naročila in pogodbe Evropske komisij e je 19. septembra 2001 podal pozitivno mnenje glede izbire Komisije.
This opinion certified that the technical and financial evaluation of tenders complied with the information contained in the Manual of Procedures, the tender provisions and the clarification le er to the tenderers.
To mnenje je potrdilo, da je bila tehnična in finančna ocena ponudbe v skladu s pojasnili v Priročniku o postopkih, določbami razpisa ter pojasnilnim pismom ponudnikom.
In his observations, the complainant made, in summary, the following points:
V svojih pripombah je pritožnik povzel naslednje točke:
By lodging a complaint with the Ombudsman, the complainant believed that he had chosen the right procedure.
Pritožnik je mnenja, da je z vložitvijo pritožbe pri Varuhu izbral pravi postopek.
The complainant contacted the Commission’s departments several times during the tender procedure. It aimed to alert the Commission to possible maladministration based on unclear terms of reference, a misleading le er of clarification and violation of the prevailing Tacis monitoring methods.
Pritožnik je med razpisnim postopkom nekajkrat navezal stike z oddelki Komisij e z namenom, da bi opozoril na možne nepravilnosti zaradi nejasnih formalnih pogojev, zavajajočega pojasnilnega pisma in kršitve veljavnih nadzornih metod programa Tacis.
The complainant did not take the initiative to contact the Commission in order to gain access to confidential information.
Pritožnik ni navezal stikov s Komisij o zato, da bi pridobil dostop do zaupnih informacij .
On the contrary, information on the Commission’s recommendation to the ACPC was given to the consortium from various other sources.
Nasprotno, informacij a o priporočilu Komisij e ACPC je bila dana konzorcij u iz več drugih virov.
It was precisely the experience of the fi ve companies of the consortium which submi ed the bid that led them to request a le er of clarification.
Prav izkušnje petih podjetij konzorcij a, ki so podala ponudbo, so vodile do tega, da so zahtevali pojasnilno pismo.
Their knowledge of the fundamental differences between Tacis Monitoring and Global Monitoring caused them to alert the Commission.
Komisij o so obvestili zato, ker so vedeli, da med Tacis Monitoring in Global Monitoring obstajajo bistvene razlike.
The complainant knew that for Global Monitoring (lots 2-5), the annual monitoring visits were precisely defined and that the financial evaluation would be based on global prices.
Pritožnik je vedel, da so bili letni nadzorni obiski za Global Monitoring (razpisi 2-5) natančno določeni in da finančna ocena temelji na celotni ceni.
On the contrary, for Tacis Monitoring (lot 1), the required monitoring input was defined only vaguely in the terms of reference (“the frequency of monitoring visits per year will be established…a er the individual requirements of Projects managers are known…”).
Za Tacis Monitoring (razpis 1) pa je bil zahtevani obseg nadzora v formalnih pogojih le nejasno določen (“pogostost nadzornih obiskov na leto bo določena ... potem ko bodo znane individualne zahteve vodij projektov”).
Knowing that, in such cases, the financial evaluation would be based on unit prices, in accordance with the Court of Auditors Special Report n° 16/2000, the complainant asked the Commission for clarification. cation.
Ker je vedel, da bi v takšnih primerih finančna ocena temeljila na ceni enote, v skladu s Posebnim poročilom Računskega sodišča št. 16/2000, je pritožnik od Komisij e zahteval pojasnilo.
In addition, the complainant stated that the sentence “The assessment of the financial off er is made on the basis of the unit prices/fixed costs” in the clarification le er sent by the Commission could not be found in any of the documentation available to him.
Poleg tega je pritožnik navedel, da stavka “ocena finančne ponudbe je narejena na podlagi cene enote/fiksnih stroškov ter honorarjev” iz pojasnilnega pisma, ki ga je poslala Komisij a, v njemu razpoložljivih dokumentih ni mogel najti.
In compliance with the Court of Auditor’s interpretation of the method to be used in such unclear cases, the complainant constructed its proposal accordingly.
V skladu z interpretacijo Računskega sodišča glede metode, ki se uporablja v takih nejasnih primerih, je pritožnik sestavil svojo ponudbo.
The complainant fully agreed with the Commission that this sentence in the clarification le er should be seen in the context of the full text including the invitation to tender and the tender dossier.
Pritožnik se je popolnoma strinjal s Komisijo, da se mora ta stavek pojasnilnega pisma razlagati v kontekstu celotnega besedila, vključno s povabilom k oddaji ponudbe in spisi ponudbe.
However, the scope of the complaint was not limited to the le er of clarification but referred also to various paragraphs in the terms of reference.
Vendar vsebina pritožbe ni bila omejena na pojasnilno pismo, temveč je vključevala tudi različne odstavke v formalnih pogojih.
In its opinion on the complaint, the Commission quoted a different definition of rules for the financial assessment procedures from that set out in the le er of clarification.
V svojem mnenju glede pritožbe je Komisij a navedla drugačno defi nicij o pravil za postopke f i finančnega vrednotenja od defi nicij e v pojasnilnem pismu. Dokumentacija, ki je na spletni strani
The documentation accessible to companies bidding for tenders, as posted on the Commission’s Europeaid web site, does not include such a Manual of Procedure.
Europeaid Komisij e dostopna podjetjem, ki oddajajo ponudbe, ne vključuje takšnega Priročnika o postopkih.
The complainant based his proposal on the “Practical Guide to EC external aid contract procedures” dated January 2001, in which a section 11.10.02 does not exist.
Pritožnik je svojo ponudbo zasnoval na podlagi “Praktičnega vodnika po postopkih ES za pogodbe o zunanji pomoči” iz januarja 2001, v katerem oddelek 11.10.02 ne obstaja. Po mnenju pritožnika je ta vodnik osnovan na dokumentu z imenom “Priročnik o uporabi”, ki ga je sprejela skupna služba za zunanje zadeve 10. novembra 1999.
The complainant assumed that the Commission is either quoting an internal document or an earlier version of this Manual of Instructions.
Pritožnik je domneval, da se Komisij a sklicuje na notranji dokument ali na prejšnjo različico Priročnika o uporabi.
In its closing remarks, the complainant concluded that he wished an “amicable in-house solution” to be found in this case.
Pritožnik je zaključil, da želi “prijateljsko interno rešitev” tega primera.
The complainant’s further observations
Nadaljnje pripombe pritožnika
On 30 May 2002, the complainant sent further observations to the European Ombudsman.
Pritožnik je 30. maja Evropskemu varuhu poslal nadaljnje pripombe.
He pointed out the urgency of his complaint since the Commission awarded the disputed contract for six months expiring on 15 June 2002.
Opozoril je na nujnost svoje pritožbe, kajti Komisij a je sporno naročilo dodelila za obdobje šestih mesecev, z zapadlostjo 15. junij a 2002.
He also emphasised that he wishes to have the dispute se led peacefully.
Prav tako pa je poudaril, da želi, da se ta spor reši sporazumno.
THE OMBUDSMAN’S EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE A FRIENDLY SOLUTION
Komisij a nato v svojem mnenju navedla, da je za nadzorne pogodbe, kakršna je tudi zadevna pogodba, ocena vedno opravljena na podlagi celotne cene.
A er careful consideration of the Commission’s opinion and the complainant’s observations, the Ombudsman’s provisional conclusion was that there could be an instance of maladministration by the Commission.
Zato je Varuh v skladu s členom 3 (5) Statuta Evropskega varuha človekovih pravic 15. julij a 2002 Komisij i predlagal poravnavo.
The reasons for this conclusion were, in summary, as follows:
V svojem pismu je pozval Komisijo, da razmisli o potrebnih ukrepih za zadovoljitev pritožnika in tako doseže sporazumno rešitev, ki bi odpravila morebitno nepravilnost.
According to the rules of the tender procedure, a clarification le er, which is sent to all tenderers, is binding on the Commission.
Komisij a je v svojem odgovoru 18. novembra 2002 Varuha obvestila, da ne more sprejeti rešitve, ki jo je predlagal.
However, a erwards in its opinion the Commission stated that for monitoring contracts, which is the kind of contract in this case, assessment is always carried out on the basis of global pricing.
Komisij a se uradno ni strinjala z zaključki pritožnika in je zavrnila trditev, da so njene službe odgovorne za njegovo napačno razumevanje.
The Ombudsman considered that, by stating that it would apply unit prices and by applying a erwards the overall pricing method, the Commission failed to comply with the rules governing the tender procedure.
Komisij a je menila, da so njene službe ravnale v skladu s pravili in načeli razpisnega postopka.
On 15 July 2002, the Ombudsman therefore made a proposal for a friendly solution to the Commission in accordance with Article 3 (5) of the Statue of the Ombudsman.
Poudarila je, da je pritožnik v svojih pripombah Varuhu navedel, da je svojo ponudbo zasnoval na podlagi “Praktičnega vodnika po postopkih ES za pogodbe o zunanji pomoči”.
In his le er, the Ombudsman invited the Commission to consider taking steps to satisfy the complainant and thereby achieve a friendly solution that would eliminate the possible instance of maladministration.
Vendar, v nasprotju z namigi pritožnika, ta Praktični vodnik predvideva, da Komisij a sklepa le dve vrsti storitvenih pogodb z uporabo dveh vrst finančnih ocenjevanj.
In its reply of 18 November 2002, the Commission informed the Ombudsman that was not in a position to accept the solution proposed by the European Ombudsman.
Za drugo pogodbo, ki temelji na honorarju, je primerjava narejena na podlagi celotnega zneska, izvedenega iz honorarja, pomnoženega z ustreznim številom delovnih dni.
The Commission formally disagreed with the complainant’s conclusions and rejected that its services are held responsible for his misinterpretation.
Finančna ponudba mora vključevati proračunsko razčlembo in napoved finančnega toka.
The Commission considered that its services complied with the rules and principles governing the tender procedure.
V proračunski razčlembi so skupaj s klavzulo o postranskih izdatkih določeni honorarji strokovnjakom, ki jih za izvedbo storitev določi svetovalec.
The Commission pointed out that in his observations to the European Ombudsman, the complainant stated that it based its proposal on the “Practical Guide to EC external aid contract procedures”.
Kljub temu, da je svojo ponudbo zasnoval na omenjenem vodniku, je pritožnik pričakoval, da bodo službe Komisij e uporabile tretjo metodo, ki je primerjala povprečno ceno enote, ki ni predvidena v Praktičnem vodniku.
However, contrary to what the complainant implies, the Practical Guide foresees that the Commission concludes only two types of services contract using two different financial evaluations.
Komisij a je poudarila, da Poročilo računskega sodišča št. 16/2000, ki ga je pritožnik navedel za utemeljitev svoje interpretacije, podrobno navaja, da je bila metoda ocenjevanja, ki temelji na povprečni ceni enote, opuščena.
The first one is called the global price contract, for which the financial off er consisting of a single sheet of paper must state the tenderer’s global price for providing the services according to its Technical off er.
Zato je Komisij a menila, da je bilo pojasnilo ponudnikom dano glede na predvideno metodo in da je bila finančna ocenitev v skladu s pravili postopka za oddajo naročila.
For the second one, the fee-based contract, the comparison is made on the basis of the total amount derived from the multiplication of the fee rate by the corresponding number of working days.
Komisij a je podčrtala, da je bil pritožnik edini od skupno 26 ponudnikov, ki so dobili enako pojasnilo, ki ga je napačno interpretiral.
The fee rates to be paid for the experts provided by the Consultant to carry out the services, together with the Provision for incidental expenditure, are set out in the Budget breakdown.
Komisij a meni, da so bila pojasnila služb glede postopka oddaje uporabna za vse razpise, pritožnik pa je dal ponudbo za štiri druge razpise brez spodbijanja stanja f i finančne ocene.
Therefore, the Commission considered that the clarification to the tenderers was done regarding the method foreseen and that the financial evaluation complied with the rules governing the tender procedure.
Če je bil namen Komisije, da sklene pogodbo, ki temelji na honorarju, se v tem primeru ni ravnala po lastnih pravilih, na katera se je vsakokrat sklicevala.
The arguments of the Commission demonstrated the state of confusion regarding the evaluation method.
Pojasnilno pismo je Komisij o zavezovalo glede na pravila postopka za oddajo naročila.
The Commission referred in its reply to documents which were not provided in the tender documents.
Vendar je bilo “pojasnilo” Komisij e zavajajoče in ni bilo utemeljeno na njenih navodilih.
The complainant contested the argument that the unit-priced method had been abandoned.
Pritožnik je spodbijal argument, da je bila metoda cene enote opuščena.
On the contrary, only two proposals for lot 1 were evaluated.
Nasprotno, za razpis 1 sta bila ocenjena le dva predloga.
It was obvious that the winning consortium would have no reason to complain.
Očitno je bilo, da konzorcij , ki je posel dobil, ni imel razloga za pritožbo.
The Commission’s inaction had led to the following direct and indirect damage:
Neprizadevnost Komisij e je bila vzrok za nastanek naslednje neposredne in posredne škode:
DECISIONSFOLLOWING
(a) finančna izguba
(a) Financial loss– Loss of a Service contract for 3 years;
- izguba pogodbe o izvajanju storitev za tri leta,
– Compensation and ‘bridging honoraria’ paid to key staff to keep them on board in case the conflict could be se led quickly;
- nadomestilo in “premostitveni honorar” za ključno osebje, da bi ga tako obdržali v ekipi v primeru hitre rešitve spora,
– Loss of nine highly qualified key monitoring staff to the successful consortium;
- izguba devetih visoko kvalificiranih ključnih nadzornikov za uspešen konzorcij ,
– Cost for legal advice and substantial time for replying to the Commission’s statements.
- stroški pravne pomoči in veliko časa za odgovarjanje na stališča Komisije; e;
– Damage to the complainant’s reputation and integrity through the Commission’s almost personal allegations.
- škoda ugledu in integriteti pritožnika zaradi skoraj osebnih trditev Komisije. e.
The complainant concluded his observations by urging a quick friendly solution to avoid a long legal dispute.
Pritožnik je v svojih pripombah pozval k hitri sporazumni rešitvi, da bi se tako izognili dolgim pravnim sporom.
1.1 In its opinion on the complaint, the Commission expressed “its strong disapproval of the manner in which the complainant used the arbitration procedure.
1.1 V svojem stališču glede pritožbe je Komisij a izrazila “močno nasprotovanje načinu, kako je pritožnik izkoristil arbitražni postopek.
The complaint seems to have been lodged solely in order to influence the Commission’s departments during the tender procedure.”
Zdi se, da je pritožnik vložil pritožbo zgolj zato, da bi v postopku za oddajo naročila vplival na oddelke Komisije.” Varuh je to kritiko razumel, kot da opozarja na dejstvo, da se je pritožnik pritožil, preden je bila sprejeta odločitev v postopku oddaje naročila.
The Ombudsman considered it necessary to make the following comments on this aspect of the Commission’s opinion.
Smatral je, da je glede tega vidika mnenja Komisij e potrebno podati naslednje pripombe:
1.2 The right to complain to the European Ombudsman is guaranteed by the EC Treaty and by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Ombudsman did not consider it
1.2 Pravica do pritožbe pri Varuhu je zagotovljena v Pogodbi ES in Listini Evropske unij e o temeljnih pravicah.
Decisions following an inquiry appropriate for the institution complained against to speculate on the reasons why a citizen chooses to exercise his or her fundamental right to make a complaint.
Varuh je menil, da ni primerno, da institucij a, na katero se pritožba nanaša, razglablja o razlogih, zakaj se je državljan odločil uveljavljati svojo temeljno pravico do pritožbe.
1.3 The Ombudsman pointed out that an inquiry by the Ombudsman does not have a suspensive effect on administrative procedures, nor can the Ombudsman set aside a decision to award a contract.
1.3 Varuh je opozoril, da preiskava Varuha nima suspenzivnega učinka na upravne postopke, prav tako pa Varuh ne more razveljaviti odločitve o oddaji naročila.
Complaint to the Ombudsman is not therefore a procedure of the kind foreseen by the Court of Justice in the Alcatel case, through which the bidder in a tender procedure may seek review of the contracting authority’s decision prior to the conclusion of the contract.
Zato pritožba pri Varuhu ni postopek, kot ga je predvidelo Evropsko sodišče v primeru Alcatel, ko ponudnik v postopku za oddajo naročila lahko uveljavlja ponoven pregled odločitve naročnika pred sklenitvijo pogodbe.
However, a tenderer who wishes to use a non-judicial remedy has the possibility to complain to the Ombudsman concerning maladministration in a tender award procedure.
Vendar ima ponudnik, ki želi uporabiti nesodno sredstvo, možnost pritožbe pri Varuhu zaradi nepravilnosti v postopku oddaje naročila.
1.4 In this context, the Ombudsman considered it useful to mention that the present case formed part of the background to the Ombudsman’s owninitiative inquiry (OI/2/2002/IJH) into the remedies available to bidders in tender procedures organised by the Commission.
1.4 Varuh je zato menil, da je v tem kontekstu koristno omeniti, da je ta primer del ozadja preiskave na lastno pobudo Varuha (OI/2/2002/IJH) glede pravnih sredstev, ki so na razpolago ponudnikom v postopkih oddaje naročila, ki jih organizira Komisij a.
The owninitiative inquiry, which is still on going, does not deal with the substance of the present case.
Preiskava na lastno pobudo, ki še vedno traja, se ne ukvarja z vsebino tega primera.
The allegation of irregularities in the tender procedure
Trditve o nepravilnostih v razpisnem postopku oddaje naročila
2.1 The complainant alleged possible irregularities in the handling of the tender procedure. The complainant wants to be informed whether the evaluation was really based on unit prices.
2.1 Pritožnik je trdil, da je v izvedbi postopka za oddajo naročila morda prišlo do nepravilnosti, zato bi bil rad obveščen o tem, ali je vrednotenje v resnici temeljilo na ceni enote.
2.3 As regards the basis of evaluation, the Commission’s opinion stated that, for monitoring contracts, assessment is always carried out on the basis of global pricing.
2.3 Glede podlage ocenitve je bilo v stališču Komisij e navedeno, da je ocenitev pogodbe o izvajanju nadzora vedno izvedena na podlagi celotne cene.
The Ombudsman therefore considered that the complainant’s claim to be informed had been met.
Zato je Varuh menil, da je bilo pritožnikovi zahtevi po obveščenosti ugodeno.
2.4 The Ombudsman noted that in its response to the Ombudsman’s proposal for a friendly solution, the Commission acknowledged that its reply to the complainant’s request for clarification of the tender stated that the global price method would not be used.
2.4 Varuh je ugotovil, da je Komisij a v svojem odgovoru na njegov predlog poravnave potrdila, da je njen odgovor na zahtevo pritožnika po pojasnitvi ponudbe vseboval navedbo, da ne bo uporabljena metoda celotne cene.
Since the Commission’s opinion stated that the global pricing method is always used for monitoring contracts, the Commission appeared to have provided incorrect information in reply to the complainant’s request for clarification of the tender and, thereby, failed to comply with the rules governing the tender procedure.
Ker je bilo v stališču Komisij e navedeno, da se metodo celotne cene vedno uporablja za nadzorne pogodbe, se zdi, da je Komisij a posredovala napačne informacij e v odgovoru pritožniku na njegovo zahtevo po pojasnitvi ponudbe in tako ni ravnala v skladu s pravili postopka za oddajo naročila.
This constituted an instance of maladministration and the Ombudsman made a critical remark below.
To je bil primer nepravilnosti, zato Varuh spodaj podaja kritično pripombo.
The complainant’s claims
Zahteve pritožnika