Wednesday, April 1, 2015

The tender for the printer in the Social Security: National Board of Appeal rejects … – Polish Radio


  KIO considered that Social Security entirely completed a previous judgment of the House in September of last year, which required rejection of the lowest bidder and re-examination of the next lowest bids , photo: Pixabay
 

According to the information on the website of the Office of Public Procurement, the case was decided at today’s meeting of the KIO.

Recall Galaxy representatives proposed the cancellation of the choice made by the Social Insurance Company Medenit SA (Formerly Teneo Systems Sp. Z oo), which submitted a bid in the amount of nearly 40.5 million zł.

ZUS rightly rejected the cheapest offer

KIO considered that Social Security entirely completed earlier judgment of the Chamber of September last year, which required the rejection of the cheapest bidder and reconsideration following the best offers.

Galaxy did not meet the formal conditions

The Chamber also found that the Department has rightly rejected the offer of the Galaxy, which did not meet the formal conditions in the proceedings.

Court: there was collusion with the tender for the device in Social Security

According to the Board, the Social Insurance was not required to re-examination of the rejected offer. Hence the company Galaxy was not entitled to bring an action.

Recall that on December 10 the District Court in Warsaw dismissed the complaint Galaxy price fixing in the tender for printers and MFPs for the Social Insurance Institution.

According to the district court, the National Board of Appeal rightly rejected the complaint in its entirety Galaxy for an act of unfair competition in the form of submission of bids by contractors in agreement or submitting false information.

All the arguments raised by the Galaxy were rejected by the KIO correctly – then the court found.

At the same time, the court ruled that the company Galaxy is no longer a party to the tender procedure, because of the numerous formal and substantive deficiencies in the submitted offer.

jk

LikeTweet

No comments:

Post a Comment