When it comes to millions of euro, the interpretation of laws in the country begins to get twisted as much as necessary. That’s why one of the most attractive and also questionable procedures underwent a rapid turnaround. This is the tender for a complex cleaning services of buildings and adjacent areas of Sofia Airport for the next four years for which the state company had envisioned an impressive 11 million levs. Once the Commission for Protection of Competition иеэднеа the decision and asked the contracting authority to terminate the procedure, since none of the participants had met the requirements it turned out that the Supreme Administrative Court is of the opposite opinion. The senior judiciary institution not only canceled the decision of the antimonopoly body, but discovered there were two candidates capable of winning the contract.
In practice, the scandals surrounding the complex cleaning of the airport services already started with the announcement of the tender in early November 2012. Then we heard the criticism that the conditions of participation were written for a specific company to win an extremely inflated prices, and then return some of the money into somebody’s individual pocket. The airport had raised the bar so high that it almost predetermined the outcome of the auction, asking the contestants to show a minimum of 15 million levs in turnover for the last three years. Furthermore, the revenue could not be of any other activity, but just from cleaning services. Only that such companies on the local market are counted on the fingers of one hand and with the accumulating other claims the possibility of real competition is rather reduced. It is therefore not surprising that the chance took only three companies – Varna-based Vicky Comfort of Lachezar Petrov, the joint venture Airport Clean (Skanclean of Teodora Sofia and Skavas Control) and the Italian S.P.D. Ltd. which in Bulgaria is represented by Viga Germano. To the final round, howeverq the Evaluation Committee admitted just the last two companies, removing Vicky Comfort because of missing certificates of quality of some products.
As expected, L. Petrov complained to the Commission for Protection of Competition (CPC), which in turn established that candidates that were admitted to negotiate further- S.P.D. Ltd. and Airport Clean did not meet the requirements of the client and were ranked in complete contradiction with the regulations. Accordingly, Airport Clean challenged this before the court, and the interesting thing is that its cassation appeal was joined by the management of of Sofia Airport. Then, in a very short time – just in 12 days the magistrates discarded the claims of CPC.
Antimonopolistite found out that S.P.D. had not demonstrated that it would really have the necessary equipment to perform the contract as its leases were expiring. And then, at the request of additional documents for ownership or rental of the listed equipment, the applicant showd a letter from the landlord in the past contracts stating that the equipment’s lease was prolonged by the so-called implied consent. The Evaluation Committee should not have accepted this, as it was not a document that it had requested, and namely – not a contract, i.e. it comes to unsolicited document, and its taking into account, made a breach in the conduct of the procedure.
But according to the Supreme Administrative Court, the awarding authority had not limited the type of documents that can be demonstrated regarding the necessary technical equipment.
Joint venture Airport Clean was found by CPC to have failed to present certificates of quality and safety, data sheets or equivalent documents from which it can be clear that the proposed cleaning products are for professional use, although this was requirement of the client. And although these documents were further requested, the company submitted only a letter from the manufacturer, which states that all products purchased from Skanclean (participant in the group ) are of the professional range.
The BANKER
