Mari Ann Simovart, Bettina Tugendreich, Ján Azud, Joseph Kunz

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Jahrgang 18 (2023), Ausgabe 2, Seite 99 - 111

This article discusses Article 69 of Directive 2014/24/EU, analysing basic concepts like abnormally low tender, indicating how an abnormally low tender should be identified by the contracting authority and the steps necessary to reach a balanced conclusion on a low-priced tender’s (ir-)regularity. This article explains the meaning of abnormally low tenders from the EU law perspective, providing a basis for the following articles in this special edition of the journal. Keywords: abnormally low tender; Directive 2014/24/EU; Public Sector Directive; Article 69

Mari Ann Simovart, Marit Piirisaar

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Jahrgang 17 (2022), Ausgabe 3, Seite 144 - 157

Incomplete tenders and missing information seem to be a known constant in public procurement, confronting contracting authorities with legal challenges and critically influencing the results of public purchasing. Faced with a non-conforming tender that cannot be accepted, a contracting authority must choose between two options: to reject the tender or to ask for correction of mistakes in the tender. Exceptionally, instead of the option to clarify, the requirement of proportionality may justify an obligation to do. Subject to a complex discretionary decision, making the choice between a rejection and a clarification has to follow the general principles of EU public procurement law and good administration as well as the national administrative law rules. This article looks at the topic with the help of examples from Estonian case-law. By analysing both the relevant procedural and substantial rules, we draw guidelines to assist navigating the legal maze of conflicting considerations that concern the correction of mistakes and clarification of ambiguities in public procurement tenders. Keywords: clarification of tender; correction of mistake in tender; principle of proportionality

Mari Ann Simovart

European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Jahrgang 11 (2016), Ausgabe 4, Seite 292 - 300

On a fundamental level, the US and the EU law restrict the freedom to modify public contracts for the same reason: to prevent abuse of the fair competition requirement that governs the award of public contracts. A public contract modification must either be consistent with the competition that led to awarding the contract in the first place or alternatively, follow a proper new award procedure. Still, while the underlying rationale of the two systems is the same, differences can appear in details. The article looks at the EU and the US public (government) contract laws with regard to contract modification, and aims to establish if the case law accumulated in the US could serve as a reference when applying the new rules of contract modification in the EU.