The Public Procurement Court on 19 April 2024, dismissed the complaint of our client GWW’s opponent, whom we had represented before the NAC and the Court.
The case concerned allegations relating to the fulfilment of the conditions for participation in the proceedings, exclusion on the grounds of gross negligence and the signing of a reference using a facsimile.
The contracting authority, upon our recommendation, verified the scope of work at the investor of the reference investment, which led to the appeal being upheld. The appellant referred to the experience gained as a result of the merger with another company that was a subcontractor on the reference task.
The court indicated in its oral reasons that:
The Appellant is required to rebut the pleas put forward in the appeal. The Tribunal disagreed with its position that the Chamber had shifted the burden of proof to it.
It could not agree with the Appellant that it could rely on the evidence of the statement of the general contractor’s president, whereas the Employer had submitted a letter from the investor indicating the scopes of work of the subcontractors.
The Appellant could not claim that it did not know what scope of work the subcontractor had carried out, since it had become the legal successor of that entity and used its experience as its own.
The Applicant misled the Contracting Authority by showing gross negligence in accordance with Article 109(1)(8) of the PPL Act.
On the issue of the facsimile signature of the reference, the Chamber and the Court held that the document could not be considered as sufficient evidence without a second statement from the CEO of the general contractor signed with a qualified signature.
The case was led by Marta Lipińska, a attorney-at-law specialising in public procurement.
