• About us
    • About Lindahl
    • How we work
    • Said about Lindahl
    • Press
    • Find us
    • Privacy
  • Areas
    • Commercial dispute resolution
    • IT/Tech
    • Intellectual property
    • Life Sciences
    • M&A
    • All areas
  • Our people
    • Stockholm
    • Göteborg
    • Malmö
    • Uppsala
    • Helsingborg
    • Örebro
  • Latest news
    • Cases and transactions
    • News
    • Events
    • Knowledge
    • Portraits
  • Offices
    • Stockholm
    • Göteborg
    • Malmö
    • Uppsala
    • Örebro
    • Helsingborg

The Supreme Administrative Court decides on matters relating to ceiling volume and – above all – damage assessment

  • Home
  • Latest news
  • Knowledge
  • 2022
  • The Supreme Administrative Court decides on matters relating to ceiling volume and – above all – damage assessment

The question of when and how a procuring authority, when procuring framework agreements under the Public Procurement Act (2016:1145) (LOU) or the Act on Public Procurement in the Utilities Sectors (2016:1146) (LUF), must specify what is referred to as a “ceiling volume” in the procurement document has been frequently discussed in recent years.

On 10 January 2022, the Supreme Administrative Court issued two long-awaited rulings that clear up some questions at least (cases 196-21 and 6151-6159-20).


A ceiling volume must be specified regardless of the type of framework agreement

The Supreme Administrative Court finds that the obligation to specify a ceiling volume applies to framework agreements with both one supplier and multiple suppliers. This seems reasonable since the tenderer should be equally interested in knowing the total volume in both cases.

According to the Supreme Administrative Court, it is also not sufficient to specify the ceiling volume as an estimated annual volume. Instead, the ceiling volume must be specified as a maximum over the total term of the agreement, i.e. a maximum quantity or a maximum value.

 


Stringent requirements for the supplier in the case of damage assessment

In addition to expressing an opinion on the matter of a ceiling volume, the Supreme Administrative Court also issues interesting statements regarding the damage assessment to be carried out in the case of an application for review of a public procurement. In order for a supplier to succeed with an application for review, it is required to have suffered or risked suffering damage from defects existing in the procurement.

Firstly, the Supreme Administrative Court establishes relatively stringent requirements for the supplier’s description of the way in which a defect in the procurement caused damage. According to the Supreme Administrative Court, it is not sufficient to describe the damage in general terms. Instead, the supplier must explain clearly and specifically how the defect affected the supplier’s ability to compete in the procurement. None of the suppliers was successful in doing that in the reviews in question, even though they had stated, inter alia, that they could have achieved cost savings through more accurate estimates of materials, personnel, etc. had a ceiling volume been specified.

Secondly, the Supreme Administrative Court states that the damage assessment must take into consideration whether the supplier has done whatever may be required to avoid the occurrence of damage. According to the Supreme Administrative Court, a supplier who considers the procurement documents to be incomplete or unclear should request supplements and clarifications during the tender period. If the supplier fails to do that for no acceptable reason and instead waits to point out any defects until after the award decision has been made, the supplier cannot normally be considered to have suffered damage from the lack of clarity.

In the cases in question, the suppliers had not requested any clarification regarding the maximum scope of the framework agreement during the tender period and were therefore not considered to have suffered any damage because no ceiling volume had been specified.

 


Has the Supreme Administrative Court introduced a “duty to complain”?

Through the rulings, the Supreme Administrative Court appears to impose on the supplier a certain duty to complain, in other words an obligation to point out unclear points in the procurement document during the tender period. If the supplier fails to do this, the supplier cannot use those unclear points – that the supplier could have remedied by means of a question – within the framework of a review process as a basis for claiming that the supplier’s ability to compete was adversely affected.

The question of such a duty to complain has previously been discussed in the context of draft legislation, but has not led to any amendment of the LOU or the LUF. The Supreme Administrative Court’s decision is therefore to some extent surprising. In any case, it is clear that it gives tenderers greater responsibility during the tender period and an incentive to point out and clear up any unclear points at an early stage of the procurement. This greater responsibility for the tenderers may lead to reviews being avoided in some cases.

However, the Supreme Administrative Court leaves us with a question, i.e. that this duty to complain does not apply if the supplier has an “acceptable reason” for not requesting supplements and clarifications during the tender period. It remains to be seen what constitutes those acceptable reasons in future case law.

 


Do you want to know more about the judgment or did the article raise other questions? You are very welcome to get in touch with one of the contact persons below in public procurement or your ordinary contact at Lindahl.

 

Public procurement/public sector

Lindahl has solid experience in providing legal advice concerning the public sector and public procurement.

Visit page

Related

  • 12/14/2021 12:23:58 PM New contract limits in 2022 – Including in legal services
  • 12/13/2021 2:23:28 PM Lease agreements have been deemed to contain disguised services subject to procurement – It did not help that the public works contracts would be procured
  • 11/8/2021 2:15:43 PM Community properties – attractive but complicated?
  • 10/8/2021 11:00:38 AM A simplified regulatory framework for procurements

Contact

  • Hanna Lundqvist

    Göteborg

    hanna.lundqvist@lindahl.se +46 731 472 782
  • Anduena Krasnigi

    Göteborg

    anduena.krasnigi@lindahl.se +46 731 472 773
Pages
  • Start
  • About us
  • Areas
  • Our people
  • Latest news
  • Privacy
Our offices
  • Stockholm reception.stockholm@lindahl.se +46 8 527 70 800
  • Göteborg reception.goteborg@lindahl.se +46 31 799 10 00
  • Malmö reception.malmo@lindahl.se +46 40 664 66 50
  • Uppsala reception.uppsala@lindahl.se +46 18 16 18 50
  • Örebro reception.orebro@lindahl.se +46 19 20 89 00
  • Helsingborg reception.helsingborg@lindahl.se +46 42 17 53 00
Social media
  • Connect with us on social networks: Instagram, Linkedin, Youtube, Facebook,

Disclaimer

The material and information on this site is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice on any specific matter. Please note that all images on Lindahl's website, www.lindahl.se, are subject to intellectual property protection and downloading, publication, copying and/or other use of the images requires the written consent of the rights holder. You'll find Advokatfirman Lindahl KB's general terms and conditions here.

Some cookies are essential, others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is used. For more information, please visit our Cookie Policy.

Essential Cookies

These cookies are necessary for the functionality of the site and cannot be disabled.

Analytics Cookies>

We use Analytics cookies to collect information that gives us insight into how our website is being used. We anonymize IP addresses in Google Analytics. By clicking on Decline we won't save theese cookies.

Decline
We use cookies to get insights on how our site is used and give our visitors the best possible experience