La entrada ¿Qué alcance tienen el principio de publicidad de los contratos públicos y la excepción de confidencialidad? A propósito de la sentencia del TJUE de 17 de noviembre de 2022 (Asunto C- 54/21) aparece primero en Faus Moliner.

In this Resolution, the Central Public Procurement Court (“Court”) ruled on an appeal against the award of a tender to a temporary consortium of companies. The consortium, having classified as the best offer in the tender, was required to submit certain documentation within a period of 10 days counted from the request of the contracting authority. When submitting these documents, the consortium made a mistake regarding the contents of a bank guarantee. The contracting authority decided to grant the consortium a period to remedy such mistake. Once the mistake was remedied, the contracting authority decided to award the tender to the consortium.

The awarding decision was challenged by other tenderers on the grounds that the offer of the consortium should have been rejected by the contracting authority because the mistake could not be remedied. The appellants said that the contracting authority should have rejected the possibility of remedying the mistake because it affected documentation which the winner should have submitted within the 10-day term.

The appellants pointed out that the Spanish tendering courts have systematically interpreted that this sort of mistakes cannot be remedied. The legal basis for this position of the courts was that although the Spanish law does not allow, nor does it prohibit the possibility of remedying mistakes, such law does indeed provide that if a valid request to submit the documentation is not appropriately fulfilled, the offer of the tenderer will be deemed as withdrawn and a penalty will be imposed to such tenderer.

A 180º turn

In this Resolution, the Court states that it is necessary to change the doctrine that has been followed up until now, because the interpretation of the Spanish tendering courts on the possibility of the tenderer to remedy this sort of mistakes has been too strict.

In this regard, the Court differentiates two situations: the case where the request of the contracting authority is not fulfilled at all, and the case where such request is defectively fulfilled.

The Court considers that in the first case it should not be allowed to remedy the situation. However, when the request is defectively fulfilled, the Court considers that the right of the winner of the tender to have a remedy period must prevail.

To justify this thesis, among other arguments, the Court considers that it makes no sense that after a long tendering procedure to choose the best offer, the winner is rejected because of a mistake in the documentation, and that the Spanish general rules on the administrative procedure foresee the possibility of correcting mistakes. Therefore, in this case, said administrative procedure rules must be applied, whilst respecting the deadlines established in the public procurement law.

Through this Resolution, the Court confirms a 180º doctrinal turn that was previously announced in its Resolution 338/2018, according to which the Court considered that the request to remedy this kind of mistakes was consistent with the law.

La entrada 180º turn: errors by the winner of a tender when submitting formal documents may now be remedied aparece primero en Faus Moliner.

In 2014, Farmaindustria filed an appeal against the Framework Agreement called by the Andalusian Health Service (SAS) for the selection of active ingredients for certain indications. Farmaindustria based among other reasons, on the idea that grouping active ingredients in the same lot, defined by therapeutic indications, violates public procurement rules.

The Court of First Instance rejected the appeal arguing that the Framework Agreement only “disciplined” the general conditions of supply of active ingredients but without affecting particular medical acts, and that therefore, the freedom of prescription was safeguarded.

Farmaindustria filed an appeal against the judgement before the High Court of Justice, which was accepted embracing the reasoning of the Supreme Court in its Judgement dated 29 January 2018, which upheld an appeal prepared by our law firm against such Framework Agreement.

No distinctions with regard to the new Public Sector of Procurement Law

This Judgment is important for several reasons.

First, because the High Court of Justice decides in favour of correcting its previous doctrine based on the aforementioned judgement of the Supreme Court. Thus, the High Court of Justice understands that the configuration of the Framework Agreement did not attempt against neither the freedom of prescription nor the right of the patients to receive the most appropriate treatment, but it upholds the appeal because it understands that grouping different medicinal products in the same lot in a public tender is not possible.

Secondly, it is important to highlight that the decision of the High Court of Justice is based on the rules that are specifically applicable to medicinal products where the only groupings allowed are those which include medicinal products having the same active ingredient and identical administration route.

Finally, it is significantly important that the High  Court does not consider in its judgement the new Law on Public Sector Contracts nor makes any comment in this regard. The fact that the new Law does not consider the requirement of “functional unit” for making the lots has not even been commented in this Judgement, which, once again, takes a position against the ATEs.

Our position is that in accordance with the new Law, in order to determine whether the division in lots has been properly carried out, it will be necessary to verify whether such division, in particular, is adequate for satisfying the needs that the public health system wishes to cover with the tender. We must not forget that in accordance with the new Law, public sector entities will only be able to celebrate agreements which are necessary and adequate for the fulfillment and performance of their purposes.

La entrada One more judgement against therapeutic equivalent alternatives (ATEs), this time in Andalusia aparece primero en Faus Moliner.

The Administrative Court of Public Procurement of Andalusia has declared null and void the tender specifications for the supply of fluid therapy medicinal products because such specifications established as awarding criteria that, in addition to the supply of medicinal products, bidders should also deliver automated cupboards for storing and dispensing medicinal products, as well as adaptation of clean rooms for their handling.

Appeal against the tender specifications

A Spanish association named “FarmaFluid”, engaged in fluid therapy and hospital parental nutrition, filed an appeal against the abovementioned tender awarding criteria on the grounds that it failed to comply with the legal requirements of connection between the criteria and the subject matter of the procurement contract. The appeal also contested the formula used to grant points to those criteria, because it did not allow to properly identify the requirements for evaluating the criteria.

Judgement of the Court

In relation to the criteria described in the specifications, the Court accepted the arguments of FarmaFluid and considered that such specifications must be annulled because there is no direct link between them and the subject matter of the contract, contravening Spanish rules on public procurement. The Court considered that, while it is true that the offering of cupboards and adaptation of clean rooms by the bidders may be an advantage in the process of storage, handling and dispensing of the medicinal products, it does not provide a direct benefit to the medicinal products which are the subject matter of the contract. Also, these advantages do not favor the proper execution of the contract, and cannot be considered as accessory elements enhancing the qualities or properties of the acquired medicinal products, because they can also be used for other medicinal products.

In relation to the formula used by the contracting body to assess those awarding criteria, the Court found that, after examining the formula, bidders do not know what they must offer in order to obtain the highest score in the tender. In addition, the Court points out that in case the contracting body grants points depending on the economic contribution offered by the bidders by means of the cupboards and the adaptation of clean rooms, this would lack legal support, since, in that case, the Administration would be financing, without due control, the acquisition of goods which have no direct connection with the subject matter of the contract. For all these reasons, the Court decided to also uphold the appeal in relation to the configuration of the formula.

Having accepted all the arguments of the appeal filed by FarmaFluid, the Court annulled the tender, and instructed the contracting body to restart a new tender procedure with specifications which do not contain the annulled criteria.

La entrada Tender specifications cannot grant points to the offering of equipment which is not linked to the subject matter of the procurement contract aparece primero en Faus Moliner.

The Catalan Institute of Health and the Consortium for Health and Social Care of Catalonia called a tender for the award of a medicines supply framework agreement for the lipid lowering treatment with inhibitors of PCSK9. The tender was initially set as a single lot which would be awarded to a single supplier. After the initiation of the tender, in light of the complaints filed, the contracting authority modified the specifications so that the agreement could be executed with several suppliers.

Farmaindustria and Sanofi-Aventis challenged the decision before the Public Tender Court of Catalonia, requesting that the tender was divided into lots according to their active substance. Their position was that the medicinal products that formed the single lot of the tender could not be considered therapeutically equivalent, as they were not interchangeable biologic medicinal products that featured significant differences in spite of sharing a therapeutic indication.

Moreover, Sanofi-Aventis argued that combining in one lot two medicinal products that were not equivalent infringed the criterion of functional unit set forth by Spanish law.

Subsequently, the appellant brought before the Public Tender Court of Catalonia the judgement of the Spanish Supreme Court of 29 of January, that ruled against the equivalent therapeutic alternatives (knowns as ATEs for its Spanish acronym) provided for in the Framework Agreement of the Andalusian Health Service of 2013.

The functional unit and the fulfilment of needs

The Public Tender Court of Catalonia dismissed the appeals and considered the abovementioned judgment of the Supreme Court was inapplicable to this case because, among other reasons, the new Spanish Law on Public Tenders establishes that the division of the contractual purpose into lots has now become the general rule and the functional unit is no longer a criterion to be considered when setting the lots.

In our opinion, even under the provisions of the new Law on Public Tenders, the tender procedures should not define the lots according to the therapeutic indications of the medicinal products if this implies the inclusion in the same lot of medicinal products that have not been declared equivalent, interchangeable or replaceable by a competent healthcare authority.

Any public contract must adequately define its subject matter according to the needs that it must fulfil. This need, when it comes to acquiring medicinal products, is to guarantee the right of patients to a pharmaceutical provision under the legally and regulatory terms, and the right of healthcare professionals to prescribe the product that they consider more adequate for each patient, even when there are alternative solutions in the market. Therefore, it is necessary that products which are not interchangeable are not included in the same lot.

La entrada The rights of patients justify a final “No” to the ATE’s even under the new Spanish Law on Public Tenders aparece primero en Faus Moliner.

Through this Judgement, the Administrative Court of Public Procurement of Madrid decided on an appeal which was filed against the award of a contract to a company that had offered a discount of 36,38% over the tender budget. The appeal was filed by a competitor which ended up classified in the second place, on the grounds that it considered that it was not possible to perform the contract with such a reduced price.

During the procedure, the contracting authority requested the winning company to justify the economic terms of its tender because the price offered was considered abnormally low. The company submitted a justification report which was accepted by the contracting authority, and the contract was finally awarded to this company.

Justification of the discounts

By means of this Judgement, the Court clarified what is the content of the justification report for abnormally low tender offers and how such justification must be assessed by the contracting authorities. Likewise, the Court determined that, in this case, the justification of the tender provided by the winner of the tender was not valid despite the fact that it had been accepted by the contracting authority.

The Court established that it is only possible to exclude an abnormally low offer from the tender procedure when, in view of the justification provided, it is deemed that the contract cannot be executed. According to the Court, in order to determine if a contract can be executed or not, tenderers must prove the seriousness of their offers in all their elements. Therefore, the justification of the offer must be complete. This does not mean that the offer will be considered insufficient due to the mere omission of elements of minor importance. The higher the discount offered, the higher the level of detail required in the justification to be provided to the contracting authority. Moreover, the Court highlighted that it is essential that the report of the contracting authority evaluating the justification of the offer submitted by the company is motivated and accounted for by the contracting authority in the tender dossier, and that such assessment must be rational and reasonable. In case the contracting authority fails to adequately motivate its report, the decision of such authority might be considered as arbitrary.

Personnel cost

The Court considered that the personnel cost offered by the tender winner was insufficient to cover the salaries of company’s employees, according to the collective bargaining agreement. However, such insufficiency in this case does not automatically mean that the offer is abnormally low, since it can be compensated with the price of other benefits or with the general structural costs of the company. Therefore, the Court considered that the tender complied with the labor Law. However, the Court concluded that the offer was abnormally low, since it proposed to carry out activities that were not included in the costs of the contract, and that such costs should have been included in the offer. The Court annulled the award decision of the tender to the company which had offered such low price.

La entrada Criteria to justify abnormally low prices offered in tender procedures aparece primero en Faus Moliner.

On its session of 19 of October of 2017, the Spanish Parliament approved the new Law on Public Procurement. This approval finishes the process of incorporation into Spanish law of the Directives 2014/23/EU and 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 26 of February of 2014. The reform is approved long after the expiration of the deadline that the Member States had in order to transpose the mentioned Directives, which expired on 18 of April of 2016.

The lack of compliance with such deadline has posed a challenge for legal practitioners from the point of view of legal certainty during the last year and a half. During all this time, the documents prepared by the public contracts advisory boards (“Juntas Consultivas de Contratación”) in Spain and by several members of the administrative courts of contractual appeals have served as a guide in the task of applying the provisions which are established as directly binding for the Member States by the Directives.

In general terms, the law seeks to implement in Spain a regulation which makes public procurement more transparent, quality-oriented, open to competition, focused on pursuing certain social objectives and less bureaucratic. Not everything has been achieved, but important developments that we will comment below have been introduced.

More transparency

The new law on public procurement aims to make the procurement procedure more transparent. To this end, it establishes new obligations for the contracting authorities. The most important obligation is the introduction of a new specific cause of invalidation of the procedure if the contract notice is not published in the buyer’s profile or in similar information services of the Regional authorities, in the Official Journal of the European Union or in any platform in which the publication of such notice is mandatory.

In addition, the new Law significantly expands the content of the information that must be published in the buyer’s profile. Therefore, as a novelty, the following documents must be publicized:

• the justificatory report of the contract;

• the justification of the procedure used (when it is different from the open or restricted procedure);

• the report of evaluation of the awarding criteria which are measurable by means of value judgment; and

• the reports of the offers which are considered abnormally low.

Fight against corruption

The contracting authorities must take the appropriate measures to fight against fraud, favouritism and corruption and to prevent, detect and effectively resolve conflicts of interest that may arise in the tenders in order to avoid any distortion of competition and to ensure transparency in the procedure and equal treatment of all candidates and tenderers.

The law defines a conflict of interest as any situation where the staff members of the contracting authority who are involved in the conduct of the procurement procedure or may influence the outcome of the procedure, have, directly or indirectly, a financial, economic or other personal interest which might be perceived to compromise their impartiality and independence in the context of the procurement procedure. This duty extends to those persons or entities that are aware of a possible conflict of interest, which must immediately notify such conflict to the tender authority.

A more quality-oriented regulation of public tenders

In the new law, the concept of “the most economically advantageous tender”, which has traditionally prevailed in our legal system, has been disregarded.

The new legal text establishes as a general principle that contracts will be awarded ordinarily using a plurality of award criteria based on the principle of “best value for money”. This principle will be evaluated according to economic and qualitative criteria.

The law determines the following as qualitative aspects to be taken into account in order for the contracting authority to evaluate the tender: its quality, its aesthetic and functional characteristics, its accessibility, its marketing conditions, as well as the environmental, social and innovative aspects of the tender that are linked to the object of the contract. Also, the organization, qualification and experience of the staff who will execute the contract is an element to take into account especially when said staff can significantly affect the best performance of the contract.

If justified by the contracting authority, contracts may be awarded according to criteria based on an approach that meets a better cost-effectiveness, on the basis of price or cost, such as the calculation of the life cycle cost.

Another important novelty that must be highlighted is the obligation imposed on the contracting authorities to include in the procurement documents the objective parameters that allow identifying the cases in which an offer is considered abnormally low.

The regime established in order to control abnormally low offers has been changed and according to the new law, the contracting authority is obliged to reject, in any case, offers that are abnormally low because they violate the subcontracting regulations, or because they do not comply with the applicable national or international environmental, social or labour requirements, including non-compliance with sectorial collective agreements.

Improvement of access by Small Medium –sized Enterprises (SMEs) to Public Procurement Contracts

The law establishes various changes to the previous regulation which are aimed at creating more competition and allowing SMEs to develop their growth and innovation potential. Administrative courts have already been implementing (since the expiration of the deadline to transpose the Directives), the general principle that the contract should be divided into lots. If the contract is not divided into lots, the contracting authority must justify it in the dossier.

Another novelty is that it is forbidden to request newly created companies to prove their technical ability by showing previous experience in similar contracts. Newly created companies are those which are less than 5 years old.

Novelties in the procurement procedures

The most relevant developments in relation to the procurement procedures foreseen in the previous law are the elimination of the negotiated procedure without publication related to the value of the contract and the introduction of two new procurement procedures: the simplified open procedure and the innovation partnership procedure.

The elimination of the negotiated procedure without publication due to the value of the contract is a consequence of the greater transparency of the procurement procedure pursued by the new regulation. However, the negotiated procedure without publication subsists in relation to other cases not linked to the mere economic value of the contract.

Likewise, and to optimize the procedure, a new simplified open procedure is created with the aim of obtaining a faster and simpler procedure both regarding the preparation of the tender as well as its resolution. In relation to services and supply contracts, it will be compulsory to use the simplified procedure provided that the estimated value of the contract is equal to or less than 100,000 euros and that among the award criteria there is no criterion subject to a value judgment or, in case there is such criterion, its importance in the tender does not exceed 25 percent of the total.

Any company who participates at a tender that falls into the scope of the simplified procedure must register in the Official Register of Tenderers and Classified Companies of the Public Sector, or where appropriate, in the Official Register of the corresponding Autonomous Region, for which they will be granted a period of ten months from the entry into force of the law.

Finally, the innovation partnership procedure is incorporated as a contracting mechanism for those cases in which it is necessary to carry out research and development activities regarding works, services and innovative products, which subsequently have to be acquired by the administration.

Novelties regarding the type of contracts

The new law does not introduce major reforms or developments in relation to service contracts, construction works or supplies, except for very specific aspects, but it does introduce significant changes in the regulation of the public service management contract.

In fact, it abolishes the contract for the management of public services and redirects the typical object of these contracts into two different contractual modalities: the services contract and the services concession contract.

The criterion to distinguish one from another lies in the assumption (or not) of the operational risk derived from the management of the public service, so that when the risk is transferred to the contractor, the contract will be qualified as a services concession contract, and if on the contrary the risk is assumed by the contracting Administration, the contract will be qualified as a services contract.

It is understood that the operational risk is assumed when it is not guaranteed, in conditions of normal functioning, that the contractor will recover the investment or cover the costs incurred for the execution of the contract.

Review of the decisions of the contracting authorities

The main novelty in relation to the appeal against certain decisions of the contracting authorities is that the possibility of filing the so-called “special appeal” (“recurso especial en materia de contratación”) is dissociated from the fact that the act intended to be appealed is part of a contract which is subject to harmonized regulation. The previous law established that only acts referring to contracts subject to harmonized regulation could be challenged through the “special appeal” on procurement, as well as acts related to certain services contracts and management of public services contracts.

With the new law, the possibility to challenge a an resolution through the “special appeal” is conditioned to the fact that the contract exceeds certain economic thresholds, lower than those that are necessary to consider the contract as subject to harmonized regulation. In this sense, even if the necessary thresholds for the contract to be subject to harmonized regulation are not reached, this special appeal process may be used if the services contract or the supply contract exceeds 100,000 euros, or if the construction works contract, concession of works or service concession contract exceeds 3 million euros.

Another remarkable novelty of the special appeal is that it allows the challenge of a variety of resolutions. In particular, it is allowed to challenge not only the decisions of exclusion of tenders, as it has been the case until now, but also the decisions of admission of offers, and the decisions of admission or non-admission of candidates or tenderers.

Moreover, it also opens the possibility of using this appeal for decisions or acts subsequent to the awarding. Therefore, it is admitted to file an appeal against decisions to modify the content of the contracts, orders within the administration as regards the use of the own resources of the administration, and the rescue of concession contracts. All of them are acts subsequent to the award, thus the control in the execution phase of the contract is reinforced .

Entry into force

We conclude this analysis with a comment regarding the entry into force of the law, which will take place four months after its publication, except for a few provisions of secondary importance that will come into effect ten months after its publication and others few provisions concerning the consulting bodies in the field of public procurement, which will come into force the day after its publication.

La entrada The new Law on Public Procurement aparece primero en Faus Moliner.

As we anticipated in our Capsulas Newsletter No 181, April 2017, the regime of acts and resolutions from Public Contract Authorities that may be challenged has been altered by the Judgement of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), 5 of April of 2017 (Case C-391/2015).

This TACPA´s  Decision applies, for the first time in Spain, the doctrine settled by the ECJ, and resolves a challenge against the rejection of an alternative offer, using the aforementioned  doctrine and explaining its incidence in the regime of challengeable acts in public procurement rules. In view of its relevance, we should now like to turn to the Decision.

Object of the challenge before the TACPA

The decision has its origin in the challenge brought by a Temporary Business Association (known by its Spanish acronym UTE) which was participating in a bidding process with regards to a work contract promoted by the Health Authority of Aragon. The UTE challenged the decision of the Bureau of Procurement rejecting its alternative offer number 2 according to a technical report, which found such offer unfeasible and non subject to the statements of the invitation to tender.

The UTE filed a challenge against such a decision arguing that the Bureau Procurement had incurred in a manifest error assessing its alternative offer.

The Decision of the TACPA

The TACPA begins its analysis stressing that, as a general rule in the Spanish legal system, procedural acts are not subject to challenge and that, only under exceptional circumstances, those named “qualified procedural acts” might be subject to challenge. These are acts that decide about the substance of the matter, determine about the impossibility to continue the proceeding or produce defenseless or irreparable harm to the bidders rights or legitims interest.

The Decision settles a challenge against an act which does not fall within any of this circumstances and, therefore, according to the doctrine previous to the ECJ judgement, the challenge should not be admitted. However, the TACPA found that by not admitting it, it would violate the criteria established by the ECJ, which considers contrary to European law the Spanish law that subordinates the possibility to challenge the act to the fact of reaching a certain stage in the procedure.

Thus, following the ECJ criteria, the TACPA admitted the challenge motion and moved on to analyze the merits of the case (which are not under analysis in this occasion), applying so, for the first time in Spain, the ECJ doctrine, which opens the door to challenging non-procedural acts, that in practice precludes the possibility of challenging important acts within the proceeding without forcing the bidders to wait up to a certain phase of the bidding procedure to exercise their rights.

La entrada The Challenge of non qualified procedural acts is already a reality aparece primero en Faus Moliner.

The judgment in question dates back to an appeal filed by Archus and Gama against the decision of a Polish contracting body refusing its offer and awarding the contract to Digital-Center. The Polish court was unsure as to whether Polish law complied with Community law and decided to stay the proceedings and to refer questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling. Amongst the questions referred, the legitimate interest of Archus and Gama in the cancellation of Digital-Center’s tender is of particular interest.

Position of the referring court

The Polish court’s approach established that, pursuant to Polish law, an economic operator whose tender had been rejected as part of a tender process had no legitimate interest in challenging the decision awarding the contract. However, the court reflected, European law establishes that Member States must ensure that legal protection measures are accessible to anybody who has an interest in obtaining a particular contract.

In the specific case in question, the tenders of Archus and Gama had been excluded from the tender procedure as part of a resolution that simultaneously awarded the contract to Digital-Center. Archus and Gama appealed against the two decisions set out in the same resolution and the Polish court doubted whether Archus and Gama could have an interest in challenging not only the decision rejecting their tender, but also the awarding of the contract to Digital-Center.

Resolution of the CJEU

The CJEU resolved the question posed by the Polish court, firstly offering a reminder that the CJEU had actually ruled previously that a tenderer whose offer had been excluded from a public procurement procedure could be refused access to a review of the decision awarding the public contract, provided that the decision to exclude said tenderer had been confirmed by a final resolution in such a way that said party was regarded as being definitively excluded from the procurement procedure.

Following said reminder, and addressing the specific case in hand, the CJEU declared that as Archus and Gama brought an action against the decision excluding their tender and against the decision awarding the contract, which were adopted simultaneously, the tenders of said companies should be considered to be definitively excluded from the public procurement procedure and therefore, their legal interest in challenging the award subsists.

La entrada Unsuccessful tenderers may bring an action to review award decisions if they are not yet final and definitive aparece primero en Faus Moliner.

This judgment has its origin in the action brought by Marina del Mediterráneo S.L. and other companies against a decision taken by the contracting authority allowing a tenderer to participate in the public procurement procedure. The action was dismissed and Marina del Mediterráneo, S.L. and others applied for a review of the decision before the High Court of Justice of Andalusia.

The High Court referred the matter to the CJEU, as it was unsure as to whether the applicable Spanish law was compatible with the provisions of EU law on public procurement matters.

Spanish regulations stipulate that only preparatory acts which decide, directly or indirectly, on the award of the contract, make it impossible to continue the procedure or to put up a defence, or cause irreparable harm to legitimate rights or interests, may be the subject of an action in procurement proceedings

The decision of the contracting authority which was contested refused to exclude the tenderer, and it allowed the tenderer to participate in the procedure, meaning that a priori, the decision failed to comply with the requirements set out by Spanish law for challenging a decision. Therefore, it was only possible to challenge this aspect at the same time as the review of the decision.

Resolution of the CJEU

Regarding the question posed, the CJEU responded that, although Community law has not established the time from which the review of the decision may be sought, it does not authorise Member States to link the exercise of the right to challenge a decision on the fact that the public procurement procedure  has formally reached a particular stage.

In terms of the decision allowing a tenderer to participate in a procurement procedure, the CJEU states that the fact that Spanish legislation forces tenderers to wait until the contract has been awarded before a review of said decision can be requested breaches Directive 89/665. Therefore, national rules must establish reasonable time limits for applying for a review of the decisions which may be challenged.

Change of the legal doctrine regarding challengeable preparatory acts

Until now, tenderers had to wait until the contract was awarded before applying for a review of certain preparatory acts. This judgment will make it possible for tenderers to apply for a review of preparatory acts before the contract is awarded.

La entrada Possibility of applying for a review of preparatory acts prior to contracts being awarded aparece primero en Faus Moliner.