Conflicting instructions by a Contracting Authority: PCRB cancels tender

In Case 1692, the Public Contracts Review Board (PCRB) (Case 1692) addressed the disqualification of a bidder from a tender for professional services related to the extension and restoration at the Manoel Theatre.

The case revolved around conflicting instructions given by the contracting authority on one of the criterions for qualification: the bidders had to submit a list of completed projects that they had worked on in the previous five years having a total value of at least €500,000.

The bidder had asked the contracting authority whether they could also submit ongoing projects – rather than just completed ones – as part of the submission. In its clarification reply, the contracting authority said “If proof can be submitted that the ongoing projects within the last five (5) as indicated in Section 1, Clause 5(c), these can be considered valid.” This clarification implied that ongoing projects would be accepted, provided they were within the specified time period. Based on this, the bidder submitted ongoing projects, assuming compliance. 

However, the contracting authority later disqualified their bid on the grounds that they had not submitted completed projects, as required by the original criterion. The contracting authority’s rectification note issued on 12th October 2021 further added to the confusion, stating that the submission was non-compliant as it “only includes ongoing projects.” 

The bidder argued that they were misled by the conflicting instructions, and the PCRB agreed. The board found that the contracting authority had created an ambiguous situation, first allowing ongoing projects to be considered and then rejecting the bid for following those instructions. The PCRB emphasized that clarity and consistency in tender requirements are critical, and once a bidder is permitted to submit certain information, such as ongoing projects, they should not be penalized for doing so.

The Board criticized the authority for issuing conflicting instructions and for not providing clear guidance to ensure fairness for all bidders. It cancelled the original evaluation decision and ordered a re-evaluation of the bid, by a newly composed evaluation committee, to ensure an impartial and fair re-evaluation. 

This decision underscores the importance of clear communication in public procurement, ensuring that tender processes are consistent, transparent, and fair to all parties involved.

With extensive experience in the sector, Dalli Advocates has provided support to both bidders and government entities in public procurement law.

Guaranteeing online platform users more digital protection and freedoms

The Digital Services Act (DSA), officially known as Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, is designed to make the digital world more transparent, accountable, and fair, particularly when it comes to how online platforms handle their users. Being a regulation, it automatically applies across all EU countries, meaning its rules don’t require extra national laws to come into effect. One of the important features of the DSA is that it requires online platforms to offer out-of-court dispute resolution mechanisms. 

The DSA ensures that larger platforms, especially very large online platforms (VLOPs), have clear internal systems for users to challenge decisions such as content removal or account suspensions. This gives users a straightforward way to appeal platform decisions. However, if the internal complaints process doesn’t resolve the issue, the DSA takes things further by requiring platforms to provide independent out-of-court dispute resolution.

Platforms must give users access to certified independent bodies to resolve disputes. These bodies have to meet strict EU standards of fairness and impartiality, and may consist of private arbitration,  mediation or conciliation, as long as they are fair, transparent, and certified by the relevant authorities. The aim here is to ensure users have easy and affordable ways to settle disputes without getting caught up in costly legal proceedings.

The DSA’s rules on dispute resolution don’t exist in isolation. They build on existing EU frameworks, especially Directive 2013/11/EU on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). This directive, which applies to all consumer disputes, ensures that people in the EU can resolve issues with companies through independent bodies, without going to court. The DSA brings this idea into the digital space, specifically focusing on the relationship between users and online platforms.

By working together, the DSA and ADR Directive offer a robust system of protection for users. The ADR Directive provides the general foundation, while the DSA ensures that online platforms comply with these principles. This means that users have reliable and straightforward paths to resolve disputes, whether the issue is with a traditional business or an online platform.

For platforms, this means they need to offer both an internal complaint system and access to certified independent bodies that can handle more complex disputes. For users, the DSA is a win, as it gives them more power to challenge unfair decisions, whether it concerns content being taken down or an account being suspended. Users now have multiple ways to get their grievances heard, starting with the platform’s internal process and, if necessary, moving to an independent body that can fairly resolve the dispute.

In a nutshell, the Digital Services Act—or Regulation (EU) 2022/2065—is a significant step forward in making the online world more transparent and fair. By requiring platforms to offer independent dispute resolution, the DSA complements the ADR Directive, ensuring that consumers have accessible, affordable options for resolving disputes. Together, these regulations create a legal framework that protects users from unfair treatment, allowing them to challenge decisions made by digital platforms without needing to go through expensive legal battles.

Dalli Advocates can provide legal services in this field of law.