Case briefs

All of KOFA's decisions are written and published in Norwegian. Decisions considered by the KOFA Secretariat to be of particular importance are picked out as "Selected cases", and short summaries of these cases are published on the website. The Secretariat has decided to translate some of these case briefs to English, and hopefully this will be of interest. Click the case or use the menu to read the full English summaries and to access the original decisions.


The case concerns the conditions for entering into a negotiated procedure without a preliminary contract notice as set out in art. 30.1(a) of directive 2004/18/EC. The main question was whether a tender whose price exceeded the contracting authority's budget could be regarded as unacceptable.


The case concerns the legality of using a specific point calculation model in evaluating the tenderers' prices when awarding the contract to the most economically advantageous tender. The Complaints Board found that the application of a specific relative point calculation model could not be ruled illegal as such, but that the circumstances of the case rendered it illegal.


The case concerns the use of meetings or interviews to identify the economically most advantageous tender. The Complaints Board found that the rules on public procurement does not in principle preclude this approach, and that the award criteria did not constitute a breach against the ban on negotiations in open procedures, but strict rules had to be applied to ensure transparency.


In case 2012/248 the question before the Complaint Board was whether the public procurement regulation § 17-9 (2), which allows a tenderer to rely on the capacity of other entities to meet the criteria for qualitative selection, provided it is documented that the tenderer will have resources at its disposal, should be applied by analogy during the evaluation of tenders.


Case 2012/9 concerns an open procedure by the municipality of Kongsvinger for framework agreements on the procurement of consultancy services, regarding engineering and construction management. After the contract was awarded, the municipality disclosed the average hourly rates offered in relation to the price criterion, upon the request from a tenderer. At this point, several complaints regarding the tendering procedure had been submitted. The procedure was eventually cancelled due to the use of unlawful award criteria. KOFA found that the contracting authority violated the rules on confidentiality by disclosing the tenderers' hourly rates.


The case concerns a plea for illegal direct award regarding healthcare specialist opinions collected by the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV) pursuant to the National Insurance Act § 21. KOFA found that the collection of specialist opinions did not constitute contracts within the scope of the public procurement regulations, and that it therefore fell outside the scope of the procurement legislation.