The Legal Battle for Designed Capital Architecture

They even tried to use the last card, which once did not start.

They were already in the final phase and the winner of the 12 million tender was known: it was exactly the consortium created between “Anarch” and “Ardi C”, which was the same name as the tender that won “Capital architect service”.

This consortium was able to complain again to the Tender Court and complaint came just a few days after this court dismissed all the facts they sent for trial, although this time it sent evidence to less.

According to economic operator, the winning company “Capital architectial service” was inexplicable from the beginning after failing to submit the financial proposal under the form determined by the contracting authority.

They claimed that the winning company had changed the format by erasing the orientation column at %.

In fact, according to them, the winner's financial proposal even submitted an irresponsible and irregular offer, which they said economic operator “Capital architect service” IT IS LIGHT AND TRADIAL E PLAYERS AND PLANTS CAPPPED BY CRPP, which the bidding assessment commission was to seek for the immediate disqualification.

This operator had another complaint against the winner, alluding that the winner was more expensive than they would:

“On the date 3105.23 is sent to email and released in the e-procurement notification of the AK ruling of 30.05,2023. We are known in this announcement for a new bidding value for the GOE The architect's Service of the run-in capital of 78,152.38, and that the price of 394,984.55m read, marked and signed by the parties in the Tender Opening Process had been the entity price, contrary to the 27.14 mark of the rule 0 01,202218x1>.

Taking to heart the facts he had attached to the 16 June complaint this conzerocium coming from Albania, which was in the composition of “Geokosalt &co” and “Instant.al”, in addition to opposing the winner, stressed the fact that the Pristina Parliament had opened a tender procedure with the default winners.

“has erased the positioning column in the format of applying the financial offer in opposition to the 44th point of the Rule of 0012022, to confuse and inaccurate their financial offer, making the offer irresponsible and irregular. The price launched by the Economic Operator Capital's Architectural Service, read and confirmed by signing at the tender opening Verbal Process, is 394,984.55, and as such is the highest price offered for this procedure, classifying this OE as the second row. The price given in the tender formula cannot be changed, and it is only the value to be considered during the financial assessment of the bid”.

From the AK, their calculations have been made differently than those expressed in the bidding form, at prices that do not result in anywhere in the offer submitted by the capital's OE Architecture Service.

According to them, the Law of Public Procurement has been violated.

But before ten days after the complaint, the Tent Court gave them their last slap.

On June 26, 2023, the Research Organization made a second decision and did not engage any investigative experts at all, since it estimated that the complainer did not have the status of the interest party.

In this decision on June 26th, which holds the signing of Vedat Potterqu as chairman of the Research Panel, which is the same one that had made the second decision, said the key authority was based on three facts, which were contested by operators -- the cheaper price, responsible operator and the fact that, according to them, had not applied any material change in the tender file.