Art. 1 Interkantonale Vereinbarung über das öffentliche Beschaffungswesen (IVöB) - Gegenstand

B.2020.195 · sg (Art. 1 Abs. 3 lit. d IVöB)

Price Evaluation Model Unlawful but Award Upheld Due to Tie-Breaking Rule

Cited to support the principle that choosing the cheaper offer in case of a tie respects the economic use of public funds.

B.2020.195 · sg (Art. 1 Abs. 3 lit. d IVöB)

Procurement Appeal Regarding Unlawful Price Scoring Method in Contract Award

Cited in the reasoning supporting the decision to award the contract to the cheaper bidder in case of a tie, which was the outcome after correcting the pricing score.

B.2020.43 · sg (Art. 1 Abs. 3 lit. c IVöB)

Improper Document Replacement in Public Contract Award

The violation of this provision (transparency requirement) was the basis for overturning the award decision.

B.2020.43 · sg (Art. 1 Abs. 3 lit. c IVöB)

Public Contract Award Annulled Due to Post-Tender Bid Modification and Lack of Documentation

The court implicitly based its finding that the transparency requirement (Transparenzgebot) was violated on this provision, which is cited in the reasoning leading to the decision.

B.2017.129 · sg (Art. 1 Abs. 3 lit. c IVöB)

Procurement Challenge Dismissed: Technical Solution Evaluation Upheld

This provision relates to the public procurement law applicable to the case, which forms the basis for the substantive decision on the merits of the appeal.

B.2017.129 · sg (Art. 1 Abs. 3 lit. c IVöB)

Public Contract Award Challenge Dismissed Due to Non-Compliance with Specified Technical Parameters

This provision, concerning the transparency of procurement procedures, is cited in the reasoning related to the assessment of the technical solution, which underlies the decision to dismiss the appeal (though the direct reference to dismissal is in the dispositive using procedural rules).

B.2017.251.und.B.2017.253 · sg (Art. 1 Abs. 3 lit. b IVöB)

Appeal Against Modification of Tender Documents After Prequalification

Cited as a general principle relevant to the merits analysis leading to the granting of suspensive effect.

B.2017.251.und.B.2017.253 · sg (Art. 1 Abs. 3 lit. c IVöB)

Appeal Against Modification of Tender Documents After Prequalification

Cited as the transparency principle relevant to the merits analysis leading to the granting of suspensive effect.

B.2017.251.und.B.201 · sg (Art. 1 Abs. 3 Ingress und lit. b sowie Art. 11 Ingress und lit. a IVöB)

Applicants v. Awarding Authority Regarding Post-Prequalification Tender Modification and Suspensive Effect

Cited in the reasoning to establish the procurement law principle of equal treatment of bidders.

B.2017.251.und.B.201 · sg (Art. 1 Abs. 3 Ingress und lit. c IVöB)

Applicants v. Awarding Authority Regarding Post-Prequalification Tender Modification and Suspensive Effect

Cited in the reasoning regarding the transparency requirement binding the contracting authority to the tendering documents.

B.2017.36 · sg (Art. 1 Abs. 3 lit. a IVöB)

Selective Procedure Pool Reduction Challenge

The subsequent restriction to three bidders was deemed contrary to a central goal of procurement law, which this article outlines.

B.2017.36 · sg (Art. 1 Abs. 3 Ingress und lit. a IVöB)

Challenger v. Public Procurement Authority Regarding Tender Invitation Limitation

Cited in the reasoning as a central objective of procurement law, which the restriction on the number of bidders contradicted.

B.2015.104 · sg (Art. 1 Abs. 3 lit. c IVöB)

Administrative Court Overturns Elevator Supply Award Due to Unclear Maintenance Cost Discrepancy

Cited as the legal basis for the principle of transparency which was violated by the inconsistency in the award decision.

B.2015.104 · sg (Art. 1 Abs. 3 lit. c IVöB)

Contract Award Annulled Due to Price Discrepancy and Transparency Violation

The final decision (Order 1) implicitly validates the grounds for appeal based on a violation of the transparency requirement, which is rooted in this article cited in the reasoning section 2.2 regarding the contradiction in the contract's essential elements.

B.2015.188 · sg (Art. 1 Abs. 3 lit. b IVöB)

Bid Exclusion Upheld Due to Non-Compliant Server Specifications

Cited in the reasoning regarding the principle of equal treatment, which is central to the assessment of the exclusion decision.