841.51
IVÖBAIMP
CH-SG
CH-SG
Art. 16 Interkantonale Vereinbarung über das öffentliche Beschaffungswesen (IVöB) - Schwellenwerte
4. Kapitel: Vergabeverfahren
Art. 16 IVöB · Schwellenwerte
1. Die Wahl des Verfahrens richtet sich danach, ob ein Auftrag einen Schwellenwert nach den Anhängen 1 und 2 erreicht. Das InöB passt die Schwellenwerte nach Konsultation des Bundesrates periodisch gemäss den internationalen Verpflichtungen an.
2. Bei einer Anpassung der internationalen Verpflichtungen hinsichtlich der Schwellenwerte garantiert der Bund den Kantonen die Mitwirkung.
3. Erreicht der Gesamtwert mehrerer Bauleistungen für die Realisierung eines Bauwerks den Schwellenwert des Staatsvertragsbereichs, so finden die Bestimmungen dieser Vereinbarung für Beschaffungen im Staatsvertragsbereich Anwendung. Erreichen jedoch die Werte der einzelnen Leistungen nicht zwei Millionen Franken und überschreitet der Wert dieser Leistungen zusammengerechnet nicht 20 Prozent des Gesamtwerts des Bauwerks, so finden für diese Leistungen die Bestimmungen für Beschaffungen ausserhalb des Staatsvertragsbereichs Anwendung (Bagatellklausel).
4. Ausserhalb des Staatsvertragsbereichs wird das massgebliche Verfahren für Bauleistungen anhand des Wertes der einzelnen Leistungen bestimmt.
Gerichtsentscheide zu dieser Bestimmung (57)
B.2017.84 · sg (Art. 16 Abs. 2 IVöB)
Contract Award Annulled Due to Flawed Price and Quality Evaluation Scoring
Cited as the provision limiting the Administrative Court's power to interfere with the lower authority's discretionary assessment during re-evaluation.
B.2017.146 · sg (Art. 16 Abs. 2 IVöB)
Contract Award Dispute Dismissed Pending Full Review
Cited in the reasoning (E. 3.4.1 and E. 3.4.8) regarding the limitation of the court's review to legal control, which underpins the decision not to suspend the effect.
B.2017.146 · sg (Art. 16 Abs. 1 IVöB)
Administrative Court Dismisses Appeal Against Program Award Decision Due to Insufficient Substantiation
Cited in the reasoning regarding the scope of judicial review and procedural requirements for the appeal, which influences the dismissal of the appeal.
B.2017.135 · sg (Art. 16 Abs. 2 IVöB)
Suspensive Effect Denied in Public Contract Award Appeal Due to Insufficient Substantiation
Cited in the reasoning (E. 3.3) to justify that the court cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the authority regarding the assessment criteria.
B.2017.135 · sg (Art. 16 Abs. 2 IVöB)
Appeal Dismissed in Contract Award Dispute Over Re-integration Program
Cited in conjunction with Art. 5 Abs. 1 EGöB to confirm that the court cannot intervene in the margin of appreciation used by the authority regarding the scoring criteria.
B.2017.132 · sg (Art. 16 Abs. 1 und 2 IVöB)
Engineering Firms Challenge Road Redesign Contract Award Criteria
Cited in the reasoning (E. 4.4) regarding the limited scope of judicial review over weighting of award criteria.
B.2016.116 · sg (Art. 16 Abs. 2 IVöB)
Public Contract Award Challenge Dismissed Despite Minor Procedural Flaw
This article (cited in the heading but not explicitly in the dispositive) is contextually linked to the assessment of the appeal grounds regarding the evaluation criteria, although the final decision rests on other grounds and procedural rules.
B.2016.85 · sg (Art. 16 Abs. 2 IVöB)
Rejection of Appeal Against Job Coaching Award Decision Based on Pricing and Leadership Evaluation
Cited to confirm that the inadequacy of the award decision cannot be challenged before the administrative court regarding the assessment of premises.
B.2016.26 · sg (Art. 16 Abs. 2 IVöB)
Challenge to Public Works Contract Award Denied Due to Contract Evaluation Discretion
Cited in the reasoning to state that the court cannot intervene in the discretion of the awarding authority regarding the evaluation of reference objects.
B.2016.26 · sg (Art. 16 Abs. 2 IVöB)
Procurement Appeal Against Heating Plant Award Dismissed Due to Lack of Substantiation
Cited in the reasoning as the legal basis allowing the court not to intervene in the procuring authority's discretionary margin regarding reference object evaluations.
B.2014.145 · sg (Art. 16 IVöB)
Contract Award Challenge Granted Suspensive Effect Due to Bid Deficiencies
Cited as the procedural basis allowing complaints regarding legal violations in public procurement review.
B.2014.61 · sg (Art. 16 Abs. 1 und 2 IVöB)
Suspensive Effect Granted in Public Contract Appeal Over Price Evaluation Uncertainty
Cited to support the rule that only incorrect or incomplete determination of facts and legal violations (including abuse of discretion) can be challenged, not inappropriateness.
B.2014.21 · sg (Art. 16 Abs. 1 und 2 IVöB)
Procurement Award Suspension Due to Irregularities in Award Criteria and Reference Projects
Mentioned in the reasoning regarding the scope of complaint (factual findings and legal violations), but not explicitly cited in the dispositive orders 1-4.
B.2014.21 · sg (Art. 16 Abs. 1 und 2 IVöB)
Suspension of Public Procurement Award Due to Transparency Violations and Procedural Errors
Cited in the reasoning to describe the scope of review regarding factual findings and legal violations in the appeal, but not explicitly cited in the dispositive orders.
B.2013.46 · sg (Art. 16 Abs. 1 IVöB)
Public Procurement Transparency Violation and Award Annulment
This provision was used to confirm the grounds upon which the appeal could be based, although the substantive issue was decided based on Art. 18.