Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
730.500 CIAPIVöBCIMP CH-TI

Art. 12 CIAP Concordato intercantonale sugli appalti pubblici (CIAP)

CIAP
Apri la fonte ufficiale Atto completo (24 Articoli) Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Art. 12 CIAP

1 Si distinguono i seguenti tipi di procedura

a) il pubblico concorso, con cui il committente mette pubblicamente a concorso la commessa prevista e tutti gli offerenti possono presentare un’offerta;

b) la procedura selettiva, con cui il committente mette pubblicamente a concorso la commessa prevista.

Tutti gli offerenti possono presentare una domanda di partecipazione. Il committente stabilisce, in base ai criteri di idoneità, quali offerenti possono presentare un’offerta. Il committente può limitare nell’avviso di gara il numero degli offerenti invitati a presentare un’offerta, nel caso in cui altrimenti l’aggiudicazione della commessa non potrebbe svolgersi in modo efficiente. Una concorrenza efficace deve essere garantita;

b. bis la procedura mediante invito, nella quale il committente stabilisce quali offerenti sono direttamente invitati a presentare un’offerta, senza bando di concorso. Il committente deve richiedere se possibile almeno tre offerte;

c) l’incarico diretto , con cui il committente aggiudica una commessa direttamente, senza bando di concorso.

2 (...)

3 Chi indice un concorso di pianificazione o per prestazioni globali, stabilisce la procedura caso per caso conformemente ai principi del presente Concordato. Al riguardo, il committente può rinviare in tutto o in parte alle disposizioni pertinenti di associazioni specializzate, sempre che simili disposizioni non siano contrarie ai principi del presente Concordato.

← Art. 11 CIAP Concordato intercantonale sugli appalti pubblici (CIAP) Art. 12bis CIAP →

Ti chiedi come si applica questa disposizione alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa norma insieme alla giurisprudenza, ai commentari e alle disposizioni correlate in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Decisioni giudiziarie che applicano questa disposizione (22)

52.2015.239 · ti (art. 12 RLCPubb/CIAP)
Consortium Exclusion from Public Tender Due to Non-Compliant Rate Calculation and Submission Irregularities
Cited in consideration 4.3 as the rule indicating that bidders should have addressed inquiries to the client.
52.2010.233 · ti (art. 12 bis CIAP)
Contract Award Overturned Due to Improper Procurement Procedure
Cited in the final orders as a basis for reviewing the admissibility of the procedure chosen by the contracting authority.
52.2002.244 · ti (art. 12 CIAP)
Consortium Appeal of Highway Maintenance Contract Award Based on Bid Non-Conformity
Cited among the provisions considered when making the final orders regarding the acceptance of the appeals.
52.2001.389 · ti (Art. 12 CIAP)
Engineering Firms v. Municipality on Disqualification from Public Works Tender
Cited in the final section as a legal basis considered for the decision.
52.2001.260 · ti (art. 12 CIAP)
Consortia Appeals: Motorway Contract Award Over Overhead Charge Deviation
Cited in the final section listing the provisions applied, relating to the criteria for pre-qualification (idoneità).
52.2001.276 · ti (art. 6, 7, 12, 15 CIAP)
Challenge to Restricted Bidding Process and Contract Evaluation Upheld
These articles relate to the substantive and procedural basis for the decision on the appeal concerning the selection procedure, as the appeal was rejected based on findings related to these laws.
52.2001.180 · ti (Art. 12 CIAP)
Waste Disposal Consortium Resolution Challenge and Contract Award Standing
Cited in the preamble to the decision, relevant to the direct award procedure discussed, although the decision was rejected on standing.
52.2001.126 · ti (Art. 12 cpv. 1 lett. b CIAP)
Concessionaire Challenge to State Waste Incineration Tender Dismissed
Cited in the final ruling preamble, concerning the selection procedure basis for the competition.
52.2001.8 · ti (art. 12 CIAP)
Engineers' Consortium Barred from Challenging Flawed Tender Procedure After Participation
Cited among the provisions used to justify the decision.
52.2001.8 · ti (art. 12 CIAP)
Engineers' Consortium Barred from Challenging Flawed Tender Procedure After Participation
The court implicitly uses this article to establish that the procedure chosen (invite competition) was not one of the types listed therein, justifying the rejection of the appeal based on procedural irregularities, although the appeal itself was rejected on grounds of bad faith/untimeliness regarding the procedural objection.
52.2001.10 · ti (art. 12 CIAP)
Appeal Against Painting Contract Award Based on Insufficient Suitability Criteria
Cited in the final orders preamble, relating to the general procedure for one-phase tenders, though the annulment is based on procedural defects (§ 19 DirCIAP).
52.1998.90 · ti (art. 11, 12, 15, 16, 18 CIAP)
Land Consolidation Consortium Prequalification Ranking Appeal Dismissed
These articles relate to the public procurement law governing the selection criteria and the review of the administrative body's discretionary power, forming the substantive basis for rejecting the appeals regarding the selection process.
52.2001.126 · ti (art. 12 cpv. 1 lett. b CIAP)
Concessionaire Challenge to New Waste Plant Tender Rejected
Cited in the final orders regarding the type of procedure used for the procurement.
52.2001.180 · ti (art. 12 CIAP)
Cantonal Court Confirmation of Waste Consortium's Contract Award and Press Installation Despite Lack of Building Permit Application, Dismissing Appeals for Lack of Standing.
Cited in the final order's reference list regarding the direct assignment procedure.
52.2001.180 · ti (art. 12 CIAP)
Cantonal Court Confirmation of Waste Consortium's Contract Award and Press Installation Despite Lack of Building Permit Application, Dismissing Appeals for Lack of Standing.
Cited in the final order's reference list; mentioned in the reasoning as the basis for the direct award procedure used by the consortium.