In its judgment of June 10, 2020, Sté BONAUD, the Council of State recalls that in application of article 13.4.2 of CCAG-TX, the holder of a public works contract can seize the administrative judge including via a provisional interim payment if, 30 days after the notification of the formal notice to the public purchaser for the establishment of the market statement, the latter still has not produced this account being then specified that the production of said counting during the proceedings does not make the request lose its object
The public purchaser freely determines the weighting of the criteria for judging the offers. However, it cannot legally use a weighting, in particular for the price criterion, which clearly would not allow, having regard to the characteristics of the market, to select the economically most advantageous offer. The control of the judge is however limited to a limited control concerning the relevance of the weighting chosen by the public purchaser.
Interest in contesting the validity of a contract by the regional council of the order of architects
The National Council of Architects and the Regional Council of the Order of Architects have standing to contest the validity of a contract entered into in violation of Law No. 77-2 of the Law of January 3, 1977 on architecture. On the other hand, they have no quality to contest the reasons retained by a public buyer to legally resort to a design-build contract.
Incompetence of the judge of the pre-contractual summary procedure to control the competence of the public purchaser who launches the procedure!
In this case, the Council of State confirms its case-law according to which it is not for the judge of the pre-contractual summary procedure to control the competence of the public purchaser who launches the procedure. The sole circumstance that the procedure for the conclusion of the contract is initiated and conducted by a public person who is not yet competent to sign it does not result in the irregularity of the procedure for the conclusion of the procedure.
The bottom line: The publication of an award notice which mentions both the conclusion of the contract and the terms of its consultation makes it possible to start the period for appealing against the contract, regardless of whether it is does not indicate the date of conclusion of the contract.
An ousted candidate who has submitted an irregular offer may contest the award of the contract to an offer which is also irregular
The Council of State now considers that within the framework of a pre-contractual or contractual summary procedure, the fact that the offer of the ousted competitor is irregular does not prevent it from being able to take advantage of the irregularity of the offer of the company awarded the contract to obtain the cancellation of the procedure or the contract. In this hypothesis, the judge in summary proceedings cannot invoke the irregularity of the offer of the ousted candidate and must examine the regularity of the offer of the successful candidate.
When a local taxpayer disputes the validity of a contract, it is his responsibility to establish that the agreement or the clauses whose validity he disputes are likely to have significant consequences on the finances or the heritage of the community. The Council of State also specifies the possibility of claiming the cancellation of an already terminated contract.
In this case, the Council of State recalls that when a public contract is terminated before the advance can be reimbursed by withholding tax on the services due, the public buyer can obtain the reimbursement of the advance paid to the contractor or its subcontractor subject to the expenses they have incurred and which correspond to services provided on the market and actually carried out. And when the subcontractor is obliged to reimburse the advance due to a fault on the part of the holder, he may incur his liability up to the costs incurred for the performance of the services envisaged.
In this case, the Council of State provides useful details on the extent of the right to compensation of an ousted candidate when the irregularity affects the very choice of the procedure for awarding a contract launched by the public purchaser , as for example, in the event of irregular use of the competitive dialogue procedure for the award of a public contract or, as in the present case, in the award of a contract according to the procedure of delegation of public service to place of a public procurement procedure.
Combining ethics and the public market surprises as the terms are so distant. Initially, ethics and the public market represented exclusively the purchase devoid of any criminal reprehensible influence. This conception has evolved to penetrate the sphere of defining the needs of buyers. So, ethics in the public market has become the rule requiring buyers to seek the most economically advantageous offer. It is no longer enough to acquire the least, the law requires make the best choice.