"image/png", "size"=>13146, "width"=>605, "height"=>520, "url_http"=>"http://rask.ee/photos/RASK_600x600.png", "url_https"=>"https://rask.ee/photos/RASK_600x600.png", "schemeless_url"=>"//rask.ee/photos/RASK_600x600.png", "url"=>"https://rask.ee/photos/RASK_600x600.png"}">

RASK handles VEKA engineering public procurement dispute.


RASK represented VEKA Engineering, whose joint offer in the public procurement was challenged.

The opponent’s claim was that the bidder recognized as successful should have been eliminated because it belongs to the same group with Infragate Estonia, who partially (for less than 20% of the total volume of work) performed the design work on the same procurement project. According to the opponent, the tenderer could thus obtain a competitive advantage from inside information.

In a complex dispute, the Public Procurement Review Committee confirmed and upheld the view of RASK Attorneys-at-Law that the link between Infragate and the successful bidder does not represent grounds for elimination within the meaning of the Public Procurement Act. The Review Committee also agreed that the Building Act provides for owner supervision over construction and not over design. Solely based on the fact the bidders belong to the same group it cannot be concluded that the owner supervision service provider deliberately overlooks the project’s weaknesses.