The appro\u00adpri\u00adate\u00adness of the time lim\u00adit for obtain\u00ading reserved state\u00adments depends on the cir\u00adcum\u00adstances of the indi\u00advid\u00adual case, although a peri\u00adod of 6 work\u00ading days is gen\u00ader\u00adal\u00adly too short.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The invi\u00adta\u00adtion to ten\u00adder was for shell con\u00adstruc\u00adtion work. With\u00adin the scope of a rep\u00ade\u00adti\u00adtion of the bid review, the respon\u00addent request\u00aded the appli\u00adcant to sub\u00admit dec\u00adla\u00adra\u00adtions of com\u00admit\u00adment for the sub\u00adcon\u00adtrac\u00adtor ser\u00advices named in the bid with\u00adin 2.5 work\u00ading days. The respon\u00addent had reserved the right to sub\u00admit sub\u00adcon\u00adtrac\u00adtor ser\u00advices in the award doc\u00adu\u00adments (cf. Sec\u00adtion 16 No. 4 EU VOB\/A). The appli\u00adcant com\u00adplied with this request, but did not adhere to the dead\u00adline set by the respon\u00addent. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
There\u00adupon, the respon\u00addent exclud\u00aded the bid of the appli\u00adcant. The respon\u00addent reject\u00aded the appli\u00adcan\u00adt\u2019s com\u00adplaint direct\u00aded against this. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
By way of the review pro\u00adce\u00addure, the appli\u00adcant claims that the exclu\u00adsion of its bid is unlaw\u00adful due to the unrea\u00adson\u00adably short dead\u00adline set by the con\u00adtract\u00ading author\u00adi\u00adty.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The VK has decid\u00aded that the appro\u00adpri\u00adate\u00adness of a time lim\u00adit for the sub\u00admis\u00adsion of evi\u00addence or dec\u00adla\u00adra\u00adtions with\u00adin the mean\u00ading of Sec\u00adtion 16 No. 4 EUVOB\/A, which the con\u00adtract\u00ading author\u00adi\u00adty has reserved for itself, must always be deter\u00admined on the basis of the cir\u00adcum\u00adstances in the indi\u00advid\u00adual case.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The more impor\u00adtant and time-con\u00adsum\u00ading it is to obtain a dec\u00adla\u00adra\u00adtion, the longer the dead\u00adline must be. This applies in par\u00adtic\u00adu\u00adlar if the bid\u00adder is depen\u00addent on the coop\u00ader\u00ada\u00adtion of third par\u00adties (author\u00adi\u00adties, sub\u00adcon\u00adtrac\u00adtors) to obtain a dec\u00adla\u00adra\u00adtion. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
There is no oblig\u00ada\u00adtion on the part of the bid\u00adder to obtain such evi\u00addence as a pre\u00adcau\u00adtion\u00adary mea\u00adsure before sub\u00admit\u00adting a bid.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
A peri\u00adod of 6 days for request\u00ading reserved doc\u00adu\u00adments is usu\u00adal\u00adly not suf\u00adfi\u00adcient, and a peri\u00adod of less than one week is usu\u00adal\u00adly unrea\u00adson\u00adable.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
A dis\u00adtinc\u00adtion must be made between the dead\u00adline for the sub\u00admis\u00adsion of doc\u00adu\u00adments request\u00aded by the con\u00adtract\u00ading author\u00adi\u00adty for the first time and the dead\u00adline with\u00adin which the con\u00adtract\u00ading author\u00adi\u00adty gives the ten\u00adder\u00ader the oppor\u00adtu\u00adni\u00adty to sub\u00admit miss\u00ading doc\u00adu\u00adments.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The lat\u00adter is reg\u00adu\u00adlat\u00aded in Sec\u00adtion 16a (4) sen\u00adtence 2 VOB\/A EU. Accord\u00ading\u00adly, the peri\u00adod for the sub\u00adse\u00adquent sub\u00admis\u00adsion of miss\u00ading doc\u00adu\u00adments shall not exceed six cal\u00aden\u00addar days. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\u00a7 Sec\u00adtion 16 No. 4 VOB\/A EU, on the oth\u00ader hand, reg\u00adu\u00adlates the case where the con\u00adtract\u00ading author\u00adi\u00adty requests doc\u00adu\u00adments for the first time which it has reserved the right to sub\u00admit in the ten\u00adder doc\u00adu\u00adments.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Accord\u00ading\u00adly, a dif\u00adfer\u00adent sub\u00admis\u00adsion dead\u00adline may be set for the ini\u00adtial request for doc\u00adu\u00adments.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In its deci\u00adsion of 14.12.2015 (Ref.: 13 Verg 9\/15), the High\u00ader Region\u00adal Court of Celle ruled that an unrea\u00adson\u00adably short dead\u00adline in pub\u00adlic pro\u00adcure\u00adment law does not set a rea\u00adson\u00adable dead\u00adline in motion. In this case, the con\u00adtract\u00ading author\u00adi\u00adty must set the bid\u00adder a new, rea\u00adson\u00adable dead\u00adline. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n