A small case from our legal prac\u00adtice: The bid\u00adder, our client, receives a rejec\u00adtion let\u00adter and it is sim\u00adply wrong, but this only becomes appar\u00adent lat\u00ader. What claims does the bid\u00adder have then? If, after receiv\u00ading this let\u00adter, the bid\u00adder has unnec\u00ades\u00adsar\u00adi\u00adly com\u00admis\u00adsioned a lawyer to review the award deci\u00adsion \u2014 unnec\u00ades\u00adsar\u00adi\u00adly, because the award deci\u00adsion was in fact quite dif\u00adfer\u00adent and the rejec\u00adtion let\u00adter was there\u00adfore sim\u00adply wrong \u2014 then the bid\u00adder will be reim\u00adbursed for the lawyer\u2019s fees. At least this is what the Region\u00adal Court of Chem\u00adnitz ruled in its final judg\u00adment of Novem\u00adber 29, 2022 (Case No. 3 S 52\/22). <\/p>\n
Facts of the case:<\/strong><\/p>\n In a rejec\u00adtion let\u00adter, the client informed our com\u00adpa\u00adny \u2014 which had applied for a strip\u00ading con\u00adtract \u2014 that it had achieved a top qual\u00adi\u00adty score, but that anoth\u00ader bid\u00adder had offered bet\u00adter and that this bid\u00adder would there\u00adfore be award\u00aded the con\u00adtract. Our client did not real\u00adly want to believe this, because she could hard\u00adly have been out\u00adbid in terms of qual\u00adi\u00adty, based on the clien\u00adt\u2019s com\u00admu\u00adni\u00adca\u00adtion, and she had also bid very well in terms of price. She there\u00adfore turned to us as a law firm and we sent a short let\u00adter of com\u00adplaint on her behalf, in which we crit\u00adi\u00adcized price-relat\u00aded aspects, includ\u00ading the fact that the client could at least not have been ade\u00adquate\u00adly under\u00adbid. The answer of the client was not long in com\u00ading. He informed us that in real\u00adi\u00adty the qual\u00adi\u00adty score was much low\u00ader than stat\u00aded in the rejec\u00adtion let\u00adter and that the client should there\u00adfore not be award\u00aded the con\u00adtract. A lit\u00adtle sur\u00adprised, we dis\u00adcussed this turn of events with the bid\u00adder. And he said quite dry\u00adly that he could imag\u00adine it. His con\u00adcepts had not seemed so good to him him\u00adself. If he had known right away that he would in fact have received much low\u00ader qual\u00adi\u00adty points, he would frankly nev\u00ader have com\u00admis\u00adsioned us. To our ears, this sound\u00aded like a case of dam\u00adages. Our client had only incurred the legal costs because of the false rejec\u00adtion let\u00adter, in which the qual\u00adi\u00adty points had been stat\u00aded to be much high\u00ader than they had actu\u00adal\u00adly been award\u00aded. If the client had been told the truth from the begin\u00adning, they would nev\u00ader have hired us. So we claimed our legal fees as dam\u00adages. <\/p>\n Deci\u00adsion:<\/strong><\/p>\n With suc\u00adcess! After the first instance did not real\u00adly like to fol\u00adlow our argu\u00admen\u00adta\u00adtion, the Region\u00adal Court Chem\u00adnitz saw it like us (judg\u00adment of 29.11.2022 \u2014 3 S 52\/22). The Region\u00adal Court based its deci\u00adsion on Sec\u00adtions 280 (1), 311 (1) No. 1, 241 (2) BGB. By inad\u00adver\u00adtent\u00adly pro\u00advid\u00ading the wrong infor\u00adma\u00adtion about the score, the con\u00adtract\u00ading author\u00adi\u00adty had vio\u00adlat\u00aded the duty of con\u00adsid\u00ader\u00ada\u00adtion aris\u00ading from the pre-con\u00adtrac\u00adtu\u00adal oblig\u00ada\u00adtion. This prompt\u00aded the bid\u00adder, our client, to have the award deci\u00adsion reviewed by our law firm. There\u00adfore, the bid\u00adder was enti\u00adtled to com\u00adpen\u00adsa\u00adtion for its attor\u00adney\u2019s fees, since this dam\u00adage was caused by the clien\u00adt\u2019s prin\u00adci\u00adpal. <\/p>\n Con\u00adclu\u00adsion:<\/strong><\/p>\n For pub\u00adlic clients, this deci\u00adsion is momen\u00adtous. You must pro\u00advide cor\u00adrect infor\u00adma\u00adtion under all cir\u00adcum\u00adstances, oth\u00ader\u00adwise you run the risk of being held liable for dam\u00adages. Also be care\u00adful if you pro\u00advide incom\u00adplete infor\u00adma\u00adtion. This can also oblige you \u2014 in indi\u00advid\u00adual cas\u00ades \u2014 to pay dam\u00adages. There\u00adfore, sub\u00admit your rejec\u00adtion let\u00adters to a lawyer for review if you fear a rep\u00adri\u00admand. The fol\u00adlow\u00ading applies to bid\u00adders and appli\u00adcants: You will often be reim\u00adbursed for legal fees. There\u00adfore, do not be afraid to go to a lawyer and have incor\u00adrect award deci\u00adsions reviewed. <\/p>\n\n *This legal tip is no sub\u00adsti\u00adtute for legal advice in indi\u00advid\u00adual cas\u00ades. By its very nature, it is incom\u00adplete, it does not relate to your case, and it also rep\u00adre\u00adsents a snap\u00adshot, as the legal basis and case law change over time. It can\u00adnot and does not cov\u00ader all con\u00adceiv\u00adable con\u00adstel\u00adla\u00adtions, serves main\u00adte\u00adnance and ini\u00adtial ori\u00aden\u00adta\u00adtion pur\u00adpos\u00ades and is intend\u00aded to moti\u00advate you to clar\u00adi\u00adfy legal issues at an ear\u00adly stage, but not to dis\u00adcour\u00adage you from doing so. <\/span><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A small case from our legal prac\u00adtice: The bid\u00adder, our client, receives a rejec\u00adtion let\u00adter and it is sim\u00adply wrong, but this only becomes appar\u00adent lat\u00ader. What claims does the bid\u00adder have then? If, after receiv\u00ading this let\u00adter, the bid\u00adder has unnec\u00ades\u00adsar\u00adi\u00adly com\u00admis\u00adsioned a lawyer to review the award deci\u00adsion \u2014 unnec\u00ades\u00adsar\u00adi\u00adly, because the award [\u2026]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":15897,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"wp_typography_post_enhancements_disabled":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[248],"tags":[],"team_kategorien":[],"lexikon_kategorie":[191,199,209],"class_list":["post-15980","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-jurisdiction","lexikon_kategorie-ablauf-des-vergabeverfahrens","lexikon_kategorie-principles-of-public-procurement-law","lexikon_kategorie-procedure-of-the-procurement-procedure"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15980","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15980"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15980\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15981,"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15980\/revisions\/15981"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/15897"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15980"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15980"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15980"},{"taxonomy":"team_kategorien","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/team_kategorien?post=15980"},{"taxonomy":"lexikon_kategorie","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/lexikon_kategorie?post=15980"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}