<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The plain\u00adtiff applied for the con\u00adtract for road con\u00adstruc\u00adtion work. Soil and rock had to be removed from the exca\u00adva\u00adtion area and dis\u00adposed of. The plain\u00adtiff is now claim\u00ading addi\u00adtion\u00adal costs from a sup\u00adple\u00adment because a dif\u00adfer\u00adent soil qual\u00adi\u00adty was found dur\u00ading the exe\u00adcu\u00adtion of the work than that spec\u00adi\u00adfied in the award doc\u00adu\u00adments. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
As is so often the case, the start\u00ading point was a con\u00adtra\u00addic\u00adto\u00adry per\u00adfor\u00admance spec\u00adi\u00adfi\u00adca\u00adtion. In the con\u00adstruc\u00adtion descrip\u00adtion, it was stat\u00aded with regard to the soil prop\u00ader\u00adties and geo\u00adlog\u00adi\u00adcal con\u00addi\u00adtions that the exist\u00ading soils could not be assigned to any par\u00adtic\u00adu\u00adlar instal\u00adla\u00adtion class in accor\u00addance with LAGA M 20 (Code of Prac\u00adtice 20 of the Ger\u00adman Waste Man\u00adage\u00adment Asso\u00adci\u00ada\u00adtion). Accord\u00ading\u00adly, the defen\u00addant pub\u00adlic con\u00adtrac\u00adtor did not make any clas\u00adsi\u00adfi\u00adca\u00adtion in the reg\u00adu\u00adla\u00adto\u00adry part of the bill of quan\u00adti\u00adties. It also stat\u00aded: \u201csoil not requir\u00ading mon\u00adi\u00adtor\u00ading\u201d. In con\u00adtrast, the like\u00adwise enclosed expert opin\u00adion pro\u00adposed to treat \u201cthe soil anal\u00ado\u00adgous to the instal\u00adla\u00adtion class Z 1.1 of the rec\u00adom\u00admen\u00adda\u00adtions of the LAGA\u201d. In addi\u00adtion, there were con\u00adspic\u00adu\u00adous\u00adly high heavy met\u00adal con\u00adtents in the elu\u00adate. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
When the lat\u00ader con\u00adtrac\u00adtor or plain\u00adtiff (at that time still a mere par\u00adtic\u00adi\u00adpant in the award\u00ading process) point\u00aded out that the expert opin\u00adion and the spec\u00adi\u00adfi\u00adca\u00adtions did not match, the client amend\u00aded the spec\u00adi\u00adfi\u00adca\u00adtions. Name\u00adly, he clas\u00adsi\u00adfied the soils to be solved and recy\u00adcled in the reg\u00adu\u00adlat\u00ading part of the spec\u00adi\u00adfi\u00adca\u00adtions, which he amend\u00aded quick\u00adly before the sub\u00admis\u00adsion, in LAGA Z.1.1. It also now said: \u201cSoil requir\u00ading spe\u00adcial mon\u00adi\u00adtor\u00ading\u201d. Fur\u00adther\u00admore, the soils were to be \u201cdis\u00adposed of\u201d. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
After receiv\u00ading the order, the plain\u00adtiff con\u00adtact\u00aded an expert office direct\u00adly and had the soils exam\u00adined. The new expert opin\u00adion came to the con\u00adclu\u00adsion that two mixed soil sam\u00adples were to be assigned to an instal\u00adla\u00adtion class >Z 2 and one mixed soil sam\u00adple to instal\u00adla\u00adtion class Z.1.2 of the LAGA rec\u00adom\u00admen\u00adda\u00adtions. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
This was the begin\u00adning of the dis\u00adpute. The lat\u00ader plain\u00adtiff claimed addi\u00adtion\u00adal costs, which the client reject\u00aded. The plain\u00adtiff then filed a claim for obstruc\u00adtion, which was also reject\u00aded by the client, who was lat\u00ader the defen\u00addant. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
A few months lat\u00ader, the mine oper\u00ada\u00adtor refused to accept the deliv\u00adered exca\u00advat\u00aded soils. The soils fell under the LAGA Z.1.2. instal\u00adla\u00adtion class; this was the result of a fur\u00adther expert opin\u00adion, this time prob\u00ada\u00adbly obtained by the mine oper\u00ada\u00adtor. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The plain\u00adtiff then again report\u00aded con\u00adcerns, obstruc\u00adtion and addi\u00adtion\u00adal costs to the defen\u00addant client. It was then agreed to obtain a joint expert opin\u00adion. This came to the con\u00adclu\u00adsion that the recy\u00adcling could take place in the sand pit of the mine oper\u00ada\u00adtor. This was actu\u00adal\u00adly good news for the defen\u00addant client. But, of course, this did not meet with much approval from the plain\u00adtiff, who \u2014 with a new expert opin\u00adion \u2014 con\u00adtin\u00adued to reject the instal\u00adla\u00adtion in the pit. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In fact, instal\u00adla\u00adtion in the pit occurred to the extent of 89%. The instal\u00adla\u00adtion is said to have been treat\u00aded dif\u00adfer\u00adent\u00adly in part on site, which is said to have caused addi\u00adtion\u00adal costs. A con\u00adsid\u00ader\u00adable part was installed else\u00adwhere; the client paid for this sep\u00ada\u00adrate\u00adly. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The court reject\u00aded the claims for reim\u00adburse\u00adment of addi\u00adtion\u00adal costs and dam\u00adages. The plain\u00adtiff was right inso\u00adfar as the clas\u00adsi\u00adfi\u00adca\u00adtion in instal\u00adla\u00adtion class LAGA Z.1.1 had been wrong. How\u00adev\u00ader, the rel\u00ade\u00advant item in the bill of quan\u00adti\u00adties had been rec\u00adog\u00adniz\u00adably incor\u00adrect. In this case, the plain\u00adtiff had vio\u00adlat\u00aded its duty to check and point out. It could not claim any trust wor\u00adthy of pro\u00adtec\u00adtion. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The court derives the rec\u00adog\u00adniz\u00adable defec\u00adtive\u00adness of the bill of quan\u00adti\u00adties from sev\u00ader\u00adal cir\u00adcum\u00adstances. First, it empha\u00adsizes the gen\u00ader\u00adal prin\u00adci\u00adples. In the inter\u00adpre\u00adta\u00adtion of the build\u00ading spec\u00adi\u00adfi\u00adca\u00adtion, the word\u00ading, the spe\u00adcial cir\u00adcum\u00adstances of the indi\u00advid\u00adual case, the cus\u00adtom of the trade and the prin\u00adci\u00adples of good faith are to be tak\u00aden into account. Pur\u00adsuant to Sec\u00adtions 133, 157 of the Ger\u00adman Civ\u00adil Code (BGB), the inter\u00adpre\u00adta\u00adtion must always be made accord\u00ading to the objec\u00adtive hori\u00adzon of the poten\u00adtial bid\u00adders. It is true that in the spec\u00adi\u00adfi\u00adca\u00adtions a clas\u00adsi\u00adfi\u00adca\u00adtion accord\u00ading to LAGA Z.1.1. is express\u00adly made \u2014 in the opin\u00adion of the court expert: incor\u00adrect\u00adly. How\u00adev\u00ader, this alone was not impor\u00adtant: The rest of the item text and the oth\u00ader ten\u00adder doc\u00adu\u00adments had to be tak\u00aden into account just as much as the his\u00adto\u00adry, i.e. how this clas\u00adsi\u00adfi\u00adca\u00adtion had come about in the reg\u00adu\u00adlat\u00ading part of the bill of quan\u00adti\u00adties. Thus the changed posi\u00adtion text con\u00adtained ref\u00ader\u00adences (e.g. \u201cpar\u00adtic\u00adu\u00adlar\u00adly in need of super\u00advi\u00adsion\u201d), which could not be clas\u00adsi\u00adfied legal\u00adly beyond doubt, but which had to be inter\u00adpret\u00aded as a warn\u00ading. Fur\u00adther\u00admore, the word \u201cdis\u00adpose of\u201d in the amend\u00aded ver\u00adsion of the bill of quan\u00adti\u00adties indi\u00adcat\u00aded, accord\u00ading to the gen\u00ader\u00adal under\u00adstand\u00ading of the lan\u00adguage, that it was about recy\u00adclable soils in the sense of LAGA Z.1.2 \u2014 and pre\u00adcise\u00adly not about cas\u00ades of LAGA Z.1.1. In addi\u00adtion, accord\u00ading to the OLG, the amend\u00adment of the bill of quan\u00adti\u00adties that took place short\u00adly before the sub\u00admis\u00adsion was based pre\u00adcise\u00adly on a request by the plain\u00adtiff. The plain\u00adtiff had ulti\u00admate\u00adly brought about the changes in the word\u00ading itself and must have rec\u00adog\u00adnized them accord\u00ading\u00adly. Fur\u00adther\u00admore, the clas\u00adsi\u00adfi\u00adca\u00adtion accord\u00ading to LAGA Z.1.1. could not be rec\u00adon\u00adciled with the expert opin\u00adion which had been attached to the bill of quan\u00adti\u00adties and which itself explained why such a clas\u00adsi\u00adfi\u00adca\u00adtion was not pos\u00adsi\u00adble. Trans\u00adlat\u00aded with www.DeepL.com\/Translator (free ver\u00adsion) <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The court derives the rec\u00adog\u00adniz\u00adable defec\u00adtive\u00adness of the bill of quan\u00adti\u00adties from sev\u00ader\u00adal cir\u00adcum\u00adstances. First, it empha\u00adsizes the gen\u00ader\u00adal prin\u00adci\u00adples. In the inter\u00adpre\u00adta\u00adtion of the build\u00ading spec\u00adi\u00adfi\u00adca\u00adtion, the word\u00ading, the spe\u00adcial cir\u00adcum\u00adstances of the indi\u00advid\u00adual case, the cus\u00adtom of the trade and the prin\u00adci\u00adples of good faith are to be tak\u00aden into account. Pur\u00adsuant to Sec\u00adtions 133, 157 of the Ger\u00adman Civ\u00adil Code (BGB), the inter\u00adpre\u00adta\u00adtion must always be made accord\u00ading to the objec\u00adtive hori\u00adzon of the poten\u00adtial bid\u00adders. It is true that in the spec\u00adi\u00adfi\u00adca\u00adtions a clas\u00adsi\u00adfi\u00adca\u00adtion accord\u00ading to LAGA Z.1.1. is express\u00adly made \u2014 in the opin\u00adion of the court expert: incor\u00adrect\u00adly. How\u00adev\u00ader, this alone was not impor\u00adtant: The rest of the item text and the oth\u00ader ten\u00adder doc\u00adu\u00adments had to be tak\u00aden into account just as much as the his\u00adto\u00adry, i.e. how this clas\u00adsi\u00adfi\u00adca\u00adtion had come about in the reg\u00adu\u00adlat\u00ading part of the bill of quan\u00adti\u00adties. Thus the changed posi\u00adtion text con\u00adtained ref\u00ader\u00adences (e.g. \u201cpar\u00adtic\u00adu\u00adlar\u00adly in need of super\u00advi\u00adsion\u201d), which could not be clas\u00adsi\u00adfied legal\u00adly beyond doubt, but which had to be inter\u00adpret\u00aded as a warn\u00ading. Fur\u00adther\u00admore, the word \u201cdis\u00adpose of\u201d in the amend\u00aded ver\u00adsion of the bill of quan\u00adti\u00adties indi\u00adcat\u00aded, accord\u00ading to the gen\u00ader\u00adal under\u00adstand\u00ading of the lan\u00adguage, that it was about recy\u00adclable soils in the sense of LAGA Z.1.2 \u2014 and pre\u00adcise\u00adly not about cas\u00ades of LAGA Z.1.1. In addi\u00adtion, accord\u00ading to the High\u00ader Region\u00adal Court, the amend\u00adment of the bill of quan\u00adti\u00adties that took place short\u00adly before the sub\u00admis\u00adsion was based pre\u00adcise\u00adly on a request by the plain\u00adtiff. The plain\u00adtiff had ulti\u00admate\u00adly brought about the changes in the word\u00ading itself and must have rec\u00adog\u00adnized them accord\u00ading\u00adly. Fur\u00adther\u00admore, the clas\u00adsi\u00adfi\u00adca\u00adtion accord\u00ading to LAGA Z.1.1. could not be rec\u00adon\u00adciled with the expert opin\u00adion which had been attached to the bill of quan\u00adti\u00adties and which itself explained why such a clas\u00adsi\u00adfi\u00adca\u00adtion was not pos\u00adsi\u00adble. Trans\u00adlat\u00aded with www.DeepL.com\/Translator (free ver\u00adsion) <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\u201cHow\u00adev\u00ader, the plain\u00adtiff was not allowed to cal\u00adcu\u00adlate with a soil accord\u00ading to LAGA Z 1.1 with\u00adout clar\u00adi\u00adfi\u00adca\u00adtion, since already from the expert opin\u00adion of I. Inge\u00adnieurge\u00adsellschaft mbH of 09.04.2009 \u2014 which was also tak\u00aden note of by the plain\u00adtiff \u2014 and the afore\u00admen\u00adtioned notes in the con\u00adstruc\u00adtion descrip\u00adtion and in the spec\u00adi\u00adfi\u00adca\u00adtions, it results oth\u00ader\u00adwise, as stat\u00aded.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
With\u00adout fur\u00adther ado, the High\u00ader Region\u00adal Court of Celle con\u00adclud\u00aded that claims for addi\u00adtion\u00adal com\u00adpen\u00adsa\u00adtion should be ruled out. This was because the geo\u00adlog\u00adi\u00adcal con\u00addi\u00adtions found and those ten\u00addered did not dif\u00adfer at all. Nor could the plain\u00adtiff have relied on the fact that the soils com\u00adplied with LAGA Z.1.1. Ulti\u00admate\u00adly, for the same rea\u00adson, claims for \u201ccul\u00adpa in con\u00adtra\u00adhen\u00addo due to faulty ten\u00adder\u00ading\u201d failed, as the High\u00ader Region\u00adal Court of Celle describes it. The plain\u00adtiff had a \u201cduty to check and inform\u201d and could not \u201cclaim any dis\u00adap\u00adpoint\u00aded trust wor\u00adthy of pro\u00adtec\u00adtion\u201d. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The High\u00ader Region\u00adal Court now gives legal rea\u00adsons why this must be the case from its point of view. It is true that in prin\u00adci\u00adple there is no oblig\u00ada\u00adtion on the part of the bid\u00adder at the ten\u00adder and offer stage to point out errors con\u00adtained in the spec\u00adi\u00adfi\u00adca\u00adtions. How\u00adev\u00ader, the prin\u00adci\u00adple of the require\u00adment for cor\u00adrect con\u00adduct in con\u00adtract nego\u00adti\u00ada\u00adtions implies an oblig\u00ada\u00adtion on the part of the con\u00adtrac\u00adtor to check and point out errors if the con\u00adtract doc\u00adu\u00adments are obvi\u00adous\u00adly incor\u00adrect. Thus, the con\u00adtrac\u00adtor may not sim\u00adply accept a list of ser\u00advices which is obvi\u00adous\u00adly incom\u00adplete or incor\u00adrect. He must clar\u00adi\u00adfy any doubts aris\u00ading from this before sub\u00admit\u00adting his bid and, in par\u00adtic\u00adu\u00adlar, obtain suf\u00adfi\u00adcient infor\u00adma\u00adtion about the intend\u00aded con\u00adstruc\u00adtion method (type and scope). If the con\u00adtrac\u00adtor fails to pro\u00advide the required infor\u00adma\u00adtion in such a case, he is pre\u00advent\u00aded from mak\u00ading addi\u00adtion\u00adal claims in accor\u00addance with the prin\u00adci\u00adple of good faith. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The plain\u00adtiff was also aware of its duty to check and inform, since it had asked. Pre\u00adcise\u00adly because the appli\u00adcant had inquired, it was oblig\u00aded to car\u00adry out a par\u00adtic\u00adu\u00adlar\u00adly thor\u00adough exam\u00adi\u00adna\u00adtion. The fact that the plain\u00adtiff had doubts about the clas\u00adsi\u00adfi\u00adca\u00adtion is also shown by the fact that it com\u00admis\u00adsioned a soil exper\u00adtise imme\u00addi\u00adate\u00adly after the award of the con\u00adtract. At the same time, the defen\u00addant could not be said to have act\u00aded in bad faith. It had want\u00aded to rem\u00ade\u00addy the sit\u00adu\u00ada\u00adtion, so it could not be accused of a delib\u00ader\u00adate\u00adly incor\u00adrect invi\u00adta\u00adtion to ten\u00adder. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
If one asks what was the bid\u00adder\u2019s undo\u00ading, it is still a lit\u00adtle too ear\u00adly. It is not yet clear whether and how the BGH will take a posi\u00adtion. How\u00adev\u00ader, a few inter\u00adest\u00ading obser\u00adva\u00adtions can be made: <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The High\u00ader Region\u00adal Court of Celle rec\u00adog\u00adnizes an oblig\u00ada\u00adtion on the part of the bid\u00adder and sub\u00adse\u00adquent con\u00adtrac\u00adtor to pro\u00advide infor\u00adma\u00adtion and car\u00adry out checks, even dur\u00ading the award pro\u00adce\u00addure pri\u00ador to sub\u00admis\u00adsion of the bid. If he vio\u00adlates this, the High\u00ader Region\u00adal Court wants to cut off \u201caddi\u00adtion\u00adal claims\u201d. I.e., sup\u00adple\u00adments. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The High\u00ader Region\u00adal Court of Celle rec\u00adog\u00adnizes an oblig\u00ada\u00adtion to pro\u00advide infor\u00adma\u00adtion in the case of rec\u00adog\u00adniz\u00adable errors. The Celle High\u00ader Region\u00adal Court affirms rec\u00adog\u00adniz\u00adabil\u00adi\u00adty in the case of obvi\u00adous errors or obvi\u00adous gaps in the spec\u00adi\u00adfi\u00adca\u00adtions. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
It is not entire\u00adly clear whether the High\u00ader Region\u00adal Court applies a sub\u00adjec\u00adtive or an objec\u00adtive stan\u00addard for the obvi\u00adous\u00adness or rec\u00adog\u00adniz\u00adabil\u00adi\u00adty. On the one hand, it argues very indi\u00advid\u00adu\u00adal\u00adly. The bid\u00adder had already inquired dur\u00ading the award pro\u00adce\u00addure, and had also com\u00admis\u00adsioned an expert opin\u00adion imme\u00addi\u00adate\u00adly after the con\u00adtract was award\u00aded. This proves his \u201cdoubts\u201d. On the oth\u00ader hand, nor\u00adma\u00adtive con\u00adsid\u00ader\u00ada\u00adtions are also men\u00adtioned. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Against this back\u00adground, the deci\u00adsion of the Celle High\u00ader Region\u00adal Court is ambiva\u00adlent from the bid\u00adder\u2019s point of view. It can be inter\u00adpret\u00aded as an appeal for max\u00adi\u00admum restraint; where\u00adby this view is asso\u00adci\u00adat\u00aded with con\u00adsid\u00ader\u00adable risks if the case law falls back on a mixed, objec\u00adtive-sub\u00adjec\u00adtive stan\u00addard and\/or even the ear\u00adly sub\u00admis\u00adsion of sup\u00adple\u00admen\u00adtary offers, which even the bid\u00adder who remains silent in the award pro\u00adce\u00addure will hard\u00adly be able to avoid, is regard\u00aded as suf\u00adfi\u00adcient evi\u00addence. The deci\u00adsion could there\u00adfore also be seen as an incen\u00adtive to speak up in the award pro\u00adce\u00addure. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
One thing the deci\u00adsion is cer\u00adtain\u00adly not: an out\u00adlier or an iso\u00adlat\u00aded case. It is the third deci\u00adsion of the Celle High\u00ader Region\u00adal Court, with which the bid\u00adder and lat\u00ader con\u00adtrac\u00adtor is to be assigned more respon\u00adsi\u00adbil\u00adi\u00adty in the award pro\u00adce\u00addure (see Celle High\u00ader Region\u00adal Court, judg\u00adment of 02.10.2019, 14 U 171 \/ 18; Celle High\u00ader Region\u00adal Court, judg\u00adment of 31 Jan\u00adu\u00adary 2017, 14 U 200\/15). This may indi\u00adcate a par\u00ada\u00addigm shift. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
*This legal tip is not a sub\u00adsti\u00adtute for legal advice in indi\u00advid\u00adual cas\u00ades. By its very nature, it is incom\u00adplete, nor is it spe\u00adcif\u00adic to your case, and it also rep\u00adre\u00adsents a snap\u00adshot in time, as legal prin\u00adci\u00adples and case law change over time. It can\u00adnot and does not cov\u00ader all con\u00adceiv\u00adable con\u00adstel\u00adla\u00adtions, serves enter\u00adtain\u00adment 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>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Com\u00adment on High\u00ader Region\u00adal Court of Celle, judg\u00adment of Novem\u00adber 20th, 2019, 14 U 191\/13 Facts of the case The plain\u00adtiff applied for the con\u00adtract for road con\u00adstruc\u00adtion work. Soil and rock had to be removed from the exca\u00adva\u00adtion area and dis\u00adposed of. The plain\u00adtiff is now claim\u00ading addi\u00adtion\u00adal costs from a sup\u00adple\u00adment because a [\u2026]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":14721,"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":[250,171],"tags":[],"team_kategorien":[],"lexikon_kategorie":[],"class_list":["post-16011","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-it-public-procurement-law","category-procurement-law"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16011","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=16011"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16011\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16012,"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16011\/revisions\/16012"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/14721"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16011"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16011"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16011"},{"taxonomy":"team_kategorien","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/team_kategorien?post=16011"},{"taxonomy":"lexikon_kategorie","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/lexikon_kategorie?post=16011"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}