Advanced

Leverantörers möjlighet till skadestånd vid felaktigt avbrutna upphandlingar

Norbe, Elin LU (2017) JURM02 20171
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Upphandlingar avbryts frekvent och lämnar leverantörer med onödiga deltagandekostnader och förlorade chanser till kontrakt. Denna uppsats syftar till att klargöra rättsläget vad gäller möjligheten till upphandlingsrättsligt skadestånd vid felaktigt avbrutna upphandlingar. I uppsatsen undersöks under vilka förutsättningar en upphandling får avbrytas, möjligheterna till ersättning vid en felaktigt avbruten upphandling samt om det finns skäl att förändra nuvarande rättsläge.

Det är tillåtet för myndigheter att avbryta en påbörjad upphandling. Möjligheten är dock inskränkt då det krävs saklig grund för avbrytande och avbrytandet får inte ske godtyckligt eller i strid med de upphandlingsrättsliga principerna. Vad som utgör saklig grund... (More)
Upphandlingar avbryts frekvent och lämnar leverantörer med onödiga deltagandekostnader och förlorade chanser till kontrakt. Denna uppsats syftar till att klargöra rättsläget vad gäller möjligheten till upphandlingsrättsligt skadestånd vid felaktigt avbrutna upphandlingar. I uppsatsen undersöks under vilka förutsättningar en upphandling får avbrytas, möjligheterna till ersättning vid en felaktigt avbruten upphandling samt om det finns skäl att förändra nuvarande rättsläge.

Det är tillåtet för myndigheter att avbryta en påbörjad upphandling. Möjligheten är dock inskränkt då det krävs saklig grund för avbrytande och avbrytandet får inte ske godtyckligt eller i strid med de upphandlingsrättsliga principerna. Vad som utgör saklig grund bedömer domstolen in casu, det viktigaste tycks dock vara att leverantörerna inte berövas sin förutsebarhet. Så snart upphandlingen inte kan genomdrivas på ett sätt som säkerställer konkurrens, rättvisa och affärsmässighet tycks det vara tillåtet för myndigheter att avbryta upphandlingen utan att sanktioneras. Här uppstår det första problemet på leverantörens väg mot ersättning. Någon ansvarsgrund föreligger sällan, eftersom avbrytanden sällan bedöms som felaktiga.

Om en myndighet avbryter en upphandling när upphandlingen borde slutförts, kan en leverantör, om den bevisar att avbrytandet orsakat denne skada, erhålla ersättning. Här uppstår ytterligare svårigheter för leverantörer. Först måste leverantören lidit en skada, vilket inte alltid är fallet eftersom uppkomsten av skada påverkas av hur flertalet aktörer agerar efter att avbrytandet skett. Om skada väl uppstått måste leverantören bevisa detta, tillsammans med adekvat kausalitet, vilket föranleder problematik då det inte finns något vinnande anbud att jämföra leverantörens anbud med. Därmed uppstår svårigheter att bevisa att leverantören antingen skulle tilldelats kontraktet, eller att chanserna att vinna åtminstone påverkats menligt.

Vissa förändringar av rättsläget är önskvärda. Den generösa bedömningen av vad som utgör saklig grund medför att det sällan uppstår felaktiga avbrytanden. Lagstiftningen kan därmed behöva förändras på så sätt att en regel införs som reglerar när en upphandling kan avbrytas samt att en mer restriktiv rättstillämpning upprätthålls. En sådan förändring skulle både bringa mer förutsebarhet och underlätta för leverantörer att erhålla ersättning eftersom en ansvarsgrund betydligt enklare uppstår. Med det sagt ska påtalas att myndigheter i vissa fall måste ha ett visst felutrymme vid genomförandet av upphandlingar. Därtill kan finnas behov att under vissa omständigheter införa bevislättnader angående bevisning av skada och adekvat kausalitet. Vilket beviskrav som ska tillämpas bör för bäst effekt avgöras i varje enskilt fall. (Less)
Abstract
During a public procurement, it is not uncommon that contracting authorities make a withdrawal of the invitation to tender. Such cancellation of the procurement leaves suppliers, or service providers, with unnecessary costs and lost chances of receiving a contract. The ambition of this thesis is to clarify the possibility to receive compensation, within the regulation of public procurement, when a procurement has been incorrectly cancelled. The thesis contains an investigation of which circumstances that can induce a cancellation of the procurement. Additionally, I investigate the possibilities to receive compensation due to an incorrect cancellation and whether the regulation should be reformed.

Contracting authorities may cancel a... (More)
During a public procurement, it is not uncommon that contracting authorities make a withdrawal of the invitation to tender. Such cancellation of the procurement leaves suppliers, or service providers, with unnecessary costs and lost chances of receiving a contract. The ambition of this thesis is to clarify the possibility to receive compensation, within the regulation of public procurement, when a procurement has been incorrectly cancelled. The thesis contains an investigation of which circumstances that can induce a cancellation of the procurement. Additionally, I investigate the possibilities to receive compensation due to an incorrect cancellation and whether the regulation should be reformed.

Contracting authorities may cancel a procurement. However, the possibility is restricted since the decision to cancel must be based on an objective ground, and the cancellation can not be in violation of any fundamental principle. A review body or a court decides what constitutes an objective ground in each individual case. The most important parameter to consider when deciding whether a cancellation is correct or not is if the suppliers were deprived of their predictability. It appears that as soon as the procurement can not be enforced in a way that ensures competition, fairness and commerciality, the contracting authorities can cancel the procurement without sanctions. This creates a problem for suppliers’ possibility to achieve compensation. A basis of liability is rarely present, since few cancellations are considered to be incorrectly conducted.

A supplier can receive compensation if the supplier proves that the incorrect cancellation caused the supplier a damage. However, a damage does not always emerge since the occurrence of a damage depends on acts taking place after the cancellation. If damage has occurred, the supplier must prove the damage, as well as proximate cause. This leads to additional problems. The problems affiliated with the proof of evidence stems from the lack of a winning tender to compare the supplier’s tender with. As an effect of this, difficulties in proving that the supplier would either have been awarded the contract or that the chances of winning were affected, arise.

Due to the generous assessment of what constitutes an objective ground, incorrect cancellations rarely occur. Therefore, the legislation and the law enforcement may need to be amended. A suggestion is that a rule should be instated presenting when a procurement can be cancelled together with a more restricted assessment of what constitutes an objective ground. Such modifications would bring more predictability, and facilitate the possibility for suppliers to receive compensation since there would more often be a basis for liability. However, it can be argued that shortcomings sometimes are needed for authorities to enjoy a certain margin of discretion when carrying out public procurements. Additionally, under some circumstances it might be appropriate to introduce altered evidentiary alleviation rules regarding damage and proximate cause. Which evidentiary requirement to apply should be decided in each individual case, this to achieve the best effect. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Norbe, Elin LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
The possibility for suppliers to receive compensation due to an incorrect cancellation of a public procurement
course
JURM02 20171
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
skadeståndsrätt, offentlig upphandling
language
Swedish
id
8908889
date added to LUP
2017-06-14 15:06:30
date last changed
2017-06-14 15:06:30
@misc{8908889,
  abstract     = {During a public procurement, it is not uncommon that contracting authorities make a withdrawal of the invitation to tender. Such cancellation of the procurement leaves suppliers, or service providers, with unnecessary costs and lost chances of receiving a contract. The ambition of this thesis is to clarify the possibility to receive compensation, within the regulation of public procurement, when a procurement has been incorrectly cancelled. The thesis contains an investigation of which circumstances that can induce a cancellation of the procurement. Additionally, I investigate the possibilities to receive compensation due to an incorrect cancellation and whether the regulation should be reformed.

Contracting authorities may cancel a procurement. However, the possibility is restricted since the decision to cancel must be based on an objective ground, and the cancellation can not be in violation of any fundamental principle. A review body or a court decides what constitutes an objective ground in each individual case. The most important parameter to consider when deciding whether a cancellation is correct or not is if the suppliers were deprived of their predictability. It appears that as soon as the procurement can not be enforced in a way that ensures competition, fairness and commerciality, the contracting authorities can cancel the procurement without sanctions. This creates a problem for suppliers’ possibility to achieve compensation. A basis of liability is rarely present, since few cancellations are considered to be incorrectly conducted.

A supplier can receive compensation if the supplier proves that the incorrect cancellation caused the supplier a damage. However, a damage does not always emerge since the occurrence of a damage depends on acts taking place after the cancellation. If damage has occurred, the supplier must prove the damage, as well as proximate cause. This leads to additional problems. The problems affiliated with the proof of evidence stems from the lack of a winning tender to compare the supplier’s tender with. As an effect of this, difficulties in proving that the supplier would either have been awarded the contract or that the chances of winning were affected, arise.

Due to the generous assessment of what constitutes an objective ground, incorrect cancellations rarely occur. Therefore, the legislation and the law enforcement may need to be amended. A suggestion is that a rule should be instated presenting when a procurement can be cancelled together with a more restricted assessment of what constitutes an objective ground. Such modifications would bring more predictability, and facilitate the possibility for suppliers to receive compensation since there would more often be a basis for liability. However, it can be argued that shortcomings sometimes are needed for authorities to enjoy a certain margin of discretion when carrying out public procurements. Additionally, under some circumstances it might be appropriate to introduce altered evidentiary alleviation rules regarding damage and proximate cause. Which evidentiary requirement to apply should be decided in each individual case, this to achieve the best effect.},
  author       = {Norbe, Elin},
  keyword      = {skadeståndsrätt,offentlig upphandling},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Leverantörers möjlighet till skadestånd vid felaktigt avbrutna upphandlingar},
  year         = {2017},
}