Cable Baskets Germany

„Methodology for the general evaluation of offers and BAFO offers For each criterion - except for the evaluation criterion "price", which will be dealt with separately - a comparative evaluation will be carried out and the bidders will be ranked according to their performance within this criterion. The ranking is then multiplied by the weighting of the respective criterion. The weighted rankings of all criteria are added together. The bidder with the best overall ranking is deemed to be the most economically favourable bidder and will be awarded with the first place. Price: The price criterion is based on the following evaluation of the bids/offers: The bid with the lowest bid price will be ranked at 1.00. Any bid that exceeds 2 times the lowest bid price will be awarded the last rank, which always corresponds to the number of bids submitted and evaluated. The evaluation of the bid prices which lie in between is carried out by means of linear interpolation with up to two decimal digits. This applies to both, the selection of candidates to conduct the negotiations with (evaluation based on the initial offer documents) as well as the later awarding of the contract to the winning candidate (evaluation based on BAFO documents). Contractual conditions: The negotiation results within the framework of the award procedure are evaluated with regard to the final distribution of contractual risks to the disadvantage of the TenneT in comparison to TenneT's draft. If there are no specifications from TenneT, the results of the negotiations are assessed comparatively. Technical Ability & Availability: The results of the negotiations within the framework of the award procedure are evaluated with regard to the final concept submitted by the bidders in terms of the overall service design in all areas required by TenneT. The results of the negotiations are evaluated comparatively. * Note on Review Procedure: Applicants/bidders must complain about violations of procurement law in compliance with the provisions of Section 160 (3) ARC - Act against Restraints of Competition (GWB – Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschraenkung). An application for review is inadmissible pursuant to Section 160 (3) ARC if 1. the applicant has recognised the alleged violation of procurement law before filing the application for review and has not notified the contracting authority within a period of ten calendar days; the expiry of the time limit pursuant to Section 134 (2) ARC remains unaffected, 2. infringements of procurement law which are apparent from the EU notice are not notified to the contracting authority at the latest by the expiry of the time limit for application or submission of tenders stated in the notice, 3. infringements of procurement law which are only apparent in the tender documents are not notified to the contracting authority at the latest by the expiry of the time limit for application or submission of tenders, 4. more than 15 calendar days have elapsed after receipt of the contracting authority's notification that it does not intend to remedy a complaint.“