Poland – Engineering design services – Opracowanie dokumentacji technicznej budowy domu kultury w Białej Rawskiej

The subject of the contract covered by this procedure is the preparation of comprehensive design and cost documentation for the construction of a cultural centre in Biała Rawska. A detailed description of the subject of the contract is in Annex 6 to the SWZ and the draft terms of the contract. 2. The contractor is obliged to execute the contract on the principles and conditions described in the draft terms of the contract and Annex 6 of the OPZ. 3. The offer must include the valuation of all activities necessary for the execution of the contract, including those not foreseen by the Contracting Authority, but necessary for the execution of the subject of the contract, according to the applicable regulations. 4. In order to correctly prepare the offer, it is recommended that the Contractor, at its own expense, carry out a site visit to the location where the subject of the contract is to be executed. 5. A detailed description and the manner of execution of the contract is in the Subject of the Contract Description, which is Annex 6 to the SWZ. 6. Names and codes according to the Common Procurement Vocabulary (CPV) 71240000-2 Architectural, engineering and planning services 71000000-8 Architectural, construction, engineering and inspection services 71320000-7 Engineering services for design 71242000-6 Project preparation and cost estimation 71245000-7 Approval plans, working drawings and specifications 71248000-8 Project and documentation supervision 71632200-9 Non-invasive testing services 7. The Contracting Authority does not set requirements regarding employment based on an employment relationship, in the circumstances referred to in Article 95. 8. Justification for not dividing the contract into lots. The value of the contract is higher than the so-called EU thresholds, which oblige the implementation of EU directives. Directive 2014/24/EU in the text of reason 78 indicates that in order to increase competition, contracting authorities should in particular be encouraged to divide large contracts into lots. The subject contract is not a large contract within the meaning of reason 78 of the aforementioned EU directive (the directive applies from the so-called EU thresholds, and the directive uses the concept of a large contract on the basis of contracts subject to the directive – i.e. a contract of a value significantly exceeding the so-called EU thresholds). The contract has not been divided into lots for the following reasons: a) The subject of the contract is the performance of one type of service. Dividing them would pose organizational problems that could not be eliminated, related to the responsibility for individual elements of the services performed by different contractors. b) Dividing the subject of the contract into tasks would result in a significant increase in costs and technological difficulties resulting from the execution of the subject of the contract by a larger number of contractors. c) Contractors would duplicate the indirect costs of work, which would affect the costs of the entire subject of the contract. In each of the partial offers, the contractor would have to provide a separate valuation of the use of the same type of equipment in a situation where, by submitting one offer, the use of the equipment would be valued once. d) Each of the contractors would include separate costs of the OC policy in the price, which would increase the level of expenditure of the Contracting Authority. e) In the case of division into parts, contractors would duplicate costs, including, for example, personnel costs, equipment maintenance costs, insurance costs, operating costs, or fuel costs, which would adversely affect the costs of the contract for the Contracting Authority. In summary, the Contracting Authority did not divide the contract into lots because such a division would pose excessive technical difficulties and excessive costs of contract execution. The need to coordinate the actions of different contractors implementing individual parts of the contract could seriously threaten the proper execution of the contract. The failure to divide the contract was therefore dictated by technical, organizational, economic reasons and the nature of the subject of the contract. A possible division of the contract into parts would not increase competitiveness in the sector of small and medium-sized enterprises – the scope of the contract is a typical scope, enabling the submission of an offer by contractors from the group of small or medium-sized enterprises. In accordance with the content of reason 78 of the directive, the contracting authority should have the obligation to consider the appropriateness of dividing contracts into parts, while retaining the freedom to make autonomous decisions on any basis it deems appropriate, not being subject to administrative or judicial supervision.