Poland – Software package and information systems – Dostawa, montaż i uruchomienie oprogramowania (symulatora) VR do nauki anatomii człowieka

1. The subject of the contract is the supply, installation and commissioning of VR software (simulator) for learning human anatomy. 2. The procedure is conducted within the framework of the project entitled ANTY DROP OUT ANS GNIEZNO FERS.01.05-IP.08-0161/25-00. Funding source: The order is financed within the framework of the project entitled ANTY DROP OUT ANS GNIEZNO FERS.01.05-IP.08-0161/25-00. 3. A detailed description of the subject of the contract is contained in Annex No. 1 to SWZ – „Description of the subject of the contract”. 4. The contracting authority does not impose any restrictions on the origin of the Contractor or the subject of the contract in terms of market access and being a participant in this procedure. 5. The contracting authority does not allow the possibility of submitting partial offers. The subject of the contract constitutes a single functionally and technologically coherent undertaking. The individual elements of the contract are closely interrelated and mutually dependent. In the opinion of the contracting authority, the lack of division of the contract into parts does not limit competition, but ensures the correct, timely and safe implementation of the contract. 6. In accordance with Article 226(1)(19) of the Pzp, the contracting authority rejects an offer if it includes an ICT product, the type of which has been specified in a decision on the recognition of a supplier as a high-risk supplier, as referred to in Article 67b(15) of the Act of 5 July 2018 on the national cybersecurity system, or an ICT service, or an ICT process, specified in that decision. 7. The contracting authority does not allow the possibility of submitting variant offers. 8. The contracting authority allows the submission of equivalent offers. Equivalent solutions: 8.1. In each case of reference to a norm, technical evaluation, technical specification and technical reference system, as referred to in Article 101(1)(2) and (3) of the Pzp, the contractor should assume that such a reference is accompanied by the words "or equivalent". 8.2. A contractor who invokes an equivalent solution is obliged, in accordance with Article 101(5) of the Pzp, to prove in the offer that the solutions proposed by him meet the requirements specified by the contracting authority in the Description of the subject of the contract to an equivalent extent. In such a case, the contractor shall attach to the offer a method of demonstrating equivalent solutions along with its description or standards confirming that the proposed solutions meet the requirements specified in the Description of the subject of the contract to an equivalent extent. 8.3. In the event of the contracting authority's doubts regarding the equivalence of the submitted offer, all obligations related to proving that the solutions proposed by the contractor meet the requirements specified by the contracting authority in the description of the subject of the contract to an equivalent extent shall rest with the contractor. 8.4. If the subject of the contract is described by indicating trademarks, patents or origin, source or a particular process that characterizes the products or services provided by a specific contractor, and the contracting authority cannot describe the subject of the contract in a sufficiently precise and understandable manner, such an indication is accompanied by the words "or equivalent". 8.5. Bearing in mind the provisions of the Pzp, the contracting authority allows the submission of equivalent offers on the basis of Article 99(5) of the Pzp, treating the requirements and technical parameters specified as the minimum criteria for equivalence. 8.6. The demonstration of the equivalence of norms, technical evaluations, technical specifications and technical reference systems lies with the contractor and should be documented and submitted by him together with the offer.