The irregular constitution of a Contracting Committee in a public tender is caus

tasnim455

The Second Additional Provision, section ten, of RD /, of November , which approves the Consolidated Text of the Public Sector Contracts Law (hereinafter, TRLCSP), expressly states: “The Contracting Board will be chaired by a member of the Corporation or an official thereof, and will be part of it, as members, the Secretary or, where appropriate, the head of the body that is assigned the function of legal advice, and the Comptroller, as well as those others designated by the contracting body among the career civil servants or labor personnel at the service of the Corporation, or elected members thereof, without their number, in total, being less than three. . An official of the Corporation will act as Secretary.” Likewise, it deals with the composition of the Board, the Specific Administrative Clauses (PCAP) that governs the tender in question, which we must remember that, as prescribed by our Courts of Justice, has contractual force between the parties involved.

Well, effectively, the irregular constitution of said Board or the non-maintenance of the members that make up it, may mean the nullity of the tender. For all and “ad exemplum”, it is Canada Mobile Number List enough to cite, for its clarity, Judgment no. /, of March , , of the Administrative Litigation Court no. of Granada, in Ordinary Procedure no. /, Second Legal Basis, in which . It can be read verbatim: “In fact, it appears in the administrative file that the Contracting Board met on three other occasions (Minutes of --, -- and --). In the first of them, the absence of the Comptroller is repeated and, of the four members that appear, two (councillors) did not appear in the initial constitution of the Board, and Mr. Portillo also disappears, who is no longer a member. of the table. In the Minutes of -- the same members as the previous one appear, with the exception of Mr. Rocío Casanova who is not recorded, and the Intervenor does appear.



Finally, in the minutes of --, three councilors appear as members, in addition to the Secretary and the Auditor of the City Council; That is, there are more members than those provided for in the Document. Given this factual account, we cannot but conclude that not only was the constitution of the Board defective, as it did not comply with the prescriptions contained in the Law and the Tender Documents, but that the irregularities occurred in successive meetings of the Board, in such a way that it is not even possible to determine precisely who or how many its members were, given the variation of members attending one or another meeting, even exceeding the number provided for in the Document. In short, we are faced with a Contracting Board established in clear violation of the regulations that regulate said body in the legislation on administrative contracting, to the point that, not even to date, this judge has been able to know its composition, given that The Administration, in its brief response to the claim, has not clarified this point (or any other, it should be added).