Abstract

Quality of an object is an ambiguous notion. Therefore, as such it may not be directly used as a criterion for bid assessment. However, the legislator may generally use qualitative criteria in generic terms (Art. 91 of the Public Procurement Act). Thus, only certain parameters or other specific qualitative characteristics of the contracted object are taken into account. Each bid assessment criterion has to have a favourable impact on economic interests of the contracting authority, and primarily should be measurable as regards transactional advantages to the contracting authority. Apart from that, the desired level of improved quality of an object is not always reasonably possible, usually only to a certain limit, which should be defined by the contracting authority in advance. Due to numerous threats arising from unreliable declarations of improved quality made by dishonest contractors, in the terms of reference and also in the draft of the contract the contracting authority should augment liability, especially as regards exclusions within the meaning of Art. 24.2a of the Public Procurement Act and for contractual penalties and warranty for defects, which should be additionally secures as regards collectability of claims.