Abstract

The initiation of public procurement proceedings is binding upon the contracting authority, so ending them without a contract being signed is regarded as exceptional and only permissible when the grounds for annulment, which are exhaustively listed in the Public Procurement Law, are met. An analysis of the case law of the National Appeals Chamber (KIO) leads to the conclusion that contracting authorities too often abuse the institution of annulment, thereby undermining the fundamental purpose of conducting the procedure, which is to conclude a contract. This is particularly evident in cases where authorities unjustifiably claim there is an irremediable defect in the proceedings that prevents the conclusion of a valid contract, or circumstances that could not have been foreseen.