N. 826/09 REG.DEC.
REPUBBLICA ITALIANA
IN NOME DEL POPOLO ITALIANO
IN NOME DEL POPOLO ITALIANO
Il Consiglio di Stato in sede giurisdizionale Quinta Sezione
ha pronunciato la seguente
ha pronunciato la seguente
DECISIONE
sui ricorsi riuniti iscritti:
- il primo al NRG 9088\2007, proposto da Spinosa Costruzioni Generali s.r.l. in persona del legale rappresentante pro tempore, rappresentato e difeso dall’avvocato Nicola Marcone ed elettivamente domiciliato presso the latter in Rome, Via G. No Mercalli 11;
- il primo al NRG 9088\2007, proposto da Spinosa Costruzioni Generali s.r.l. in persona del legale rappresentante pro tempore, rappresentato e difeso dall’avvocato Nicola Marcone ed elettivamente domiciliato presso the latter in Rome, Via G. No Mercalli 11;
against the City of Florence, the mayor pro temper, not made;
Business Builders Pisa spa - Romagnoli successor to the spa - in person and as an agent of the car with the CTC Toscano Construction Consortium, in legal representative pro tempore, unincorporated;
Business Builders Pisa spa - Romagnoli successor to the spa - in person and as an agent of the car with the CTC Toscano Construction Consortium, in legal representative pro tempore, unincorporated;
and against
Saceda Ltd. in its legal representative pro tempore, unincorporated;
Ingg. Carrassi Provera and spa in its legal representative pro tempore, unincorporated;
- the second to NRG 9246 \\ 2007, proposed by the Company Pisa Spa Manufacturers - Successor Romagnoli spa - in person and as an agent of the car with the CTC Toscano Construction Consortium, in its legal representative pro tempore, represented and defended by Calogero Narese and address for service at the studio in Rome Grez, Lungotevere Flaminio No 46, Pal. IV, Sc B;
Ingg. Carrassi Provera and spa in its legal representative pro tempore, unincorporated;
- the second to NRG 9246 \\ 2007, proposed by the Company Pisa Spa Manufacturers - Successor Romagnoli spa - in person and as an agent of the car with the CTC Toscano Construction Consortium, in its legal representative pro tempore, represented and defended by Calogero Narese and address for service at the studio in Rome Grez, Lungotevere Flaminio No 46, Pal. IV, Sc B;
against
Spinosa Costruzioni Generali Srl in its legal representative pro tempore, represented and defended by Nicola Marconi and address for service of the latter in Rome, Via G. No Mercalli 11;
and against
City of Florence, in the person of the mayor pro temper, not made;
Saceda Ltd. in its legal representative pro tempore, unincorporated;
Ingg. Carrassi Provera and spa in its legal representative pro tempore, unincorporated;
Saceda Ltd. in its legal representative pro tempore, unincorporated;
Ingg. Carrassi Provera and spa in its legal representative pro tempore, unincorporated;
for reform of the Judgement of the Regional Administrative Court of Tuscany, Section Two, No 825 of June 4, 2007. Visas
appeals;
seen the entry of appearance in court of Spinosa Costruzioni Generali srl;
considering the pleadings submitted by the parties in support of their defenses;
seen all the acts of the case;
date to read the public hearing 5 December 2008, the report of the Vito Poli, heard lawyers and Narese Marcone;
considered and held as follows:
appeals;
seen the entry of appearance in court of Spinosa Costruzioni Generali srl;
considering the pleadings submitted by the parties in support of their defenses;
seen all the acts of the case;
date to read the public hearing 5 December 2008, the report of the Vito Poli, heard lawyers and Narese Marcone;
considered and held as follows:
fact and law
1. By notice dated 31 July 2002, the municipality of Florence called for a race win by the criterion of the lowest price for completion of work to complete the South Hall of the Center for Contemporary Art - Lot II -. As
of interest for the present case, the notice stated that the administration has made the evaluation and possible exclusion of tenders found to be abnormal based on the method of calculation laid down in Article. 21, par. 1 a, LN 109 of 1994 for this purpose offers should have been accompanied, when submitted, by justifications be provided at least on the basis for drawing called "People work done" in any case, it was stated that in compliance with European requirements, there remained the possibility of a firm following contradictory and production by competitors, or at the request of 'Directors, the justification of any kind deemed relevant to demonstrate the adequacy of supply.
1.1. During the race it was detected the anomaly threshold to 22.77%, inter alios, the deals are suspect of the following companies:
Romagnoli spa - in person and as an agent of the car with the CTC Consorzio Toscano Construction - (already allotted to its the first time lot of work to be completed), later transformed into the Manufacturers Pisa SpA (Pisa), with a fall of 22.87%;
Spinosa Costruzioni Generali srl (hereinafter Spinosa), with a fall of 24.50%;
Saceda Ltd., with a fall of 28.63.
1.2. Upon completion of an initial review of the anomaly is immune only offer Pisa.
With No Judgement 5479 of 27 October 2003 for the Tar Tuscany declared inadmissible an appeal brought by Spinosa first trial against the anomalies of their bids.
With No Judgement 5478 of 27 October 2003, the same Tar welcomed the action brought by Saceda Ltd and quashed any stage of the verification process of anomaly delle offerte per la difettosa costituzione dell’organo chiamato a valutarle.
1.3. Il nuovo gruppo di lavoro costituito dal comune di Firenze rinnovò il procedimento di anomalia pervenendo alle medesime conclusioni, sicché in data 1 aprile 2004 la gara fu aggiudicata in via provvisoria alla ditta Pisa.
1.4. Con ricorso rubricato al nrg. 1167/2004 e successivi motivi aggiunti, la società Spinosa aggredì il giudizio di anomalia della propria offerta (ed in via derivata anche l’aggiudicazione provvisoria e definitiva della gara), lamentando nella sostanza:
la violazione del principio del contraddittorio, avendo reso giustificazioni su elementi che poi non erano stati effettivamente considerati dalla stazione appaltante in court of problem
the validity of the evidence deemed unreliable by the price because of the date of submission of tenders,
the disparity in treatment by the test in assessing the reasons for the Pisa and those made from it applicant.
During the trial the Tar granted the protective order request by ordering the administration to make a further check, for counter-bid at Spinosa (see Ordinance No. 717 of June 29, 2004).
Even at the end of this further procedural the contracting activity confirmed the finding of failure to supply Spinosa, which was forced to articulate additional grounds. The Tar
, always in the action brought by Spinosa, ctu ordered to ascertain the reasonableness of the work the body responsible for the anomaly.
1.5. Nrg entitled to an appeal. 1210/2004 Ingg society. Provera & Careers SpA (Provera), which had submitted a bid not exuberant the anomaly threshold, has challenged the award made in favor of Pisa company claiming that its tender was excluded for failure.
1.6. Nrg entitled to an appeal. 2275/2004 Saceda the company, in turn, sought the annulment of both the their exclusion that the proceedings do not offer fault of Pisa.
2. The contested decision - Tar for Tuscany, Section Two, No 825 of June 4, 2007 -:
brought together the three actions of First Instance;
considered it a priority to examine the action brought by Spinosa, on the assumption that the eventual acceptance of that would extend its beneficial effects also against two other actions (paragraphs 3 and 21 beds. d);
considered unlawful exclusion for anomaly Spinosa, also on the basis of information provided by the CTU, accepting its application;
upheld the claim for compensation in the form specifically formulated dalla Spinosa, limitatamente all’obbligo per l’amministrazione di rinnovare, con esito libero, il procedimento di verifica di anomalia;
ha dichiarato improcedibili per sopravenuta carenza di interesse i ricorsi proposti dalle Imprese Provera e Saced (tale capo non è stato impugnato);
ha condannato il comune di Firenze al pagamento delle spese di lite e di c.t.u. in favore della Spinosa (anche tale capo non è stato impugnato).
3. Con ricorso rubricato al nrg. 9246/2007 - notificato il 14 e 15 novembre 2007, e depositato il successivo 26 novembre - la società Pisa ha interposto appello avverso la su menzionata sentenza del T.a.r. deducendo:
con il primo motivo, violazione dell’art. 21, comma 1 a, ln 109, 1994; violation of Article. 30 of Directive 37/1993; incorrect and contradictory reasoning and evaluation of conditions, failure to rule on crucial issues, breach of Article. 15, 145, 2000 dmn;
with the second reason, disregard for the judicial review, defect, incorrect and contradictory reasoning, incorrect assessment of the conditions;
with the third reason, contrary to Article. 112 CPC, the principle of correspondence between requested and delivered, breach of the adversarial principle, violation of Article. 21, LN 109 of 1994; incorrect assessment of the conditions, defects and erroneous motivation.
4. It consists of the company Spinosa deducting the appeal unfounded in fact and law.
5. By application starts for the postal service, art. 1, ln 53, 1994, 18 and 20 November 2007, and filed on November 21, the company Spinosa, in turn, appealed - headed to nrg. 9088/2007 - minus:
with the first reason, the effects of accepting unlawful extension of its appeal to companies and Saceda Provera despite the declaration of admissibility of the liens, proposed by them;
the second ground, the condemnation of the town of Florence to compensation in the form specified by the award direct challenge in the race;
with the third reason, finally, an order of the municipality to pay damages for monetary equivalent, related to the non-profit business and the loss of chance.
6. In its opinion is not formed any of the private parts.
7. The causes are spent in the decision of December 5, 2008 public hearing.
8. The appeals brought against the same sentence, should be convened at the artist's mind. 335 cpc
9. Outset to be rejected except for lateness and admissibility of appeal brought by Spinosa, cherished the memory of society Pisa, 24 November 2008, as an alternative to meeting deals with appeals.
The exception is based on the crucial assumption that this would appeal form and substance of a cross-appeal. The thesis is
inaccoglibile.
The appeal brought by Spinosa, in fact, be classified as incidental because it is aimed at challenging quasi autonomous leaders of the contested decision and, therefore, supported by self-interest in challenging principaliter.
While in the administrative process is applied art. 333 Code, under which the party has been notified that the main appeal must in turn present their grievances in the same process as a preliminary issue - in order to achieve simultaneus processus - it is also true that individuata la forma del secondo gravame, occorre analizzarne il contenuto sostanziale per l'individuazione della disciplina applicabile. Sicché ove questo, come nel caso di specie, si risolva non in una mera controimpugnazione su capi dipendenti o connessi da quelli contrastati principaliter, ma abbia ad oggetto doglianze autonome ed indipendenti, sarà soggetto ai termini ordinari per l'impugnazione previsti dall'art. 28, l. 6 dicembre 1971, n. 1034 e 327 c.p.c. (cfr. da ultimo Cons. St., sez. IV, 7 settembre 2006, n. 5196).
Nella specie il gravame incidentale improprio è stato ritualmente notificato e depositato.
In ogni caso, anche a voler considerare il gravame della Spinosa quale appello incidentale proprio, risultano rispettati, in the particular case, the terms of service and storage, according to art. 37, Royal Decree No. 1054 of 1924, although half the art. 23a, l. Tar, respectively at 15 and 5 days.
10. In the first half the company claims Pisa, in substance, that the justifications given in the sub process of the event, can not be later than the date of submission of the original, well below that angle would make the the contracting authority to consider unacceptable, and those made by Spinosa, in general, unreliable supply of the latter.
The plea is unfounded.
The system of Community rules (as interpreted dalla Corte di giustizia nella sentenza 27 novembre 2001, n. 285 e dalla giurisprudenza nazionale, cfr. ex plurimis Cons. St., sez. IV, 7 giugno 2004, n. 3554), anche antecedentemente alle direttive 17 e 18 del 2004 ed al codice degli appalti (d.lvo n. 163 del 2006) che le ha recepite (inapplicabile ratione temporis), non si oppone a che l’amministrazione richieda a pena di esclusione che le offerte presentate siano corredate da giustificazioni preventive anche in misura inferiore al 100%, purché sia garantita una effettiva fase di valutazione in contraddittorio, successivamente all’apertura delle buste.
Il principio, per essere attuato in modo pienamente conforme al sistema comunitario, va temperato con alcune precisazioni:
The verification procedure is "downstream" must be activated in any case, not only when you have doubts and misgivings about the reliability of supply, but also when the remarks made by the contracting relates to the substantive content of the proposal for negotiation, having found The differences between the service offered than that required by the notice or letter of invitation that would have led to the ineligibility of the offer itself and not the opinion of defect (see Cons. St., sect. IV, 21 August 2002, No 4268). The acquisition
preliminary justifications can not obviously relate to the explanations and clarifications regarding the reliability and profitability della proposta contrattuale logicamente immaginabili solo in riscontro a puntuale e circoscritta richiesta dell’amministrazione (cfr. Cons. St., sez. IV, 7 giugno 2004, n. 3554);
L’integrazione delle giustificazioni originarie a mezzo di ulteriore produzione documentale, costituendo applicazione del principio comunitario del contraddittorio successivo, implica un fisiologico arricchimento degli elementi dedotti in origine, senza che la stazione appaltante possa dedurre il carattere nuovo ed ulteriore della documentazione rispetto a quella esibita in origine, con il limite, però, del divieto dello stravolgimento dell’offerta originaria, che non può trasformarsi, per il tramite delle seconde giustificazioni, in un quid di sostanzialmente nuovo o diverso (cfr. Cons. St., sez. IV, 7 giugno 2004, n. 3554).
Nel caso di specie, come risulta dall’esame di tutta la documentazione versata in atti, deve escludersi che le giustificazioni, ritenute inattendibili dal saggio di gara, alterassero gli elementi costitutivi dell’offerta.
Devono essere pertanto respinte tutte le censure articolate dalla società Pisa da pagina 22 a pagina 48 dell’atto di gravame.
Tali doglianze sono infondate, alla luce delle risultanze istruttorie, anche nella parte in cui contestano la fornitura dei diaframmi, della bentonite, degli impianti elettrici nonché la consistenza della riserva economica elaborata dalla Spinosa.
Per quanto specificamente attiene the provision of two lifts of the firm Schindler, the defense of Pisa argues that the models offered by the company Spinosa would be discontinued, hence the opinion of incongruity of the tender issued by the seat of a race. Although this complaint is without merit, since government is not wise that the booths provided by the company Spinosa (Schindler S300 Stylish S48) were precisely those required in the List of works carried out (paragraph 30) on the basis of which a mind of the notice (cfr.pagina 2), the contestants were required to provide justification in support of the offer.
10.1. By the second half, the company argues that the court would Pisa DeCamp bounds della giurisdizione di legittimità sostituendo la propria valutazione (e quella del c.t.u. definito ignoto ingegnere di Lucca) a quella della stazione appaltante.
Il mezzo è infondato.
In primo luogo giova precisare che il c.t.u. è (o almeno era all’epoca dei fatti) il capo dell’Ufficio tecnico comunale del comune di Lucca, professionista dunque munito di specifiche competenze settoriali.
In ogni caso la tesi propugnata dall’appellante è smentita dalla piana lettura dell’impugnata sentenza.
Il T.a.r. non si è affatto sostituito alle valutazioni tecnico discrezionali appannaggio del seggio di gara, ma le ha confutate ab externo, mettendo in luce la loro manifesta illogicità ed irregolarità formal.
So true is this that is limited to annul the proceedings of abnormalities of the contracting authority Spinosa forcing a reassessment (this ruling, as we shall see below, which was opposed by the company through a separate action Spinosa).
Regarding the profile of the irregularities of procedure carried out by the administration, the panel noted that all information in the file shows the systematic violation by the latter of the basic rules of the adversarial principle should always inspire the comparison between and the contracting company. In practice it appears that most of the fines in court charged final anomaly has not been previously disputed and the company Spinosa has been in the inability to provide appropriate justifications.
12.2. The third reason is the habit of complaining extrapetizione far as it did in the Tar expanding the application for annulment, which was originally paid by the company against Spinosa only exception to failure of its bid, to the point of sunset also cover the non- exclusion of the tenderer.
The plea is unfounded. The Tar
entrusted to ctu relevant technical investigation on the fairness of the offer made by the Pisa for the sole purpose of deciding the merits of the complaint of unequal treatment raised Spinosa by the company, once regarded as established the diversity of the yardstick used by the seat of the race, was careful not to fault the cancellation proceedings issued by that body in respect of the offer was in the end awarded the contract.
There is therefore irrelevant, and in any case unfounded on the basis of technical data on the file in the office, the complaints moved by the appellant (from page 62 to page 69 of application), the assumption that the ruling would not set aside the proceedings of anomaly of the tenderer.
11. Can go down now examine the appeal brought by Spinosa.
11.1. In the first half criticizing arguments sviluppate ai punti 3 e 21 lett. d) dell’impugnata sentenza nella parte in cui estendono gli effetti conformativi favorevoli della pronuncia alle imprese Saced e Provera, facendone discendere l’obbligo per la stazione appaltante di sottoporre a nuovo procedimento di anomalia tutte e tre le offerte (Spinosa, Saced e Provera) e conseguentemente l’improcedibilità dei rispettivi ricorsi proposti dalle ultime due.
Il mezzo è fondato.
Sebbene le società Saced e Provera non abbiano formulato appello sul capo della sentenza che ha dichiarato improcedibili i rispettivi ricorsi, ciò nonostante è evidente l’interesse della Spinosa a rimuovere il punto ad essa sfavorevole che pregiudica in via immediata e diretta l’eventuale riesercizio future of power by the awarding entity. Indeed, the Tar
ran into a number of factual errors that have misled the process and the conclusion of the proceedings which culminated in the declaration of admissibility of appeals Saceda and Provera.
In particular, it is prudent that: the company's offer
Provera had not exceeded the alert threshold of anomaly and thus in no way should have been submitted to its verification process in the implementation of any final;
society Provera sought the annulment of the final only on the assumption of the illegality of the lack of exclusion for failure of supply Pisa, but the question that has supported the use of First Instance of Provera, as previously noted, has never been tested, the
Saceda not ranked behind Spinosa, but rather in a downward position by offering more poziore ;
Spinosa has never asked for the cancellation of the anomaly of non-exclusion provision of Pisa, it is clear on this point, the lack of specific interest to take action to have offered the lowest price.
ultimately can not be argued that the annulment of the award has been given to the unlawful exclusion of non supply fault Pisa, and the Tar, the specific location considered in modo anodino che < > (punto 21 lett.c); deve ribadirsi, però, che la ditta Spinosa ha lamentato la concessività del metro di giudizio utilizzato dalla stazione appaltante per valutare l’offerta Pisa al solo scopo di suffragare la censura di eccesso di potere per disparità di trattamento, mossa in funzione dell’annullamento della propria esclusione e non della mancata esclusione della Pisa.
Per completezza il collegio dà atto che la difesa della società Pisa non ha contestato l’accoglimento del mezzo di gravame in trattazione (pagina 5 memoria conclusionale del 24 novembre 2008).
11.2. Quanto al secondo mezzo di gravame la sezione osserva che è sicuramente inammissibile la domanda di risarcimento the damage in a specific form by direct award of the race, based on the recently developed arguments from meeting of this Council to the Plenary that the section does not intend to depart (see decisions of 21 November 2008, 12 and 30 July 2008, No 9).
11.3. Inaccoglibile is also the question of compensation equivalent to the monetary damages resulting from lost profits and lost business opportunity.
The College does not intend to deviate from the address on the point of case law that excludes the possibility of evaluating the merits of the claim for damages when the measure excluding anomaly is canceled, as is the case, for formal and procedural defects that allow the riesercizio of power by the contracting (see Cons. St., sect. VI, June 30, 2006, No. 4231, sect. IV, May 20, 2003, No. 2708, sect. VI, 4 September 2002 No. 4435).
12. In conclusion should be rejected in its entirety the appeal by the company Pisa, while that of Spinosa society must be allowed to change only in the sense just now stated, that judgment's reasoning remains unchanged in the rest. In the reciprocal
Party, the loser sees good reasons to fully compensate between them the costs of these proceedings.
of interest for the present case, the notice stated that the administration has made the evaluation and possible exclusion of tenders found to be abnormal based on the method of calculation laid down in Article. 21, par. 1 a, LN 109 of 1994 for this purpose offers should have been accompanied, when submitted, by justifications be provided at least on the basis for drawing called "People work done" in any case, it was stated that in compliance with European requirements, there remained the possibility of a firm following contradictory and production by competitors, or at the request of 'Directors, the justification of any kind deemed relevant to demonstrate the adequacy of supply.
1.1. During the race it was detected the anomaly threshold to 22.77%, inter alios, the deals are suspect of the following companies:
Romagnoli spa - in person and as an agent of the car with the CTC Consorzio Toscano Construction - (already allotted to its the first time lot of work to be completed), later transformed into the Manufacturers Pisa SpA (Pisa), with a fall of 22.87%;
Spinosa Costruzioni Generali srl (hereinafter Spinosa), with a fall of 24.50%;
Saceda Ltd., with a fall of 28.63.
1.2. Upon completion of an initial review of the anomaly is immune only offer Pisa.
With No Judgement 5479 of 27 October 2003 for the Tar Tuscany declared inadmissible an appeal brought by Spinosa first trial against the anomalies of their bids.
With No Judgement 5478 of 27 October 2003, the same Tar welcomed the action brought by Saceda Ltd and quashed any stage of the verification process of anomaly delle offerte per la difettosa costituzione dell’organo chiamato a valutarle.
1.3. Il nuovo gruppo di lavoro costituito dal comune di Firenze rinnovò il procedimento di anomalia pervenendo alle medesime conclusioni, sicché in data 1 aprile 2004 la gara fu aggiudicata in via provvisoria alla ditta Pisa.
1.4. Con ricorso rubricato al nrg. 1167/2004 e successivi motivi aggiunti, la società Spinosa aggredì il giudizio di anomalia della propria offerta (ed in via derivata anche l’aggiudicazione provvisoria e definitiva della gara), lamentando nella sostanza:
la violazione del principio del contraddittorio, avendo reso giustificazioni su elementi che poi non erano stati effettivamente considerati dalla stazione appaltante in court of problem
the validity of the evidence deemed unreliable by the price because of the date of submission of tenders,
the disparity in treatment by the test in assessing the reasons for the Pisa and those made from it applicant.
During the trial the Tar granted the protective order request by ordering the administration to make a further check, for counter-bid at Spinosa (see Ordinance No. 717 of June 29, 2004).
Even at the end of this further procedural the contracting activity confirmed the finding of failure to supply Spinosa, which was forced to articulate additional grounds. The Tar
, always in the action brought by Spinosa, ctu ordered to ascertain the reasonableness of the work the body responsible for the anomaly.
1.5. Nrg entitled to an appeal. 1210/2004 Ingg society. Provera & Careers SpA (Provera), which had submitted a bid not exuberant the anomaly threshold, has challenged the award made in favor of Pisa company claiming that its tender was excluded for failure.
1.6. Nrg entitled to an appeal. 2275/2004 Saceda the company, in turn, sought the annulment of both the their exclusion that the proceedings do not offer fault of Pisa.
2. The contested decision - Tar for Tuscany, Section Two, No 825 of June 4, 2007 -:
brought together the three actions of First Instance;
considered it a priority to examine the action brought by Spinosa, on the assumption that the eventual acceptance of that would extend its beneficial effects also against two other actions (paragraphs 3 and 21 beds. d);
considered unlawful exclusion for anomaly Spinosa, also on the basis of information provided by the CTU, accepting its application;
upheld the claim for compensation in the form specifically formulated dalla Spinosa, limitatamente all’obbligo per l’amministrazione di rinnovare, con esito libero, il procedimento di verifica di anomalia;
ha dichiarato improcedibili per sopravenuta carenza di interesse i ricorsi proposti dalle Imprese Provera e Saced (tale capo non è stato impugnato);
ha condannato il comune di Firenze al pagamento delle spese di lite e di c.t.u. in favore della Spinosa (anche tale capo non è stato impugnato).
3. Con ricorso rubricato al nrg. 9246/2007 - notificato il 14 e 15 novembre 2007, e depositato il successivo 26 novembre - la società Pisa ha interposto appello avverso la su menzionata sentenza del T.a.r. deducendo:
con il primo motivo, violazione dell’art. 21, comma 1 a, ln 109, 1994; violation of Article. 30 of Directive 37/1993; incorrect and contradictory reasoning and evaluation of conditions, failure to rule on crucial issues, breach of Article. 15, 145, 2000 dmn;
with the second reason, disregard for the judicial review, defect, incorrect and contradictory reasoning, incorrect assessment of the conditions;
with the third reason, contrary to Article. 112 CPC, the principle of correspondence between requested and delivered, breach of the adversarial principle, violation of Article. 21, LN 109 of 1994; incorrect assessment of the conditions, defects and erroneous motivation.
4. It consists of the company Spinosa deducting the appeal unfounded in fact and law.
5. By application starts for the postal service, art. 1, ln 53, 1994, 18 and 20 November 2007, and filed on November 21, the company Spinosa, in turn, appealed - headed to nrg. 9088/2007 - minus:
with the first reason, the effects of accepting unlawful extension of its appeal to companies and Saceda Provera despite the declaration of admissibility of the liens, proposed by them;
the second ground, the condemnation of the town of Florence to compensation in the form specified by the award direct challenge in the race;
with the third reason, finally, an order of the municipality to pay damages for monetary equivalent, related to the non-profit business and the loss of chance.
6. In its opinion is not formed any of the private parts.
7. The causes are spent in the decision of December 5, 2008 public hearing.
8. The appeals brought against the same sentence, should be convened at the artist's mind. 335 cpc
9. Outset to be rejected except for lateness and admissibility of appeal brought by Spinosa, cherished the memory of society Pisa, 24 November 2008, as an alternative to meeting deals with appeals.
The exception is based on the crucial assumption that this would appeal form and substance of a cross-appeal. The thesis is
inaccoglibile.
The appeal brought by Spinosa, in fact, be classified as incidental because it is aimed at challenging quasi autonomous leaders of the contested decision and, therefore, supported by self-interest in challenging principaliter.
While in the administrative process is applied art. 333 Code, under which the party has been notified that the main appeal must in turn present their grievances in the same process as a preliminary issue - in order to achieve simultaneus processus - it is also true that individuata la forma del secondo gravame, occorre analizzarne il contenuto sostanziale per l'individuazione della disciplina applicabile. Sicché ove questo, come nel caso di specie, si risolva non in una mera controimpugnazione su capi dipendenti o connessi da quelli contrastati principaliter, ma abbia ad oggetto doglianze autonome ed indipendenti, sarà soggetto ai termini ordinari per l'impugnazione previsti dall'art. 28, l. 6 dicembre 1971, n. 1034 e 327 c.p.c. (cfr. da ultimo Cons. St., sez. IV, 7 settembre 2006, n. 5196).
Nella specie il gravame incidentale improprio è stato ritualmente notificato e depositato.
In ogni caso, anche a voler considerare il gravame della Spinosa quale appello incidentale proprio, risultano rispettati, in the particular case, the terms of service and storage, according to art. 37, Royal Decree No. 1054 of 1924, although half the art. 23a, l. Tar, respectively at 15 and 5 days.
10. In the first half the company claims Pisa, in substance, that the justifications given in the sub process of the event, can not be later than the date of submission of the original, well below that angle would make the the contracting authority to consider unacceptable, and those made by Spinosa, in general, unreliable supply of the latter.
The plea is unfounded.
The system of Community rules (as interpreted dalla Corte di giustizia nella sentenza 27 novembre 2001, n. 285 e dalla giurisprudenza nazionale, cfr. ex plurimis Cons. St., sez. IV, 7 giugno 2004, n. 3554), anche antecedentemente alle direttive 17 e 18 del 2004 ed al codice degli appalti (d.lvo n. 163 del 2006) che le ha recepite (inapplicabile ratione temporis), non si oppone a che l’amministrazione richieda a pena di esclusione che le offerte presentate siano corredate da giustificazioni preventive anche in misura inferiore al 100%, purché sia garantita una effettiva fase di valutazione in contraddittorio, successivamente all’apertura delle buste.
Il principio, per essere attuato in modo pienamente conforme al sistema comunitario, va temperato con alcune precisazioni:
The verification procedure is "downstream" must be activated in any case, not only when you have doubts and misgivings about the reliability of supply, but also when the remarks made by the contracting relates to the substantive content of the proposal for negotiation, having found The differences between the service offered than that required by the notice or letter of invitation that would have led to the ineligibility of the offer itself and not the opinion of defect (see Cons. St., sect. IV, 21 August 2002, No 4268). The acquisition
preliminary justifications can not obviously relate to the explanations and clarifications regarding the reliability and profitability della proposta contrattuale logicamente immaginabili solo in riscontro a puntuale e circoscritta richiesta dell’amministrazione (cfr. Cons. St., sez. IV, 7 giugno 2004, n. 3554);
L’integrazione delle giustificazioni originarie a mezzo di ulteriore produzione documentale, costituendo applicazione del principio comunitario del contraddittorio successivo, implica un fisiologico arricchimento degli elementi dedotti in origine, senza che la stazione appaltante possa dedurre il carattere nuovo ed ulteriore della documentazione rispetto a quella esibita in origine, con il limite, però, del divieto dello stravolgimento dell’offerta originaria, che non può trasformarsi, per il tramite delle seconde giustificazioni, in un quid di sostanzialmente nuovo o diverso (cfr. Cons. St., sez. IV, 7 giugno 2004, n. 3554).
Nel caso di specie, come risulta dall’esame di tutta la documentazione versata in atti, deve escludersi che le giustificazioni, ritenute inattendibili dal saggio di gara, alterassero gli elementi costitutivi dell’offerta.
Devono essere pertanto respinte tutte le censure articolate dalla società Pisa da pagina 22 a pagina 48 dell’atto di gravame.
Tali doglianze sono infondate, alla luce delle risultanze istruttorie, anche nella parte in cui contestano la fornitura dei diaframmi, della bentonite, degli impianti elettrici nonché la consistenza della riserva economica elaborata dalla Spinosa.
Per quanto specificamente attiene the provision of two lifts of the firm Schindler, the defense of Pisa argues that the models offered by the company Spinosa would be discontinued, hence the opinion of incongruity of the tender issued by the seat of a race. Although this complaint is without merit, since government is not wise that the booths provided by the company Spinosa (Schindler S300 Stylish S48) were precisely those required in the List of works carried out (paragraph 30) on the basis of which a mind of the notice (cfr.pagina 2), the contestants were required to provide justification in support of the offer.
10.1. By the second half, the company argues that the court would Pisa DeCamp bounds della giurisdizione di legittimità sostituendo la propria valutazione (e quella del c.t.u. definito ignoto ingegnere di Lucca) a quella della stazione appaltante.
Il mezzo è infondato.
In primo luogo giova precisare che il c.t.u. è (o almeno era all’epoca dei fatti) il capo dell’Ufficio tecnico comunale del comune di Lucca, professionista dunque munito di specifiche competenze settoriali.
In ogni caso la tesi propugnata dall’appellante è smentita dalla piana lettura dell’impugnata sentenza.
Il T.a.r. non si è affatto sostituito alle valutazioni tecnico discrezionali appannaggio del seggio di gara, ma le ha confutate ab externo, mettendo in luce la loro manifesta illogicità ed irregolarità formal.
So true is this that is limited to annul the proceedings of abnormalities of the contracting authority Spinosa forcing a reassessment (this ruling, as we shall see below, which was opposed by the company through a separate action Spinosa).
Regarding the profile of the irregularities of procedure carried out by the administration, the panel noted that all information in the file shows the systematic violation by the latter of the basic rules of the adversarial principle should always inspire the comparison between and the contracting company. In practice it appears that most of the fines in court charged final anomaly has not been previously disputed and the company Spinosa has been in the inability to provide appropriate justifications.
12.2. The third reason is the habit of complaining extrapetizione far as it did in the Tar expanding the application for annulment, which was originally paid by the company against Spinosa only exception to failure of its bid, to the point of sunset also cover the non- exclusion of the tenderer.
The plea is unfounded. The Tar
entrusted to ctu relevant technical investigation on the fairness of the offer made by the Pisa for the sole purpose of deciding the merits of the complaint of unequal treatment raised Spinosa by the company, once regarded as established the diversity of the yardstick used by the seat of the race, was careful not to fault the cancellation proceedings issued by that body in respect of the offer was in the end awarded the contract.
There is therefore irrelevant, and in any case unfounded on the basis of technical data on the file in the office, the complaints moved by the appellant (from page 62 to page 69 of application), the assumption that the ruling would not set aside the proceedings of anomaly of the tenderer.
11. Can go down now examine the appeal brought by Spinosa.
11.1. In the first half criticizing arguments sviluppate ai punti 3 e 21 lett. d) dell’impugnata sentenza nella parte in cui estendono gli effetti conformativi favorevoli della pronuncia alle imprese Saced e Provera, facendone discendere l’obbligo per la stazione appaltante di sottoporre a nuovo procedimento di anomalia tutte e tre le offerte (Spinosa, Saced e Provera) e conseguentemente l’improcedibilità dei rispettivi ricorsi proposti dalle ultime due.
Il mezzo è fondato.
Sebbene le società Saced e Provera non abbiano formulato appello sul capo della sentenza che ha dichiarato improcedibili i rispettivi ricorsi, ciò nonostante è evidente l’interesse della Spinosa a rimuovere il punto ad essa sfavorevole che pregiudica in via immediata e diretta l’eventuale riesercizio future of power by the awarding entity. Indeed, the Tar
ran into a number of factual errors that have misled the process and the conclusion of the proceedings which culminated in the declaration of admissibility of appeals Saceda and Provera.
In particular, it is prudent that: the company's offer
Provera had not exceeded the alert threshold of anomaly and thus in no way should have been submitted to its verification process in the implementation of any final;
society Provera sought the annulment of the final only on the assumption of the illegality of the lack of exclusion for failure of supply Pisa, but the question that has supported the use of First Instance of Provera, as previously noted, has never been tested, the
Saceda not ranked behind Spinosa, but rather in a downward position by offering more poziore ;
Spinosa has never asked for the cancellation of the anomaly of non-exclusion provision of Pisa, it is clear on this point, the lack of specific interest to take action to have offered the lowest price.
ultimately can not be argued that the annulment of the award has been given to the unlawful exclusion of non supply fault Pisa, and the Tar, the specific location considered in modo anodino che <
Per completezza il collegio dà atto che la difesa della società Pisa non ha contestato l’accoglimento del mezzo di gravame in trattazione (pagina 5 memoria conclusionale del 24 novembre 2008).
11.2. Quanto al secondo mezzo di gravame la sezione osserva che è sicuramente inammissibile la domanda di risarcimento the damage in a specific form by direct award of the race, based on the recently developed arguments from meeting of this Council to the Plenary that the section does not intend to depart (see decisions of 21 November 2008, 12 and 30 July 2008, No 9).
11.3. Inaccoglibile is also the question of compensation equivalent to the monetary damages resulting from lost profits and lost business opportunity.
The College does not intend to deviate from the address on the point of case law that excludes the possibility of evaluating the merits of the claim for damages when the measure excluding anomaly is canceled, as is the case, for formal and procedural defects that allow the riesercizio of power by the contracting (see Cons. St., sect. VI, June 30, 2006, No. 4231, sect. IV, May 20, 2003, No. 2708, sect. VI, 4 September 2002 No. 4435).
12. In conclusion should be rejected in its entirety the appeal by the company Pisa, while that of Spinosa society must be allowed to change only in the sense just now stated, that judgment's reasoning remains unchanged in the rest. In the reciprocal
Party, the loser sees good reasons to fully compensate between them the costs of these proceedings.
PQM
The Council of State in the courts (Section Five), definitively ruling on the actions together serve best as an epigraph:
- reject the appeal filed by the Company Pisa Spa Builders - Romagnoli successor to the spa - in person and as an agent of the car with the CTC Consorzio Toscano Construction;
- accept in part, pursuant to and within the limits of the reasons given, the appeal filed by Spinosa Costruzioni Generali srl and the effect of confirming the decision under appeal for different reasons;
- declared by the parties fully offset the costs of these trial.
Decided in Rome, in chambers on December 5, 2008, with the participation of: Raffaele
Iannotta - President
Vito Poli Rel Extender - Director Gabriele
Carlotti - Director Giancarlo
Gianbartolemei - Director
Angelica Dell'Utri Costagliola - Director
EXTENDER THE PRESIDENT
f.to Vito Raffaele Poli f.to Iannotta
THE SECRETARY
f.to Cynthia Giglio FILED IN OFFICE
on 02/13/2009.
- reject the appeal filed by the Company Pisa Spa Builders - Romagnoli successor to the spa - in person and as an agent of the car with the CTC Consorzio Toscano Construction;
- accept in part, pursuant to and within the limits of the reasons given, the appeal filed by Spinosa Costruzioni Generali srl and the effect of confirming the decision under appeal for different reasons;
- declared by the parties fully offset the costs of these trial.
Decided in Rome, in chambers on December 5, 2008, with the participation of: Raffaele
Iannotta - President
Vito Poli Rel Extender - Director Gabriele
Carlotti - Director Giancarlo
Gianbartolemei - Director
Angelica Dell'Utri Costagliola - Director
EXTENDER THE PRESIDENT
f.to Vito Raffaele Poli f.to Iannotta
THE SECRETARY
f.to Cynthia Giglio FILED IN OFFICE
on 02/13/2009.
0 comments:
Post a Comment