841.51 IVÖBAIMP

CH-SG

Art. 16 Concordato intercantonale sugli appalti pubblici (CIAP) (IVöB) - Soglie di Valore

4. Capitolo: Procedure di aggiudicazione

Apri la fonte ufficiale Atto completo (64 Articoli) Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Art. 16 IVöB - Soglie di Valore · Soglie di Valore

1. La scelta del procedimento dipende dal fatto che un incarico raggiunga una soglia secondo gli allegati 1 e 2. L'InöB adatta periodicamente le soglie, previa consultazione del Consiglio federale, in conformità con gli obblighi internazionali.

2. In caso di modifica degli obblighi internazionali riguardanti le soglie, la Confederazione garantisce ai cantoni la partecipazione.

3. Se il valore complessivo di più prestazioni di costruzione per la realizzazione di un'opera edile raggiunge la soglia del settore dell'accordo internazionale, si applicano le disposizioni di questo accordo per gli appalti nel settore dell'accordo internazionale. Tuttavia, se i valori delle singole prestazioni non raggiungono due milioni di franchi e il valore complessivo di queste prestazioni non supera il 20 percento del valore totale dell'opera edile, si applicano a queste prestazioni le disposizioni per gli appalti al di fuori del settore dell'accordo internazionale (clausola di irrilevanza).

4. Al di fuori del settore dell'accordo internazionale, il procedimento applicabile per le prestazioni di costruzione è determinato in base al valore delle singole prestazioni.

← Art. 15 IVöB - Determinazione del valore dell'appalto Concordato intercantonale sugli appalti pubblici (CIAP) (IVöB) - Oggetto Art. 17 IVöB - Tipologie di procedimento →

Decisioni giudiziarie che applicano questa disposizione (57)

B.2017.84 · sg (Art. 16 Abs. 2 IVöB)

Contract Award Annulled Due to Flawed Price and Quality Evaluation Scoring

Cited as the provision limiting the Administrative Court's power to interfere with the lower authority's discretionary assessment during re-evaluation.

B.2017.146 · sg (Art. 16 Abs. 2 IVöB)

Contract Award Dispute Dismissed Pending Full Review

Cited in the reasoning (E. 3.4.1 and E. 3.4.8) regarding the limitation of the court's review to legal control, which underpins the decision not to suspend the effect.

B.2017.146 · sg (Art. 16 Abs. 1 IVöB)

Administrative Court Dismisses Appeal Against Program Award Decision Due to Insufficient Substantiation

Cited in the reasoning regarding the scope of judicial review and procedural requirements for the appeal, which influences the dismissal of the appeal.

B.2017.135 · sg (Art. 16 Abs. 2 IVöB)

Suspensive Effect Denied in Public Contract Award Appeal Due to Insufficient Substantiation

Cited in the reasoning (E. 3.3) to justify that the court cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the authority regarding the assessment criteria.

B.2017.135 · sg (Art. 16 Abs. 2 IVöB)

Appeal Dismissed in Contract Award Dispute Over Re-integration Program

Cited in conjunction with Art. 5 Abs. 1 EGöB to confirm that the court cannot intervene in the margin of appreciation used by the authority regarding the scoring criteria.

B.2017.132 · sg (Art. 16 Abs. 1 und 2 IVöB)

Engineering Firms Challenge Road Redesign Contract Award Criteria

Cited in the reasoning (E. 4.4) regarding the limited scope of judicial review over weighting of award criteria.

B.2016.116 · sg (Art. 16 Abs. 2 IVöB)

Public Contract Award Challenge Dismissed Despite Minor Procedural Flaw

This article (cited in the heading but not explicitly in the dispositive) is contextually linked to the assessment of the appeal grounds regarding the evaluation criteria, although the final decision rests on other grounds and procedural rules.

B.2016.85 · sg (Art. 16 Abs. 2 IVöB)

Rejection of Appeal Against Job Coaching Award Decision Based on Pricing and Leadership Evaluation

Cited to confirm that the inadequacy of the award decision cannot be challenged before the administrative court regarding the assessment of premises.

B.2016.26 · sg (Art. 16 Abs. 2 IVöB)

Challenge to Public Works Contract Award Denied Due to Contract Evaluation Discretion

Cited in the reasoning to state that the court cannot intervene in the discretion of the awarding authority regarding the evaluation of reference objects.

B.2016.26 · sg (Art. 16 Abs. 2 IVöB)

Procurement Appeal Against Heating Plant Award Dismissed Due to Lack of Substantiation

Cited in the reasoning as the legal basis allowing the court not to intervene in the procuring authority's discretionary margin regarding reference object evaluations.

B.2014.145 · sg (Art. 16 IVöB)

Contract Award Challenge Granted Suspensive Effect Due to Bid Deficiencies

Cited as the procedural basis allowing complaints regarding legal violations in public procurement review.

B.2014.61 · sg (Art. 16 Abs. 1 und 2 IVöB)

Suspensive Effect Granted in Public Contract Appeal Over Price Evaluation Uncertainty

Cited to support the rule that only incorrect or incomplete determination of facts and legal violations (including abuse of discretion) can be challenged, not inappropriateness.

B.2014.21 · sg (Art. 16 Abs. 1 und 2 IVöB)

Procurement Award Suspension Due to Irregularities in Award Criteria and Reference Projects

Mentioned in the reasoning regarding the scope of complaint (factual findings and legal violations), but not explicitly cited in the dispositive orders 1-4.

B.2014.21 · sg (Art. 16 Abs. 1 und 2 IVöB)

Suspension of Public Procurement Award Due to Transparency Violations and Procedural Errors

Cited in the reasoning to describe the scope of review regarding factual findings and legal violations in the appeal, but not explicitly cited in the dispositive orders.

B.2013.46 · sg (Art. 16 Abs. 1 IVöB)

Public Procurement Transparency Violation and Award Annulment

This provision was used to confirm the grounds upon which the appeal could be based, although the substantive issue was decided based on Art. 18.