Obrazložitev naročnikovih odločitev v postopkih javnega naročanja po praksi Državne revizijske komisije

In this article, we will become acquainted with the practice of the National Review Commission for Reviewing Public Procurement Award Procedures, in cases where the National Review Commission for Reviewing Public Procurement Award Procedures issued decisions on the conformity of statement of reasons in the contracting authorities' decisions in public procurement procedures with the Public Procurement Act (ZJN-3). The basic purpose of the article is to help contracting entities, tenderers and all other participants in public procurement procedures (and their representatives) - with comparison of existing practice and on concrete examples of decisions - to understand in which cases the contracting authority's decision in the public procurement procedure is appropriate (and in which cases it is not appropriate). For contracting entities, so that they can - as a result of the appropriate explanations of the decisions - receive less review claims (which will lead to faster execution of the public procurement procedures, which is certainly one of the contracting authority's often essential objectives), and for tenderers and other participants in public procurement procedures, so that that they will find it easier to determine and decide in which cases it is reasonable to file a review claim and pay the fee for legal protection in reviewing public procurement award procedures, and in which cases it does not make sense to do so. V članku se bomo seznanili s prakso Državne revizijske komisije za revizijo postopkov oddaje javnih naročil v primerih, ko je ta odločala o skladnosti obrazložitev naročnikovih odločitev v postopkih javnega naročanja z Zakonom o javnem naročanju (ZJN-3). Temeljni namen članka je naročnikom, ponudnikom in vsem drugim udeležencem postopkov javnega naročanja (ter njihovim pooblaščencem) s primerjavo obstoječe prakse in s konkretnimi primeri odločitev pomagati razumeti, v katerih primerih je obrazložitev naročnikove odločitve, sprejeta v postopku javnega naročanja, ustrezna (in v katerih primerih ne). Naročnikom zato, ker bodo lahko ob ustreznih obrazložitvah odločitev, ki jih sprejemajo, prejeli manj zahtevkov za revizijo (in hitreje izvedli postopek javnega naročanja, kar je v večini primerov gotovo eden izmed bistvenih ciljev), ponudnikom in drugim udeležencem postopkov javnega naročanja pa, ker bodo lažje ugotovili in se odločili, v katerih primerih je smiselno vložiti zahtevek za revizijo in plačati takso za postopek pravnega varstva, v katerih primerih pa tega ni smiselno storiti.