Refugee accommodation, Preußischer Hof, Bischhofswerder Weg 12, 16559 Liebenwalde Fire protection renovation - Sanitary ventilation systems

As regards the scope of the contract, it is documented that the subject of the contract is ‘Fire protection refurbishment – Sanitary/room ventilation installations’ in the property ‘Preußischer Hof – HAUS LOUISE – Rehabilitation of the property for refugee accommodation, Bischhofswerder Weg 12, 16559 Liebenwalde’. The place of performance is thus clearly the building in Liebenwalde (Brandenburg). The list of services (sanitary + HVAC) specifies the technical content, such as dismantling and reinstallation of air ducts, fire barriers, fire dampers, adaptation of existing systems and refurbishment of waste water piping in the attic; all services must be produced ready for operation and use, including all ancillary services in accordance with VOB/C (DIN 18299, 18379, 18381). In time, the draft contract foresees that work will start in November 2026 and be finalised by February 2027 at the latest; The Works Management sets interim deadlines and records them. Specific quantities result exclusively from the LV (in this case only in extracts); a site manager in accordance with the Land Building Code must be appointed by the Contractor. Data exchange for measurement/invoicing is agreed in GAEB format (LV preliminary remark and Form 244).

With regard to the award criteria and their weighting, the text submitted does not contain any explicit provision; in particular, neither scoring criteria nor scoring schemes or weightings are documented. The standardised price determination forms 221/222 only explain the internal calculation system (settlement wage, BGK, AGK, Wagnis & Profit) without these themselves being defined as an award criterion. Therefore, according to the available documents, it is only certain that an evaluable, complete, formal and timely offer with priced LV as well as the formal declarations/proofs of suitability must be available; the exact identification of the most economical tenderer remains open in the text and must be taken from the actual contract notice/call.

With regard to risks and special conditions, the documents show numerous clauses relevant to tenderers. In this way, fixed execution deadlines are agreed; if the deadline is culpably exceeded, the contracting authority may demand a contractual penalty of 0.3% of the gross final settlement sum per working day, limited to 5% of the total gross contract value. In addition, the contract provides for security retentions: 5 % of the gross order amount up to acceptance and a further 3 % for warranty claims over five years; These securities can be replaced by an unlimited, joint and several bank/insurance guarantee and must be paid into a blocked account by the Client. The warranty period is expressly extended to five years. Prices are fixed prices, sliding clauses are excluded; Nevertheless, the BbgVergG form requires that any wage slip clauses for longer-term contracts also apply to increases in the BbgVergG minimum fee – in practice, the higher federal minimum wage will predominantly apply here (MiLoG, from 1.1.2026: 13,90 €). Furthermore, there are considerable risks arising from the minimum fee and tariff compliance regulations (Forms 5.3/5.4 BbgVergG and 231/232 Tariff compliance): in the case of culpable reductions in remuneration or breaches of control obligations, contractual penalties of 1% of the order amount per case, limited to 5% (BbgVergG forms) or 10% (older tariff loyalty forms) of the order value, a maximum of €250,000. Infringements can also lead to exclusion from competition for up to three years and entry on a blocking list; Subcontractors and lenders are to be contractually obliged in the same way, so the bidder also bears a chain risk. Other special features: the Contractor must keep a construction diary, electricity and water are provided, the consumption costs are borne by the Contractor and pay a lump sum of 0.3% of the gross final invoice for community facilities; Construction insurance is provided to the AG, liability insurance of the AN. The present extracts do not contain any provisions on the time limit for binding tenders, the time limit for bidders to ask questions or a mandatory on-site visit.

The documents themselves contain clarifications on contradictions and the question of which rule applies in case of doubt. The draft contract sets out a ranking of the elements of the contract: the binding offer of the Contractor (with the integrated supplements such as the BbgVergG declaration, compliance with collective agreements), then the VOB/C (technical regulations), then VOB/B, subsidiary the BGB works contract law and finally the agreement to comply with the minimum requirements under the Brandenburg Public Procurement Act; in case of doubt, the higher rule in that order shall apply. Form 244 clarifies that in the event of discrepancies between electronic GAEB data exchange files and the written version of the procurement or settlement documents, the written version shall prevail; Data exchange files are only considered work equipment. Where older Federal fare loyalty forms (231/232) and the new Brandenburg forms 5.3/5.4 EU are mentioned side by side, the text of the contract (‘contract component ... agreement minimum requirements BbgVergG’) indicates that, in case of doubt, the current state-law BbgVergG agreements are decisive; the older forms only apply if they are expressly made part of the contract and are not superimposed by the BbgVergG rules. Similarly, Form 5.3 EU provides that certain minimum fee rules of the BbgVergG do not apply as long as the Federal Minimum Wage MiLoG is higher; in that regard, this is an express ‘priority rule’ in favour of the higher MiLoG rate, which resolves any apparent contradictions between different minimum charges.