Suministro de carburantes de automoción y AdBlue para la flota de vehículo, maquinaria, grupos electrógenos y equipos municipales del Ayuntamiento de Ciempozuelos

✓The estimated value of the contract is 56,379.16 EUR (IVA excluded) for the whole potential duration (initial term + possible extension + modifications), with a base tender budget of 31,008.54 EUR (25,626.89 EUR before VAT, 5,381.65 EUR VAT).

❓The initial execution period is 12 months from the day after formalisation, with an option for a single 12‑month extension, so total potential duration is 24 months.

✓The geographical scope is Ciempozuelos (Madrid, ES300); performance relates to fuelling the municipal fleet and equipment, with supplies at the service stations in the bidder’s network as per the price reference from the national Geoportal de Hidrocarburos.

✓Such as detailed in the value calculation, the base value is split into 25,626.89 EUR for the initial period, the same amount for the extension, plus 5,125.38 EUR for possible modifications.

✓Payment is monthly, based on all supplies in the billing period, and the invoiced unit price is the Geoportal reference price for the chosen station and product on the supply date minus the per‑litre discount offered, expressed with three decimals and inclusive of applicable taxes.

✓With respect to award criteria and weighting, the procedure is described as having a single, automatically quantifiable criterion: the economic offer.

✓Specifically, 100 points are awarded to the offer with the highest percentage discount applied uniformly to the public sale price of all fuel types supplied at the bidder’s network service stations at the time of supply.

✓Other offers receive a proportionate score using the formula Pi = Pmax × Di / MD (Pi = points for offer i; Pmax = 100 points; Di = discount of offer i; MD = highest discount among all offers), with scores rounded to two decimals.

✓There are no qualitative criteria, no sub‑criteria and no additional weighting: the only factor is the percentage discount.

✓The justification given is that the contract concerns standardised goods with clearly defined technical characteristics, so price is considered the determining element for efficient use of public resources.

✓On risks and special conditions, the pliego sets several key obligations.

✓Such as indicated under “Condiciones especiales de ejecución”, there are essential social and data‑protection conditions: (1) the contractor must be current in paying wages of staff involved in the contract; a delay or non‑payment of more than two months constitutes non‑compliance, and the Ayuntamiento may at any time require a certificate from the legal representative confirming wages are up to date.

✓This is expressly an essential contractual obligation and cause for contract termination.

❓(2) The contractor must comply with national and EU data‑protection rules; this is likewise designated an essential obligation under Art. 211.1.f LCSP.

✓Subcontracting is allowed up to 50% of the award amount; tenderers must state in their offer the part to be subcontracted, its amount and the name or business profile of subcontractors.

✓The validity period of the offer is 6 months.

✓The contract uses electronic payment and requires e‑invoicing via FACE; electronic “pedido” is not used.

✓There is a requirement for a minimum civil liability insurance policy of at least 50,000 EUR with no deductible.

❓The texts do not mention specific penalties or performance guarantees (fianzas) in the excerpts provided, nor any mandatory site visit.

✓Time‑related procedural risks include the offer submission deadline (04/11/2026 at 23:59), an indicative opening date for the single envelope (05/11/2026 at 09:08, with the definitive date to be confirmed in “otros documentos”), and a deadline for lodging appeals (until 09/11/2026 at 12:36).

❓There is no explicit question deadline in the excerpts, but the pliegos are obtainable until the offer deadline and contact details for queries ([email protected]) are provided.

✓As for contradictions or corrections within the documents, the content shown is largely consistent and often duplicated across the different PDFs (01‑placsp‑3, 02‑placsp‑6, 03‑placsp‑7, 04‑placsp‑8).

✓There are no evident conflicting statements about scope, value, duration, award criteria or participation conditions among the excerpts.

✓Where there are minor textual differences (such as the justification of social conditions mentioning “servicio de limpieza”, which seems more generic and perhaps copied from another contract type), these are explanatory and do not override the operative clauses.

❓In case of any doubt, the hierarchy implied by Spanish practice would mean that the Pliego de Cláusulas Administrativas Particulares (PCAP) governs administrative and contractual conditions, and the Pliego de Prescripciones Técnicas (PPT) governs technical aspects; the resolution of the Alcaldía simply approves these and does not modify them.