Construction d'une aire de jeux pour enfants à la Haus Mühle, 15345 Petershagen/Eggersdorf

✓Besondere Vertragsbedingungen (Form 214) fix the start of works on 16.11.2026 and completion (abnahmereife Fertigstellung) by 18.12.2026; if weather prevents installation in 2026, split billing is allowed and final montage may occur up to 30.04.2027.

✓These dates are contractual (“Vertragsfristen”); delays trigger contractual penalties.

✓Such as regarding “award criteria and weighting”, the Aufforderung (Form 211) generically lists “Zuschlagskriterium Preis”, but the specific Leistungsbeschreibung for the Kleinkindspielplatz states a multi‑criteria evaluation: 40 % price and 60 % quality criteria.

✓Within the 60 % quality block, the text details four sub‑criteria: (1) Referenzen (max. 200 points), requiring additional reference PDFs with photos and contact data to assess reliability and accessibility; (2) Anzahl und Vielfalt der Spieloptionen (max. 400 points), assessing the number and diversity of toddler‑appropriate play actions (with at least four mandatory); (3) Lieferzeitraum (max. 200 points), reflecting the feasibility of meeting the required completion by 18.12.2026; and (4) Ästhetik (max. 200 points), evaluated by an internal commission based on an anonymised design image/plan without logos or identifiers.

✓Thus, the economically most advantageous tender is determined on a weighted combination of price and detailed qualitative aspects, not price alone.

✓Such as for “risks and special conditions”, several documents impose notable obligations.

✓Besondere Vertragsbedingungen (214) introduce contractual penalties under § 11 VOB/B: a per‑day penalty (amount/percentage to be filled in the contract) for exceeding any agreed interim or completion deadline, capped overall at a percentage of the net contract sum, with cumulative rules for overlapping delays.

✓Security for performance and defects is generally waived (Boxes “Auf Sicherheit wird verzichtet” are ticked), but performance security is required if the net contract sum reaches ≥250,000 EUR; defect security would be 3 % of the preliminary settlement sum at acceptance if not waived.

✓Forms 5.3 and 5.4 create substantial risk around minimum wage compliance: a binding commitment to pay at least 13.00 EUR brutto/hour (Brandenburgischer Vergabemindestlohn), allow extensive access and audits (including workplace visits, document inspection, pseudonymised payroll), and cascade identical commitments to all subcontractors and Verleiher.

✓Each proven culpable violation (per employee per month or per refusal of controls) can trigger a contractual penalty of 1 % of the contract amount, up to 25,000 EUR per case and 5 %/250,000 EUR total, with the public buyer directly entitled to claim; repeated or serious violations can lead to up to three‑year exclusion from public tenders and entry in a central Sperrliste, with the possibility of “Selbstreinigung”.

✓Additionally, the Angebotsschreiben (213) obliges the bidder to accept VOB/B 2016, acknowledge the long LV version as binding, inform the buyer of changes to any submitted § 48b EStG certificate, and pay 15 % of the gross contract sum as lump‑sum damages if found to have engaged in anti‑competitive collusion, unless a lower damage is proven.

✓There are strict rules on subcontracting: the bidder must either perform all non‑listed services in‑house or list subcontracted services and ensure that each subcontractor signs corresponding minimum wage / control agreements (5.3/5.4), with a duty to replace subcontractors subject to procurement bans.

✓Offers are binding until 13.11.2026; questions on unclear or erroneous documents must be submitted via the portal before the offer deadline; site visits are not mentioned as mandatory.

✓Offers may formally be “schriftlich” or electronic in the standard form, but the “Weitere Angaben” in Form 211 clarify that, for this procedure, only electronic submission via the Brandenburg portal is admissible; any other form must be excluded.

✓Such as for “contradictions or corrections within the documents”, there are a few apparent tensions resolved by specificity or later text.

✓First, while the generic section 7 in Form 211 lists only “Preis” as Zuschlagskriterium, the project‑specific Leistungsbeschreibung and the attached “Wertungskriterien Kleinkindspielplatz am Haus Mühle” (explicitly named in the annex list) define a 40/60 weighting with several qualitative sub‑criteria.

✓Since these are tailored documents expressly referenced as contractual and evaluation basis, their detailed multi‑criteria scheme prevails over the generic form header; bidders should rely on 40 % price / 60 % quality.

✓Second, Form 211 mechanically lists both electronic and written submission options, but the “Weitere Angaben” section explicitly states that offers can “ausschließlich elektronisch” be submitted via the Vergabemarktplatz Brandenburg and that offers submitted by other means “müssen von der Wertung ausgeschlossen werden”.

✓This special note overrides the generic options in the standard form; therefore, only electronic bids via the portal are valid.

✓Third, minimum documentation requirements for references differ slightly: Form 216 demands “mindestens 2 Referenzen” with the offer, while Form 124’s Eigenerklärung foresees up to three detailed reference proofs “falls … in die engere Wahl kommt”.

✓In practice, at least two comparable references must be provided with the offer (as per 216/211), and the contracting authority may then request further detailed reference proofs (up to three) from shortlisted bidders, as per 124.

✓Where such clarifications are needed, the tender itself provides a mechanism: any perceived errors or unclear points must be raised with the contracting authority via the portal before the deadline; the contracting authority’s written clarifications and any officially issued changes to the documents become binding, as confirmed in the Angebotsschreiben.