Filenews 23 October 2025 - by Michalis Chatzivasilis
Despite the fact that the project contract for the construction of the Paphos – Polis Chrysochous motorway, Section 1 – Phase (A) has been terminated since 2024, the legal disputes over the award of the tender are still ongoing.
Yesterday, the Administrative Court rejected the two appeals of the consortium AVAX S.A. – CYBARCO CONTRACTING LTD, against the Tender Review Authority, to reject its appeal directed against the Contracting Authority to request clarifications on the term "10 years of postgraduate experience in a study, or in a study supervision or a combination of the two, in road projects". With its second appeal, the consortium requested the annulment of the decision to award the tender to the company INTRAKAT, for the amount of €72,979,000.00 plus VAT.
According to the Court, the facts of the two cases revolve around the tender no. PS/DB/16 "Design and construction of the Paphos – Polis Chrysochous motorway, Section 1 – Phase (A)" which was announced by the Department of Public Works on 23.5.2019, with the last date for the submission of tenders being 22.11.2019. According to the terms of the tender documents, it was an open procedure for the conclusion of a Project Contract, with the award criterion being the most economically advantageous offer based on price, a project financed by the State Budget.
In connection with the contested tender, four tenders were submitted, including that of the applicant and INTRAKAT (the interested party). Following the evaluation of the submitted tenders, the Evaluation Committee submitted a proposal to the Tenders Committee, that the tender be awarded to the company INTRAKAT, for the amount of €72,979,000.00 plus VAT. The Tenders Committee, at its meeting on 31.1.2020, decided to award the tender, as the recommendation of the Evaluation Committee.
Against this decision, the applicant filed an appeal before the Tender Review Authority no. 4/2020, in the context of which the annulment decision dated 10.11.2020 was issued. The issue concerned the interpretation of the essential term for the electrical works designer, on the basis of which, as judged by the Tender Review Authority, an incorrect interpretation was attributed by the Contracting Authority. As the term was interpreted by the Tender Review Authority, a total of at least 10 years of postgraduate experience in a study, or in a study supervision or a combination of the two, in road projects, was required, which as it was judged "[...] the Contracting Authority omitted, as it had a duty, to investigate and determine whether it is clear from the submissions that the position and the duties declared cumulatively included a study or even a study supervision".
The company INTRAKAT changed the company and it was judged that the condition for a designer of electrical works with 10 years of experience was met.
As the Court held, what is ascertained by all the above actions of the Contracting Authority is that there was in no case a violation of the principle of equal treatment of tenderers, nor of the principle of transparency, nor of proportionality, since the treatment received by all tenderers was the same, the actions of the Contracting Authority are recorded in detail and with sufficient justification within its supplementary report.
"I do not find anything reprehensible in the procedure followed by the Contracting Authority to award the tender to the successful company and the applicant's claims to the contrary are rejected in their entirety as unfounded," the Administrative Court notes in its decision, rejecting both appeals.
