Klagenævnet for Udbud J.nr.: 2012-0026698 (Katja Høegh, Nikolaj Aarø-Hansen) 5. marts 2012

Klagenævnet for Udbud J.nr.: 2012-0026698 (Katja Høegh, Nikolaj Aarø-Hansen) 5. marts 2012 K E N D E L S E Bombardier Transportation Denmark A/S (advokat Jesper Kaltoft, København) mod Banedanmark (Kammeradvokaten ved advokat Kristian Hartlev) Ved udbudsbekendtgørelse nr. 2010/S 39-057712 af 23. februar 2010 udbød Banedanmark (indklagede) som udbud med forhandling efter direktiv 2004/17/EF (forsyningsvirksomhedsdirektivet) en rammeaftale om»fjernbane onboard ERTMS equipment«senere i udbudsbetingelser og under evalueringen betegnet»the Signalling Programme Signalling System contract for the Fjernbane Onboard for Onboard Equipment«(indkøb af ombordudrustning til brug for jernbanetrafikregulering på fjernbanen med et såkaldt ERTMS (European Rail Traffic Management System) level 2 system). Værdien er i bekendtgørelsen anslået til 1 1,3 mia. kr. ekskl. moms. Udbuddet indgik i en af Folketinget besluttet samlet udskiftning af signalanlæg på fjernbanen og S-banen til en værdi på i alt 18 mia. kr. Indklagede meddelte den 26. januar 2012 tilbudsgiverne at have besluttet at tildele kontrakten til et konsortium bestående af Alstom Belgium SA og Alstom Denmark A/S (»Alstom«i det følgende). Klagenævnet har den 6. februar 2011 modtaget en klage fra Bombardier Transportation Denmark A/S (klageren) over udbuddet.

2. Klageren har anmodet om, at klagenævnet tillægger klagen opsættende virkning. Indklagede har protesteret mod, at der tillægges klagen opsættende virkning. Klagenævnet har truffet afgørelse vedrørende opsættende virkning på det foreløbige grundlag, der foreligger, nemlig klageskrift med bilag 1 11, klagerens supplerende processkrifter 1 og 2 af 27. og 28. februar 2012 og svarskrift med bilag A J samt indklagedes supplerende processkrift A af 1. marts 2012. Klagens indhold: Klageskriftet indeholder følgende påstande: Påstand 1 Klagenævnet skal konstatere, at indklagede har handlet i strid med ligebehandlingsprincippet, jf. forsyningsvirksomhedsdirektivets artikel 10, ved at anvende en sproglig evalueringsmodel, der ikke er egnet til at identificere det økonomisk mest fordelagtige tilbud, og som ikke sikrer en overholdelse af den udmeldte vægtning af de enkelte underkriterier. Påstand 2 (subsidiær i forhold til påstand 1) Klagenævnet skal konstatere, at indklagede har handlet i strid med ligebehandlingsprincippet, jf. forsyningsvirksomhedsdirektivets artikel 10, ved at tildele Alstoms tilbud høje karakterer for de kvalitative underkriterier og herefter antage tilbuddet fra Alstom, uagtet Alstoms tilbud ikke havde en høj grad af opfyldelse for så vidt angår de kvalitative kriterier, hvorved indklagede reelt har tilsidesat den udmeldte vægtning af underkriterierne og reelt alene ladet prisen være udslagsgivende for tildelingsbeslutningen. Påstand 3 Klagenævnet skal annullere indklagedes beslutning af 26. januar 2012 om at tildele kontrakten for»signalling Programme regarding the delivery for the On Board project«til Alstom.

3. Andre oplysninger i sagen: Udbuddets forløb Følgende 5 virksomheder blev prækvalificeret den 7. maj 2010 og 2. juli 2010 opfordret til at afgive tilbud: - Klageren. - Ansaldo STS S.p.A. - Invensys Rail Ltd. - Et konsortium bestående af Siemens A/S og Siemens AG. - Alstom. De pågældende virksomheder modtog udbudsmaterialet»tender Documents«, som ifølge den endelige version af»tender Conditions«punkt 3 samlet består af (de rettelsesmarkeringer, som fremgår af den endelige version, og som viser ændringer i forhold til den første version, er ikke medtaget her):»prequalification - EU Notice Invitation to Tender Tender Conditions (this document) Att. 4: Template for questions Att 5: Award Criteria Att 5: Att 1 Price Evaluation Att 6: Complete Overview of Tender Documents Att 8: Complete list of ITTs Contract Appendix 1 Time Schedule Attachment 5: Suggested Rolling Stock Installation Plan Appendix 2 Customer's Environment Att 1-48: Onboard Data incl. TIP for all train types Appendix 3.1 Delivery Description, Introduction and Scope Att 3: Compliance Matrix Appendix 3.2 Functional Requirements Att 2: Fjernbane Operational Concept Att 3: Draft ERTMS Users Group ETCS-GPRS Principles document 11E017 Att 4: Fjernbane Infrastructure East/West BAFO Tender Document/Appendix 3.1 Att. 11 Online Key Management System Concept Appendix 3.3 Non Functional Requirements Att 1: Fjernbane Infrastructure East/West BAFO Tender Document/Appendix 3.1 Att. 11 Online Key Management System Concept

Appendix 3.7 Training Requirements Att 2: Training Matrix Appendix 4 Documentation Att 1: Documentation Tables Att 2: STM-DK Documentation for Onboard Supplier Att 1-6 to Att 2 Appendix 5 Maintenance and Support Appendix 6 Service Level Goals Appendix 9 Change Management Att 1: Change Order Template Appendix 10 Project Organisation and Execution Att 4: CVs for Key Resources Att 5: List of Key Functions Att 9: Working Group Proposal Att 10: Early Warning template Att 12: List of Subcontractors Att 13: Overview of Key Functions and Key Resources Appendix 11 Customer's Participation Att 6: Human Resources Att 13: Baneafgifter Appendix 12 Delivery Payment and Pricing Schedule Att 1: Pricing Schedule Att 2: Payment Schedule Att 3: Economies of Scale Appendix 13 Incentives and Penalties Appendix 14 Installation, Testing, Commissioning and Decommissioning Att 11: The Joint Test Lab Concept Appendix 15 License Terms Att A: License Terms for Standard SW and Open Source SW and Escrow Appendix 16 Process Requirements Att 1: Customers System Engineering Management Plan Att 2: Customers Requirements Management Plans Att 3: OR-Packages Overview Att 4: OR-Packages Analysis and Study Att 5: Stage Gate Procedure Att 6: Customers Safety Plan Att 6, Att 1: Authority Approval Process Plan Att 8: Customers Risk Management Plan Att 9: Customers Pre Tender Risk Register Att 11: G-ISA Scope of Work Att 12: The G-ISA s proposed G-ISA S-ISA split of responsibilities Appendix 17 Glossary Appendix 18A Subcontract A Appendix 18B Subcontract B 4.

5. Att 1: Contracting Entities Att 2: Example of LCC model Att 2 Att 1: Price Example for LCC model Appendix 19 Non Disclosure Agreement Appendix 20 Arbitration Agreement Appendix 21 Model Parent Company Guarantee Appendix 22 Q&A Appendices 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 7, and 8 do not exist. In addition to this list of appendices the tender documents also consist of a number of other attachments to the individual appendices that should be delivered by the Tenderers (all marked with ((red text))). All Functional Requirements in App. 3.2 and 3.3 are an extract from DOORS, which the Tenderers also have access to. In case of discrepancy between Requirements in App. 3.2 and 3.3 compared to DOORS it is App. 3.2 and 3.3 that is applicable.«det i udbudsmaterialet indeholdte kontraktudkast indeholder i punkt 28.1 følgende bestemmelse:» The requirements stated by the Customer may only be modified or changed in the appendices if such modifications are expressly stated by the Supplier in the compliance matrix and preferably also in the appendix. The compliance matrix filled in by the Supplier shall take precedence over the rest of the Supplier's offer. «De prækvalificerede afgav herefter i overensstemmelse med Tender Conditions punkt 4.3 inden for fristen herfor den 1. december 2010 et forhandlingstilbud (»first negotiation tender«forkortet»fnt«). Efter en i udbudsbetingelserne fastsat forhandlingsproces, hvorunder tilbudsgiverne blandt andet på møder i februar marts 2011 modtog feedback på FNT-tilbuddene, justerede indklagede udbudsbetingelserne i overensstemmelse med den i udbudsbetingelserne fastlagte procedure. De prækvalificerede afgav herefter inden for fristen herfor den 11. november 2011 på dette grundlag deres endelige og bindende tilbud (»Best And Final Offer«forkortet»BAFO«i det følgende»bafo-tilbud«).

6. Indklagede modtog 4 konditionsmæssige BAFO-tilbud fra klageren, Alstom, Ansaldo STS S.p.A og Siemens-konsortiet. Tilbuddet fra Invensys Rail Ltd. blev efter afholdelse af en i udbudsbetingelserne foreskrevet procedure, som gav mulighed for at frafalde forbehold, fundet ukonditionsmæssigt, idet Invensys Rail Ltd. afslog at frafalde et forbehold for et minimumskrav. Efter en yderligere proces med afklarende spørgsmål fra indklagedes side traf indklagede den 26. januar 2012 beslutning om at tildele kontrakten til Alstom. Indklagede underrettede de øvrige tilbudsgivere herom per e-mail den 26. januar 2012. Med underretningen fulgte en individuel evalueringsrapport»bafo Assesment Report«til hver tilbudsgiver. Minimumskrav og tildelingskriterier i udbudsbetingelserne Af punkt 4.5, 4.6 og 7.3 i»tender Conditions«i udbudsbetingelserne (seneste version her gengivet uden rettelsesmarkeringer af ændringer i forhold til forrige version) fremgår:»4.5 Reservations A number of minimum requirements are defined in the tender documents, cf. section 4.6. If the Tenderer in the BAFO makes reservations to a minimum requirement in the tender material, the tender is noncompliant and will be rejected (disqualified) and the Tenderer will be disqualified from further participation in this procurement process, unless the reservation is withdrawn according to section 7.3, 3 rd paragraph. If the Tenderer has reservations to a (non-minimum) requirement, the Tenderer shall specifically describe the scope of the reservations in the compliance matrix [1] and there specify any proposed amendment to the (non-minimum) requirement. Reservations to (non-minimum) requirements will be assessed during the evaluation under the relevant sub-criterion, cf. section 6. The relevant sub-criterion for each (non-minimum) requirement is - via the element - stated in attachment 5 combined with the compliance matrix. 4.6 Requirements and Minimum Requirements A (non-minimum) requirement is marked as R [appendix reference].000 in the appendices, e.g. R1.000 for Appendix 1. A minimum requirement is marked with an M in front of the requirement MR1.000.

7. Unless otherwise stated, the phrase "requirement" can mean both R- requirement and MR-requirement (whether it is one or the other depends on the marking (R or MR) of the requirement, cf. the sentence right above). In some documents the requirements are marked with an abbreviation of the appendix name, e.g. in Appendix 1 Time Schedule the requirements are marked TSR.000 and the minimum requirements are accordingly marked as MTSR.000. Some examples of requirements are shown below: The Contract, Appendix 15, Attachment A (Escrow Agreement) and Appendices 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 are as a whole a minimum requirement. These documents are not marked with MR or R like the rest of the appendices, cf. above, but nevertheless all text in these documents is to be considered MR. 7.3 BAFO The Customer shall reject the BAFO if it 1) does not meet the mandatory requirements in section 5.1, or 2) includes one or more reservations to minimum requirements in the tender material, cf. section 4.5. If the Customer identifies reservations to a minimum requirement in a tender, the Customer can contact the Tenderer and ask for the reservation to be withdrawn (see also section 4.5, 1. paragraph).«om tildelingskriteriet og tildelingen anføres det i»tender Conditions«(seneste version her gengivet uden rettelsesmarkeringer af ændringer i forhold til forrige version):»6. 1 The Most Economically Advantageous Tender The contract shall be awarded to the most economically advantageous tender assessed on the following sub-criteria (the relative weighting of the sub-criteria is stated in the parenthesis after each sub-criterion): 1) The lowest price, cf. "Total amount only for evaluation" in Appendix 12 Delivery Payment and Pricing Schedule as well as Other Prices (weight 40 %) 2) Onboard Solution (weight 30 %)

8. 3) Project and Maintenance Execution (weight 30 %) The Customer shall award the contract based on an evaluation of the prices and descriptions et cetera in the Tenderers' BAFO. The negotiation tenders will not be evaluated, when the contract is awarded. 6.2 Sub-criterion 1 - Price (40 %) The evaluation of the price consists of an evaluation of "Total amount only for evaluation", cf. the spread sheet in attachment 5. The weighting of the different price elements is listed in the same spread sheet in attachment 5. 6.3 Sub-criterion 2 - Onboard Solution (30 %) When assessing the Onboard Solution offered by the Tenderer s the Customer will base the assessment on the following elements: 2.1 Compliance with Delivery Requirements 2.2 Maturity 2.3 Environmental Impact 2.4 Robustness to external Events 2.5 Robustness to major Failures 2.6 System Integration 2.7 System Expansion and Changes 2.8 System Performance 2.9 System Safety 2.10 Flexibility of Upgrades and Maintenance (SW) 2.11 Maintainability of Equipment (HW) Together the 11 elements constitute the sub-criterion Onboard Solution. The elements are of equal importance to the Customer. The elements are explained in attachment 5 to these Tender Conditions and the explanations are an integrated part of the sub-criterion. 6.4 Sub- criterion 3 - Project and Maintenance Execution (30 %) When assessing the Project and Maintenance Execution offered by the Tenderer s the Customer will base the assessment on the following elements: 3.1 Time Schedule and Migration 3.2 Project Organisation and Execution 3.3 Maintenance Execution 3.4 Training 3.5 Documentation 3.6 Installation, Test, Commissioning and Decommissioning 3.7 Safety Management, Planning and Processes 3.8 Commercial Terms

9. Together the 8 elements constitute the sub-criterion Project and Maintenance Execution. The elements are of equal importance to the Customer. The elements are explained in attachment 5 to these Tender Conditions and the explanations are an integrated part of the subcriterion.«udbudsbetingelserne indeholder et mere end 600 sider langt dokument»appendix 3.1 Attachment 3: Compliance Matrix«, hvori tilbudsgiverne for hvert enkelt krav og minimumskrav skulle angive, om tilbuddet opfylder, delvist opfylder, eller ikke opfylder de enkelte krav henholdsvis minimumskrav. For så vidt angår de krav, som ikke er minimumskrav, kobles ikke-minimumskrav og det delkriterium, hvortil det gældende krav knytter sig, og under hvilket opfyldelsen/opfyldelsesgraden bedømmes. Tilbudsgiverne skulle som en del af tilbuddet udover en række priser, som lå til grund for vurderingen af priskriteriet, indlevere et forslag til Onboard Solution og et forslag til Project and Maintenance Execution til brug for vurderingen under hver af de to kvalitative underkriterier. I et 20 sider langt bilag 5»Attachment 5 Award Criteria, explanation of the 3 sub-criteria«til»tender Conditions«er underkriterierne til tildelingskriteriet nærmere forklaret, og det er uddybet, hvilke delkriterier indklagede ville lægge vægt på ved vurderingen af de kvalitative underkriterier. Det fremgår blandt andet:»3 Sub-criterion 2: Onboard Solution (30 %) For each element there is an explanation of what is important to the Customer. The Tenderer should try to fulfil these wishes since the evaluation of each element shall consist of an assessment of the Tenderers' fulfilment of the wishes stated in the table below regarding the element in question. For each element there is a reference to the Compliance Matrix (attachment to Appendix 3.1) and there may be a reference to the Complete list of ITTs "Instructions for the Tenderer" (attachment 8 to the Tender Conditions). The detailed references linking each requirement to an element are stated in the Compliance Matrix. The detailed references linking each ITT to one or more elements are stated in the Complete list of ITTs. The purpose of the references is to make it transparent for the Tenderer under which element(s) a certain proposed Delivery Description - based on an Instructions for the Tenderer text - is assessed and

10. under which element the non or partial compliance of a requirement is evaluated (cf. also section 4.5, 3rd paragraph, in the Tender Conditions). It is noted that the non or partial compliance of a minimum requirement in BAFO IS NOT evaluated. Instead refer to section 4.5, first paragraph, in the tender conditions. 4 Sub-criterion 3: Project and Maintenance Execution (30 %) When assessing the Project and Maintenance Execution offered by the Tenderers the Customer will base the assessment on the following elements (see table below). (The introduction under sub-criterion 2 also applies to the table below)«i»tender Conditions«(seneste version her gengivet uden rettelsesmarkeringer af ændringer i forhold til forrige version) omtales en række instruktioner»instructions to Tenderers«, som fremgår af bilag i udbudsbetingelserne, som følger:»5.2.1 Appendices Must Be Completed The Tenderer must complete the appendices to the contract. The Tenderer must complete the appendices in accordance with the instructions in the appendix in question. These instructions to Tenderers, are in bold red and all marked with double parenthesis (( )). All instructions to Tenderers will be deleted from the documents before contract signature. R An example of the instructions to Tenderers is shown here: The Supplier shall revise the Master Contract Project Schedule as defined in the Master Contract Project Schedule revision procedure {2} including a baselining of the Master Contract Project Schedule in connection with each phase shift. revisions ((The Tenderer shall suggest a procedure for Master Contract Project Schedule 2} which will be included as an attachment to this appendix)) An appendix can also contain guidance texts to the Tenderer. These texts are in italic and are meant as examples and/or explanatory text for a requirement.

11. An example of a guidance text is shown here: Guide: The Customer expects that the Master Contract Project Schedule is revised regularly both at pre-defined milestones (to be defined in the Master Contract Project Schedule revision procedure) and ad hoc as needed. The Customer expects that the Detailed Time Schedules and Resource Manning Plans are revised more often than the Project Management Milestone Plan and that the Project Management Milestone Plan is revised more often than the Executive Milestone Plan. The Customer expects that the first Master Contract Project Schedule revision takes place no later than 30 days after the Contract signature date. I et 92 sider langt dokument»attachment 8 List of ITT s«til udbudsbetingelserne er det angivet, under hvilket delkriterium en besvarelse af den enkelte Instruction to Tenderers (forkortet»itt s«) vil blive bedømt. For hver enkelt instruktion, som er gengivet samt forsynet med et nummer, er der givet en reference til det dokument, hvori instruktionen findes, og til hvilket delkriterium den knytter sig, som eksempelvis følgende: 1. Number Document Appendix 1 Sectiorement Requi- 3.3 MTSR.0 1 Heading ITT Award Criteria Migration ((The Tenderer shall include a 3.1 Time Schecept Con- draft Migration Strategy Report dule and Migra- which will be included as an attachment tion to this appendix {1}. The Migration Strategy Report {1} shall include the integration of Danish STM (see section 3.5), and the Critical milestones (see section 4.1). Further the Migration Strategy Report {1} shall also include time and resources to integrate the Swedish STM)) «Bedømmelsen af tilbuddene De tilbudsgivere, som ikke blev tildelt kontrakt, modtog som nævnt hver en individuel evalueringsrapport»bafo Assessment Report«. I rapporten til

12. klageren, som er på i alt 34 sider, anføres det i afsnit 3 Contract Award Criteria, blandt andet:»in the assessment Banedanmark has used the following terms to rate the tenders in relation to each of the elements under sub-criteria 2, Onboard Solution, and sub-criteria 3, Project and Maintenance Execution: Excellent (the BAFO fulfils all of Banedanmark's wishes and non-minimum requirements in the element) Very Satisfactory (the BAFO fulfils almost all, or a very large majority, of Banedanmark's wishes and non-minimum requirements in the element) Satisfactory (the BAFO fulfils most of Banedanmark's wishes and non-minimum requirements in the element) Less satisfactory (the BAFO fulfils only a few of Banedanmark's wishes and non-minimum requirements in the element) Not satisfactory (the BAFO does not fulfil any, or hardly any, of Banedanmark's wishes and non-minimum requirements in the element) The assessment of Bombardier s BAFO is stated below in section 4 to 6 in this assessment report. Section 7 contains the award of the contract.«i rapporten angives om bedømmelsen af underkriteriet»onboard Solution«blandt andet:»5 Assessment of the Onboard Solution Based on an assessment of the 11 elements it is Banedanmark's overall assessment that Bombardier is Very Satisfactory regarding the subcriterion Onboard Solution. When making this overall assessment Banedanmark has taken into account that the 11 elements are of equal importance. Bombardier have received 4 Excellent, 6 Very Satisfactory and 1 Satisfactory ratings for the elements 2.1 2.11 divided as follows: Element 2.1 Compliance with Delivery Requirements Excellent Element 2.2 Maturity Excellent Element 2.3 Environmental Impact Excellent Element 2.4 Robustness to external Events Satisfactory Element 2.5 Robustness to major Failures Very Satisfactory Element 2.6 System Integration Very Satisfactory

13. Element 2.7 System Expansion and Changes Element 2.8 System Performance Element 2.9 System Safety Element 2.10 Flexibility of Upgrades and Maintenance (SW) Element 2.11 Maintainability of Equipment (HW) Very Satisfactory Very Satisfactory Very Satisfactory Very Satisfactory Excellent«Om bedømmelsen af underkriteriet»project and Maintenance Execution«fremgår det blandt andet:»6. Assessment of Project and Maintenance Execution Based on an assessment of the 8 elements it is the Banedanmark s overall assessment that Bombardier is Very Satisfactory regarding the subcriterion Project and Maintenance Execution. When making this overall assessment Banedanmark has taken into account that the elements are of equal importance. Bombardier have received 8 Very Satisfactory ratings for the elements 3.1 3.8 divided as follows: Element 3.1 Time Schedule and Migration Element 3.2 Project Organisation and Execution Element 3.3 Maintenance Execution Element 3.4 Training Element 3.5 Documentation Element 3.6 Installation, Test, Commissioning and Decommissioning Element 3.7 Safety Management, Planning and Processes Element 3.8 Commercial terms Very Satisfactory Very Satisfactory Very Satisfactory Very Satisfactory Very Satisfactory Very Satisfactory Very Satisfactory Very Satisfactory The assessment of the 8 elements is explained below.«om tildelingen af anføres det i rapporten:»7.1 Result and explanation of the award Banedanmark have received 4 conditional BAFOs. The names of the 3 non-winning Tenderers are in the following made anonymous by using the letters U, V [V er klageren] and Z instead. The sub-criterion Price (weight 40%)

14. Alstom has offered the lowest price ( Total amount only for evaluation ) 1.507 mdkk, cf. the Tender Conditions section 6.2). Tender Z s price is the second lowest price (almost 17% higher than the lowest price). Tenderer V's price, being the third lowest, is almost 46% higher than the lowest price. The highest price is Tenderer U's, almost 97% higher than the lowest price. The sub-criterion Onboard Solution (weight 30%) According to Banedanmark s overall assessment of the 11 elements all 4 Tenderers' Onboard Solutions are assessed as Very Satisfactory. The 4 Onboard Solutions have different qualities, i.e. different strengths and weaknesses according to the 11 elements, but it is Banedanmark's overall assessment, after having assessed the 11 elements, that the 4 Onboard Solutions are almost of the same level of quality, the differences between them being only a little more than insignificant. It is assessed that Tender V has offered the best Onboard Solution. The Onboard Solution for Tenderer U and Tenderer Z are assessed to have the same level of quality and be the second best solutions. Alstom s Onboard Solution is assessed to be the fourth best Onboard Solution. As stated above, it is however Banedanmark's overall assessment, based on the assessment of the 11 elements, that the 4 Onboard Solutions are almost of the same level of quality. The sub-criterion Project and Maintenance Execution (weight 30%) According to Banedanmark s overall assessment of the 8 elements the Project and Maintenance Executions offered by Alstom, Tenderer V and Tenderer Z are assessed as Very Satisfactory. These 3 Project and Maintenance Executions have different qualities, i.e. different strengths and weaknesses according to the 8 elements, but it is Banedanmark's overall assessment, after having assessed the 8 elements, that these 3 Project and Maintenance Executions are almost of the same level of quality, the differences between them being insignificant. It is assessed that Tenderer V and Tenderer Z have offered the best Project and Maintenance Executions with the Project and Maintenance Execution from Alstom as the third best. As stated above, it is however Banedanmark's overall assessment, based on the assessment of the 8 elements, that these 3 Project and Maintenance Executions are almost of the same level of quality. The Project and Maintenance Execution from Tenderer U is assessed to be the fourth best (assessed as Satisfactory). The most economically advantageous tender Based on the assessments described above, it is Banedanmark s overall assessment that Alstom has submitted the most economically advantageous tender. When making this overall assessment Banedanmark has taken the relative weighting of the 3 sub-criteria into consideration. Alstom has submitted the proposal with the lowest price: The second low-

15. est price (Tenderer Z's) being almost 17% higher than Alstom's price, the third lowest price (Tenderer V's) being almost 46% higher than Alstom's price and the fourth lowest price (Tenderer U's) being almost 97% higher than Alstom's price. Alstom s significant lead on price (weight 40%) is not lost on the 2 other sub-criteria: On the Onboard Solution (weight 30%) Alstom and the 3 other Tenderers have offered a proposal of almost the same level of quality (all assessed as Very Satisfactory), the differences between the 4 BAFOs being only a little more than insignificant. On Project and Maintenance Execution (weight 30%) Alstom and 2 other Tenderers have offered a proposal of almost the same level of quality (all 3 assessed as Very Satisfactory) and the differences between the 3 are insignificant. All in all, Alstom has offered a very competitive price (weight 40%) in combination with very strong Onboard Solution (weight 30%) and a very strong Project and Maintenance Execution (weight 30%). Based on the 3 sub-criteria with their relative weighting, it is Banedanmark s overall assessment that Alstom have submitted the most economically advantageous tender. In order to further demonstrate that Banedanmark has considered the weighting of the sub-criteria (40%, 30% and 30%) appropriately when identifying the most economically advantageous tender, Banedanmark has compared the result explained above with a score model, cf. attachment with supportive point model. It is stressed that the supportive score model has only been used to compare the result of the assessment explained above, and that the supportive score model in itself has neither been decisive nor a guideline for the result. The purpose of the supportive score model is only to further demonstrate that the result of the verbal assessment explained above (in Danish: sproglig evaluering) is correct, i.e. that the most economically advantageous tender have been identified correctly according to the 3 sub-criteria with their relative weighting. 7.2 Additional explanation regarding the winning BAFO from Alstom Regarding the sub-criterion Onboard Solution (weight 30%) Based on an assessment of the 11 elements it is Banedanmark s overall assessment that Alstom is Very Satisfactory regarding the sub-criterion Onboard Solution. Alstom has received: One Excellent rating: 2.5 Robustness to major Failures

16. Alstom have proposed an Onboard solution which has been designed to reduce the impact of a major failure. Alstom s RAM analysis provides evidence that the architecture of the Onboard solution includes the appropriate levels of redundancy. Further Alstom have proposed an Onboard solution which will reduce the impact of a major failure leading to an immobilisation event. Alstom's RAM programme related to design demonstrates that reliability is built into the design, including the use of fault tolerance, design margins and identification of areas of design weakness and corrective actions which is positive. Alstom optimises the use of design techniques for redundancy, maximising testability of built-in equipment and using burn-in to eliminate infant mortality failures which is positive. Five Very Satisfactory ratings: 2.1 Compliance with Delivery Requirements: Alstom is assessed to be fully Compliant to 10 out of the said 15 non ninimum requirements and partly Compliant to the remaining 5 requirements (TCR-055, TCR-062, TCR-065, OBP.470 and TCR-020). 2.2 Maturity: Alstom have provided a Maturity Table with some credible maturity levels and has declared a high Maturity level of above 6 for all sub systems not identified as requiring development, adaptation or customisation. In their Maturity Table, Alstom have stated that 1000 vehicles are in service fitted with their Baseline 2.3.0d ERTMS Onboard solution. This indicates a mature solution where each ERTMS Onboard Component has a high maturity level and this is assessed positive. Alstom state that no development is needed, but there are a number of references in Alstom s Onboard solution that describe adaptations or developments indicating that some development is needed after all. Further the Maturity Table provides no detail as to how the joint design subjects described in Alstom s BAFO or the Roll-out of Baseline 3 and other Danish specific requirements affect the maturity of Alstom s Onboard solution, which must be expected. Alstom have stated they will provide a single architecture for the whole fleet. This is a generic architecture already fitted on Rolling stock in operation in several countries. 2.7 System Expansion and Changes: Alstom's proposal supports infrastructure and Rolling stock fleet expansion, substitution and changes. Alstom provide software/data that are easy to reconfigure and parameterise, and at the same time Alstom's proposal have few limits regarding the possibility for future expansions to the ERTMS Onboard System. Alstom's Obsolescence Management system will allow for system expansions and new functionalities, as it provides the Customer/Onboard Customer or third party with the possibility to implement changes including reconfigurations/parameteri-

17. sations. However, the level of changes supported by the proposal from Alstom, by means of parameterisation, will not enable Banedanmark to change the ERTMS Onboard system as a result of changes or expansion to the infrastructure or Rolling stock, neither will it allow exchange of parts with other suppliers. 2.8 System Performance: Alstom demonstrates consistently, in their Onboard solution description and RAM Analysis and Prediction modelling of their Onboard solution, that its design provides a level of redundancy and robustness against isolated failures that is sufficient to meet the performance level required by the RAM targets. Furthermore, Alstom s design includes a proper level of Self Tests to detect and diagnose faults. Alstom s RAM Programme demonstrates a solid governance of prescribed RAM assurance methods, processes and activities during design, development and deployment of their Onboard solution, indicating that the Onboard solution will actually meet the requirements in operations throughout its Design Life. The governance is provided by a competent and professional RAM department at the company level, which is well defined and for which roles and responsibilities are clearly described. RAM critical items analyses and managing these has a significant focus in this, which reduces the risk of Onboard Deliveries not meeting the targets. Substantial activities on RAM Growth are included, which support a rapid elimination of systematic faults. This supports the achievement of a stable long-term RAM performance throughout the Design Life. Whereas the central department providing RAM governance within Alstom is well defined and its staffing described in detail, the information provided is both very little and ambiguous for the roles, resource assignments and planning envisaged for this specific project. Alstom s RAM Analysis and Prediction report provides a model of the Onboard solution which is clear and comprehensive. The assumptions in the analysis are very clearly identified and consistently applied. The analysis includes a comprehensive mapping of all credible failures for the whole system against the severity level definitions prescribed. This includes that common cause failure potential has been appropriately included and that RAM Critical Items potential has been analysed. However, expansions or changes to the Onboard solution are not addressed in the RAM modelling. 2.11 Maintainability of Equipment (HW): Alstom have provided a number of measures in their Onboard solution, including a modular design and Ethernet bus communications. Further, Alstom s In Service Monitoring System is capable of detecting failures or abnormal status of Onboard Components, and transmitting such information via GSM-R in real time to the Alstom central computer, since this eases the overall maintainability of Hardware Components by re-

18. ducing fault finding and detection. Alstom provides a Maintainability Demonstration Test Procedure which includes Alstom's approach to Maintainability Demonstration as well as the treatment of the LRUs on test. Alstom have described their solution as modular which allows Alstom to position their components in easily accessible locations. Alstom proposed Onboard Components provide condition monitoring information to Alstom's In Service Monitoring system, which allows maintenance and repairs to be carried out when necessary thus reducing MTTR. This also reduces the cost of unnecessary early maintenance/component changes or failures in service due to lack of maintenance. The In Service Monitoring system also allows MDBF and MTBF to be monitored and optimised. Moreover, Alstom provide Remote Diagnosis of the Onboard Components, via a web interface. Alstom provides the necessary Maintenance tools to group diagnose and present the Component condition data. Finally, Alstom provides relevant alarms automatically via email/sms. Five Satisfactory ratings: 2.3 Environmental Impact: Alstom are using CrVI and PB/PBDE free solutions and are experimenting with the use of lead free solder. Alstom will appoint a dedicated person to manage environmental matters. Alstom have presented an example showing the energy consumption figure for an ETCS level 2 project at 485 W and stated they are below the threshold value of 500 W. Alstom has stated partly Compliant to 1 non minimum requirement (TCR-164). 2.4 Robustness to external Events: Alstom have mitigated the risks associated with shock and vibration on the Eurobalise Antenna and have described and illustrated the suggested placement of the equipment for each train type. Alstom states that the solution s design reduces the impact of terrorism, vandalism or other external events and have odometry using three sensors located in different places. Alstom also use mechanical protection to mitigate the risk from foreign objects hitting underframe mounted equipment. However, Alstom have not described further how the Onboard deliveries will be designed, constructed and deployed to mitigate the risks from external events e.g. vandalism. 2.6 System Integration: Alstom have demonstrated throughout their Onboard solution description that they have understood the interface types and their complexity and are able to reduce interface risks. On the other hand Alstom have not supplied any information regarding the criteria or a clear rationale by which criticality could be assigned. Alstom have supplied a compre-

19. hensive description of the technical interfaces with external systems, such as STMs, the wayside signal equipment and TOC specific interfaces such as GreenSpeed. However Alstom do not mention any other users in their context diagrams than drivers. Finally Alstom have stated that they are developing a system to manage neutral sections by opening the main circuit breakers on the train. Alstom showed that the integration into each of the existing Rolling stock types that are included in the delivery has been considered. Alstom s Joint Design Plan covers the main elements of a Joint Design programme - definition, specification, development, integration tests and the use of prototypes and simulations. However, Alstom have not considered the Joint Test lab as requested in OBP.077. 2.9 System Safety: Alstom have presented a solution that demonstrates they will be able to meet the safety targets as requested. The description of the activities that will be undertaken is at a very high level, but still provides details of the main safety targets. Alstom have not provided the requested detailed information about the dependencies between the activities and the cross acceptance procedures, which are needed to demonstrate the management of safety targets. Alstom are partly Compliant to 2 of the non minimum requirements (OBP.156 and OBP.471). 2.10 Flexibility of Upgrades and Maintenance (SW): Alstom have provided a proposal to maintain the software of the ERTMS Onboard System in a suitable and efficient way with high degree of flexibility in respect to the Configuration Management and Change Control Plan. However, Alstom have provided insufficient information to assess if the process will minimise the impact on revenue service because the plan does not relate to the actual SW updates necessary to achieve the required specifications. Alstom's Obsolescence Management System provides flexibility to allow for modifications and upgrades in the maintenance concepts. Alstom's Obsolescence Management System will assist the OBC (and Alstom) in making the timely decisions on changes or substitutions necessary to keep the system fully operational. Alstom have provided insufficient information in The Software Development Plan to assess how support to software modification and upgrades during operation, and thereby impact on revenue service, will be minimised. Alstom offers remote download of software for the onboard RMR recorder but provides no information on remote download of software for other ERTMS Onboard Systems which is negative. Alstom have stated non Compliance with one non minimum requirements linked to this Award Criteria (OBP.119) in the Compliance Matrix. Instead Alstom offers an EN 50128 compliant process and the use of formal methods to reduce risk in large SIL 4 software development projects.

20. Regarding the sub-criterion Project and Maintenance Execution (weight 30%) Based on an assessment of the 8 elements it is Banedanmark s overall assessment that Alstom is Very Satisfactory regarding the sub-criterion Project and Maintenance Execution. Alstom has received: Six Very Satisfactory ratings: 3.1 Time Schedule and Migration: Alstom have provided a detailed Time Schedule which is robust and flexible planning tool that support timely deliveries. Alstom have minimized the interdependencies between the Master Contract Project Schedule and the Master Subcontract Project Schedule. However there is insufficient information to assess how the revision procedure will influence the flexibility. Alstom have left enough time to allow for changes to the ERTMS Baseline version with no impact on delivery of the Generic Design and allowed for enough time for the Customer participation. Alstom allocates more time for ETCS Baseline 3 design than required and allocates more time to laboratory testing for the Onboard solution before fitting Rolling stock which minimize the impact of train services. Alstom provide a Provisional Installation Programme which only takes one unit per class out for installation at a time. Alstom provide a Draft Installation Plan which secure that the Onboard Customer or RU s have the necessary number of Rolling stock to operate on ERTMS lines. However, Alstom have not fulfilled the requirement to fit the Øresund Link Trains with a Baseline 2.30d solution. Further, Alstom have provided insufficient information to assess the training activities after the ED Roll-out but have provided sufficient time for training activities. Alstom have covered the milestone deliverables and acceptance criteria related to the Project Phases and aligned these with the Master Contract Project Schedule. 3.2 Project Organisation and Execution: Alstom provide a Collaborative Working Proposal which is based on a team which is integrated into the Partnering Project Office. Alstom s proposal is based on the defined Meetings and Working Groups and collaborative working in The Joint Steering Committee to handle the multiple supplier strategy. However, Alstom have provided insufficient information to assess how the Maintenance organisation is directly linked to the Project Organisation. Alstom have provided a Stakeholder Management Plan which involves all stakeholders in the Systems Integration. Alstom have provided insufficient information to assess how

21. the Collaboration Agreement and the involvement of the Joint Steering Committee support the smooth execution of the project. Alstom propose sufficient numbers of managers in the Partnering Project Office to engage in close collaboration but only one person during the Roll-out and Project Closure. Alstom have given the Project Manager full mandate to make decisions which supports quick decisions. Alstom have provided insufficient information in the Competence Management Plan and the Onboard Maintenance Organisation to assess how organisational impact is handled if Maintenance is carried out by staff employed by the Customer/Onboard Customer. Alstom propose an organisation with the right combination of qualifications and competences but several of the Key Resources are not allocated full time. Alstom have provided a list with Working Group Leaders as well as the names of two Sub-suppliers responsible for Onboard Installation Support and for S-ISA activities. However, the Maintenance Manager is not nominated as a Key resource. 3.3 Maintenance Execution: Alstom have proposed a suitable overall solution which will provide efficient maintenance solutions regardless of the chosen package Alstom have provided a very comprehensive, efficient and suitable proposal for in service monitoring which will do away with most of the repetitive preventive maintenance tasks and increase the service levels through real-time analysis of the ERTMS Onboard System status. Alstom have a high degree of predictive maintenance and low duration for preventive maintenance which is combined with a redundant systems make the maintenance planning easy and flexible. However, Alstom does not provide efficient maintenance support in terms of quick overall failure restoration time mainly due to a cumbersome telephone service concept and a relatively high MTTR for LRU replacements. Alstom have allowed for the Onboard Package 3 Customers repairing almost all types of equipment. Alstom have the necessary organisational systems such as Competence Management, Obsolescence Management, Supplier Accreditation etc in place. However, Alstom have provided insufficient information to assess how they will ensure that the very limited core organisation in will be able to provide the services needed and Alstom propose only to be represented in Denmark in one physical location. 3.6 Installation, Test, Commissioning and Decommissioning: Alstom have proposed a generic fitment concept applicable to several classes of Rolling stock and to use a standardised and industrialised installation works such as preinstalled equipment and kits and alike. Alstom have proposed an installation plan, which optimizes the installation on both the FoC and Roll-out. Alstom use pre-installation of mechanical components during routine maintenance, use of mounting kits and maximising of tests carried out on the test train. Alstom propose to perform

22. the majority of testing in the factory, utilizing a generic product to enable easy testing of different configurations in order to minimize the use of possessions. Alstom have provided insufficient information to assess the relative magnitude of the testing effort being conducted off site and the extent to which Alstom's test simulators automatically perform regression tests. Alstom have provided a proposal which describes that test specifications will be provided for each Interface Management Plan covering the testing of external systems (e.g. ATC), and how they will test the ERTMS Onboard System level configuration. Finally Alstom has identified two partial Compliances (TCR-114 and TCR-152). 3.7 Safety Management, Planning and Processes: Alstom have produced an overall safety plan that provides confidence that the safety approvals can be achieved. The Safety Plan does not, however, show how this will be achieved within the project timescales and do not provide a detailed methodology for implementing revisions of laws, regulations and relevant standards which come into force after project start. Alstom contains very limited detail on the use of Cross Acceptance. However, the Interoperability Certification Plan includes a very detailed description on the use of Cross Acceptance/accreditation within member countries and the limitations thereof. Alstom have proposed an Interface Management plan with a systematic and robust method to identify and manage the Delivery interfaces including a preliminary list of Critical Interfaces. The Requirements Management Plan shows that the requirements will be captured and implemented in a systematic manner, assuring the traceability, through the project. However, the V&V plan does not include techniques for requirement validation and verification. The software development plan is very comprehensive and provides a detailed description of the software development and risk mitigation. Alstom have achieved CMMI Level 2 and describes a plan for achieving Level 3. The Operating Rules Integration plan proposes integration with the design in a good and comprehensive manner to support development of the operating rules project. However, Alstom do not address how they will support Banedanmark Operational Rules project in a timely manner. Alstom have provided detailed and comprehensive quality documentation, tailored to the Customer's requirements and incorporating standard company procedures which demonstrate the maturity of the Quality Management system and Alstom s ability to maintain the Quality Management system and its readiness to support the project. However, Alstom has provided insufficient information to assess how they maintain their Quality Management system during the maintenance period. Alstom have provided an overall risk management plan and a tender risk register expresses no willingness to jointly manage risks. Alstom are partly Compliant to 3 non minimum requirements (OBC.036, TCR-079 and OBP.135).

23. 3.8 Commercial terms: Alstom provide a good understanding, to Banedanmark, of what material Alstom will hand-in and have included source code, compiler(s) for both Onboard and Test equipment. Alstom have submitted a proposal which, with a few exceptions, is well structured including Compliance Matrix, data in Appendix 11 and Appendix 12 but Customer Participation figures for training, test drivers and supervisors do not match the information in Appendix 11. The Payment Schedule is associated with milestone activities stated in App. 1 Time Schedule and correlated with identifiable items within the Pricing Schedule but Alstom have not provided a proposition of how the payment of separately reported overhead and financial costs in the pricing schedule shall take place. Two Satisfactory ratings: 3.4 Training: Alstom's Training Concept has a good framework describing the cooperation needed to specify the Training Specification but propose to make a suitable Training Specification, conducting the Training Needs Analysis with a good overview of the tools Alstom will use. Alstom s suggests integration of operational rules courses into Alstom s time schedule to avoid conflicts with other training modules but Alstom do not elaborate on how they will accomplish the cooperation. Further the Training Pilot Course does not describe how the pilot is conducted or evaluated. Also the proposed training time schedule does not specify a training programme for each staff category and Alstom s training activities are only included in the plan until the ED Roll-out. Alstom have not provided a preliminary Course Catalogue but an outline of courses in keywords in the Training Matrix. Alstom s course description in the Training Matrix provides a good overview containing the required information for the suggested courses. Alstom have provided a Training Concept with various Training method but details like the response time on establishing a new course, delivery of documentation of certification and how the certification and examinations will be conducted are lacking. Alstom provide insufficient information on how refresher and renewal courses are proposed and details of the STM training. Alstom s has set up the training courses in a way that is independent of possible changes in organisation within the Customer/Onboard Customers and the Railway Undertakings. Alstom s description of the proposed e- learning tool provides insufficient information on how the course topics support the different staff but Alstom provides a screenshot from the proposed e-learning tool with acceptable insight into the design and media mix. Alstom have provided insufficient information to assess if the training tools are efficient 3.5 Documentation:

24. Alstom have provided a table listing all documentation, where Alstom have included almost all requested documents but no additional documents. Alstom have provided insufficient information to assess if the Delivery/Partial Deliveries (Contract/Subcontract) will not be constrained because of lack of documentation since the Master Project Schedule phase is defined as Until Roll Out. Alstom have provided a sufficient level of document description but insufficient level for purpose and content. Alstom have tailored the Corrective Maintenance Strategy and Plan and the Maintenance Organisation Plan to the maintenance packages. However, the documentation presented in the Preventive Maintenance Plan, the Plan for In Service Monitoring and Predictive Maintenance, the Software Configuration Management and Change Control Plan, the Supplier Accreditation Plan and the Hardware Configuration Management and Change Control Plan has not been tailored to any of the packages. Alstom have provided information in the Obsolescence Management Plan but Alstom have provided insufficient information on how installation and training of employed resources is tailored to the training and fitment packages. Alstom presents the training courses, after FOC, with documentation tailored to the different maintenance packages. Alstom have provided a Documentation Table, which has an intuitive and logical structure. However, Alstom fail to provide a table for each sub-system and each type of documentation. Alstom s Asset Data Model shows a logical and intuitive hierarchy and covers the use of the data in its processes sufficiently for the Customer/Onboard Customer to be able to use it. Alstom is partly Compliant to 4 non minimum requirements (TCR-016, TCR-017, TCR-074 and OBP.471).«Med rapporten fulgte blandt andet den ovennævnte»supportive score model«. Af denne fremgår blandt andet, at alle tilbudsgiverne har fået 4 point for»onboard solution«. Alstom, en tilbudsgiver, som er klageren (betegnet»v«), og en anden tilbudsgiver har fået 4 point for»project and Maintenance Execution«, mens en tilbudsgiver har fået 3 point. Parternes anbringender m.v. Oplysninger og anbringender ad påstand 1 Klageren har udarbejdet en oversigt af 6. februar 2012»Financial effect of the reduction of Alstom's delivered scope and responsibilities according to BDK's statements in their evaluation of Alstom's tender«over»nonminimum requirements«, som klageren bedømt ud fra evalueringsrapporten,

25. forudsætter, at Alstom ikke eller kun delvist har opfyldt. Klageren har i oversigten angivet de skønsmæssige økonomiske implikationer for indklagede af den manglende eller begrænsede opfyldelse. Oversigten viser herudover en skønnet reduktion af klagerens pris, hvis klageren på samme måde havde undladt at opfylde ikke-minimumskrav. Klageren har gjort gældende, at oversigten viser, at Alstoms manglende opfyldelse af de pågældende elementer samlet har bevirket, at Alstom har kunnet tilbyde en lavere pris, som vil få betydning for indklagedes fremtidige økonomi, hvis indklagede indgår kontrakt på grundlag af Alstoms tilbud. Desuden er det gjort gældende, at Alstoms manglende opfyldelse af en række ikke-minimumskrav alt andet lige må have betydning for det tilbudte kvalitetsniveau og burde have givet sig udslag i indklagedes bedømmelse af dette. Klageren har henvist til, at klageren har fået den samlede bedømmelse Very Satisfactory for kriteriet»onboard solution«baseret på 4 Excellent-bedømmelser, 6 Very Satisfactory-bedømmelser og 1 Satisfactorybedømmelse, medens Alstom har fået den samlede bedømmelse Very Satisfactory for kriteriet»onboard solution«baseret på 1 Excellentbedømmelse, 5 Very Satisfactory-bedømmelser og 5 Satisfactorybedømmelser. For så vidt angår kriteriet»project and Maintenance Execution«har klageren fået den samlede bedømmelse Very Satisfactory baseret på 8 Very Satisfactory-bedømmelser, medens Alstom har fået den samlede bedømmelse Very Satisfactory for kriteriet baseret på 6 Very Satisfactorybedømmelser og 2 Satisfactory-bedømmelser. Klageren finder, at det af delbedømmelserne fremgår, at der er klare forskelle på kvaliteten af Alstoms og klagerens tilbud, hvilket gør det uforståeligt, at de to tilbud tildeles samme samlede karakter Very satisfactory på begge de kvalitative underkriterier, henholdsvis samme karakter 4 i»supportive score model«. Når de klare kvalitetsmæssige forskelle ikke har givet sig udslag i bedømmelsen, skyldes det ifølge klageren, at indklagede for så vidt angår de to kvalitative kriterier har anvendt en sproglig bedømmelsesmodel med fem trin. Denne model har ikke været egnet til at afspejle de forskelle, der var i de forskellige tilbud, og forskellene er heller ikke konkret blevet afspejlet i evalueringsresultatet. Indklagede har dermed anvendt en ikke gennemsigtig evalueringsmodel, der ikke er egnet til at identificere det økonomisk mest fordelagtige tilbud. Indklagedes evaluering af pris, hvor der alene er taget udgangspunkt i en procentvis afvigelse af de tilbudte priser fra den laveste pris, sammenholdt

26. med den sproglige bedømmelsesmodel for så vidt angår de kvalitative kriterier, sikrer endvidere ikke en overholdelse af den udmeldte vægtning af underkriterierne. Indklagede har gjort gældende, at der er gennemført en gennemsigtig evaluering på grundlag af et meget transparent udbudsmateriale, hvor det på forhånd har stået klart for tilbudsgiverne, hvilke ønsker tilbudsgiverne skulle forsøge at opfylde, herunder hvad tilbudsgiverne skulle aflevere i henhold til de enkelte Instructions to Tenderers. Det, som klageren anfører om, at der er anvendt en evalueringsmodel med 5 trin, som ikke har identificeret de klare forskelle i kvaliteten mellem Alstoms og klagers tilbud, der fremgår af evalueringsrapporten vedrørende klageren, er ikke rigtigt. Det er således udokumenteret, at der er klare kvalitetsmæssige forskelle mellem Alstoms og klagerens tilbud. Indklagede har heller ikke anvendt en sproglig evalueringsmodel med 5 trin. Der er ikke tale om 5 trin, men 5 begreber (terms), som er opstillet med henblik på at konkludere (dvs. overordnet sammenfatte) den sproglige evaluering af de 2 kvalitative underkriterier henholdsvis de 19 underliggende delkriterier. Udfaldet af udbuddet altså identifikationen af det økonomisk mest fordelagtige tilbud lader sig ikke begrunde matematisk i form af en simpel sammentælling/gennemsnitsberegning. Som det også fremgår af evalueringsrapporten, er det indklagedes opfattelse, at der består (om end) mindre kvalitetsmæssige forskelle mellem klagerens og Alstoms løsninger på de 2 kvalitative underkriterier. Enhver kvalitetsforskel på de enkelte delkriterier kan imidlertid ikke forventes at materialisere sig i forskellige overordnede konklusioner for de 2 underkriterier. Det bestrides tillige, at evalueringsmodellen ikke sikrer en overholdelse af den udmeldte vægtning af de enkelte underkriterier. At vægtningen er overholdt fremgår af den begrundelse, som er givet i evalueringsrapportens punkt 7. Hverken forsyningsvirksomhedsdirektivet eller udbudsdirektivet er til hinder for, at ordregiver i forbindelse med en sproglig evaluering beskriver prisforskellene ved hjælp af procentangivelser, mens forskellene på de kvalitative underkriterier beskrives sprogligt. Afgørende er, at ordregiver identificerer det set ud fra ordregivers synspunkt økonomisk mest fordelagtige tilbud, og at ordregiver i den forbindelse respekterer vægtningen af underkriterierne, og det har indklagede gjort. Ved indklagedes sproglige evaluering er det i sig selv godtgjort, at underkriteriernes vægtning er taget i

27. behørig betragtning. Dette er så meget desto mere tilfældet, når der henses til den understøttende pointmodel, som yderligere demonstrerer, at vægtningen er inddraget ved udpegningen af Alstom som vinder. Det, som klageren anfører om, at prisevalueringen alene er sket ud fra en procentmæssig prisforskel mellem de tilbudte priser, er ikke korrekt. Indklagede har således også sprogligt redegjort for prisforskellene og dernæst sammenlignet disse med kvalitetsforskellene, jf. evalueringsrapporten punkt 7.1 under afsnittet»the most economically advantageous tender«. Oplysninger og anbringender ad påstand 2 Klageren har udarbejdet en oversigt»bombardier External Assessment Note«, som viser indklagedes vurdering på udvalgte punkter af Alstoms tilbud og hvori klageren angiver, hvilken økonomisk betydning Alstoms manglende eller kun delvise opfyldelse af krav, som ikke var minimumskrav, efter klagerens opfattelse har. Indklagede har fremlagt en skriftlig erklæring af 24. februar 2012 afgivet af Erik Damgaard, der er projektleder på Onboard-projektet i Signalprogrammet, hvori der tages stilling til de i klagerens oversigt rejste kritikpunkter, og de afvises. Der er endvidere fremlagt en erklæring af 1. marts 2012 fra Erik Damgaard med yderligere kommentarer til og afvisning af indsigelserne i oversigten og uddybningen af disse i klagerens processkrift af 28. februar 2012. Indklagede har endvidere oplyst, at Alstom ud over at opfylde de 1.350 minimumskrav opfylder ikke-minimumskravene i følgende omfang:» Alstoms opfyldelse af ikke-minimumskrav Element Antal Opfyldelse Fuldstændig Delvis Ikke 2.1 15 10 5 2.2 0 2.3 6 5 1 2.4 0 2.5 3 3 2.6 14 11 3 Andel

28. 2.7 1 1 2.8 15 15 2.9 4 3 1 2.10 3 1 2 2.11 8 7 1 OS 69 56 11 2 84 % 3.1 137 126 4 7 3.2 120 120 3.3 78 78 3.4 68 68 3.5 43 39 5 3.6 72 63 9 3.7 68 65 3 3.8 7 7 PME 593 566 20 7 95 % Total 662 622 31 9 94 % «Til støtte for den subsidiære påstand 2 har klageren gjort gældende, at indklagede ikke har anvendt evalueringsmodellen korrekt og derved uberettiget har tildelt Alstoms tilbud en for høj karakter for de kvalitative underkriterier. Selvom klagenævnet tillægger ordregivere et vidt skøn ved bedømmelsen af kvalitative underkriterier, tilsidesætter klagenævnet i sin praksis ordregiverens skøn, hvis der er tegn på, at skønnet er åbenbart forkert eller foretaget på et usagligt grundlag. Dette er tilfældet her. Alstom har således fået en samlet bedømmelse som Very satisfactory for begge de anvendte kvalitative underkriterier, men klagerens oversigt viser, at bemærkningerne i evalueringsrapporten om Alstoms tilbud er uforenelige med resultatet af den sprogligt baserede evaluering. For eksempel giver det ikke mening, at Alstom ifølge indklagedes evaluering» expresses no willingness to jointly manage risks«(vedrørende delkriteriet 3.7 til underkriteriet»project and Maintenance Execution«), men alligevel får bedømmelsen Very Satisfactory. I tillæg til det, som anføres i ovennævnte oversigt har klageren efter den 27. februar 2012 at have modtaget aktindsigt i evalueringsrapporten vedrørende Alstom i sit processkrift af 28. februar 2012 yderligere anført, at det i rapporten med hensyn til delkriterium 3.6»Installation, Test, Commissioning

29. and Decommissioning«til underkriteriet»project and Maintenance Execution«angives (det som klageren lægger vægt på, er her fremhævet med kursiv):»6.6 Element 3.6 Installation, Test, Commissioning and Decommissioning A. Regarding the proposed installation the Customer emphasizes a well structured proposal with standardised and industrialised installation works in order to minimise the impact on the Fjernbane daily operations and minimise the need for access to the Rolling Stock and the workshops. B. The First of Class (FoC) should be optimised for easy installation, testing, commissioning and decommissioning, including planning of work on each Rolling Stock, logistics issues and appropriate level of documentation. Containers/kits should be delivered with equipment already installed and tested. C. Regarding tests the Customer emphasizes 1) that the majority of testing is done in laboratories or off-site (before commencing the tests in the field) in order to minimise need for possession and infrastructure capacity, 2) that the testing setup can easily be reconfigured to test different configurations, 3) that the test simulators automatically perform regression tests and that they are easy to configure and easy to use to write test scenarios, 4) that interfaces are tested with external systems (e.g. ATC), 5) that Onboard System level configuration is tested and 6) that the Tenderer proposes a wellstructured and thorough Reliability Demonstration Test on the Onboard Delivery/Partial Deliveries. D. In addition, the Customer will - to the extent that the fulfilment of the requirements is not already covered by the wording of the above sentences - emphasize the extent of compliance with the requirements linked to this element in the Compliance Matrix. For the first part of this element Part A - it is assessed positive that Alstom have provided a well structured proposal and generic fitment concept applicable to several classes of Rolling stock and this is positive. Alstom have also stated that they will use standardised and industrialised installation works such as preinstalled equipment and kits, generic cubicles and looms and experience from the FoC installation which will minimise the need for access to the Rolling stock and the workshops and reduce the impact on Fjernbane daily operations.

30. It is assessed negative that the proposal is unclear whether there will be need to access and use more than one test train. For the second part of this element Part B - it is assessed positive that Alstom have provided a proposed installation plan, which optimizes the installation on both the FoC and during Roll-out. The utilisation of preinstallation of mechanical components during routine maintenance, use of mounting kits and maximising of tests carried out on the test train is assessed as optimizing ease of installation and simplifying the logistical and planning arrangements associated with the installation. It is assessed positive that Alstom state that they will provide an appropriate level of documentation that covers "all the modifications, mechanical/electrical, due to the installation" during the FoC installation. It is assessed negative that Alstom provide insufficient information to assess the extent to which commissioning and decommissioning activities are optimized. For the third part of this element Part C - it is assessed positive that Alstom propose to perform the majority of testing in the factory, utilizing a generic product to enable easy testing of different configurations in order to minimize the use of possessions through the use of a factory integration and validation platform (FIVP). It is assessed positive that Alstom will minimise the testing effort from FoC onwards by doing most functional and dynamic testing on the test train. This is considered an optimisation to minimise possessions and the need for infrastructure capacity. It is assessed negative that Alstom have provided insufficient information to assess the relative magnitude of the testing effort being conducted off -site to minimise the need for possessions and infrastructure capacity. It is assessed negative that Alstom have provided insufficient information to assess the extent to which Alstom's test simulators automatically perform regression tests with easy to use and write test scenarios. It is assessed positive that Alstom have provided a proposal which describes that test specifications will be provided for each Interface Management Plan covering the testing of external systems (e.g. ATC), and how they will test the ERTMS Onboard System level configuration. I t is assessed positive that Alstom have provided Appendix 14 Attachment 8 which is a well structured and thorough description of their Reliability Demonstration Test.

31. For the fourth part of this element Part D it is assessed positive that Alstom have stated compliance with 35 out of 36 non minimum requirements linked to this Award Criteria in the Compliance Matrix. It is assessed negative that Alstom have stated partial Compliances to 1 out of 36 non minimum requirements (TCR-152) linked to this Award Criteria in the Compliance Matrix. Further, it is assessed negative that Alstom have made comments which shows partial Compliance with 7 out of the 35 non minimum requirements (TCR-115, 123, 129, 144, 145, 205 and 206) where Alstom has stated Compliance. For TCR-115 Alstom have stated "Substantial extra costs to be invoiced separately.", which indicates that Alstom does not comply fully with this requirement. For TCR-123 and TCR-129 Alstom have added a comment With a 3 month notice and as no extension of facilities are required which Banedanmark consider as not fulfilling the requirements. For TCR-144 and TCR-145 Alstom have commented According to the number of equipment and tools ordered by the Customer Onboard Customer or third Party which Banedanmark considers as not fulfilling of TCR-144 and TCR-145. For TCR-205 Alstom have commented "As soon as it doesn t introduce additional delay in the installation process", which Banedanmark consider as not fulfilling TCR-205. For TCR-206 Alstom have commented "Issues with no impact on the test can be corrected in a later stage" which Banedanmark consider as not fulfilling TCR-206. It is the overall assessment that Alstom s BAFO for the element 3.6 Installation, Test, Commissioning and Decommissioning is Very Satisfactory.«Ifølge klageren burde blandt andet den manglende opfyldelse af ovennævnte ikke-minimumskrav, hvorom det anføres, at det vil medføre»substantial extra costs to be invoiced separately«, da den har direkte betydning for indklagedes projektøkonomi, også have været tillagt betydning i en prissammenhæng og burde således have været prissat som et forbehold. I hvert fald er det helt uforståeligt, at Alstom på delkriterium 3.6 kan opnå bedømmelsen Very Satisfactory. Uddybende til det, som allerede fremgår af klagerens oversigt, har klageren fremhævet, at manglende opfyldelse af OBP.470, som knytter sig til delkriterium 2.1»Compliance with Delivery Requirements«til underkriteriet»onboard Solution«efter klagerens skøn vil koste indklagede og operatørerne omkring 320 mio. kr., hvilket også burde have afspejlet sig i evalueringsrapporten, hvor denne økonomiske konsekvens ikke omtales.

32. Klageren har tillige i fortsættelse af det, som fremgår af oversigten, anført, at det savner mening, at Alstom med hensyn til delkriterium 3.3»Maintenance Execution«til underkriteriet»project and Maintenance Execution«har fået bedømmelsen Very Satisfactory, når det i evalueringsrapporten vedrørende Alstom angives (det, som klageren lægger vægt på, er fremhævet med kursiv):»6.3 Element 3.3 Maintenance Execution A. A proposal to maintain the Delivery/Partial deliveries (Contract and Subcontract) in an efficient and suitable way and with a high degree of flexibility taking the duration of the maintenance period (and hence the need for adjustments) into consideration. The Customer emphasizes that the Tenderer states few limitations on the maintenance that the Customer and the Onboard Customers can perform themselves or by third party. B. Proposal of a well-suited maintenance organisation and plan with the appropriate number and combination of Key Functions to secure a high quality in the deliverables, i.e. a robust suitable organisation both in size and competences. C. In addition, the Customer will - to the extent that the fulfilment of the requirements is not already covered by the wording of the above sentences - emphasize the extent of compliance with the requirements linked to this element in the Compliance Matrix. For the first part of this element Part A it is assessed positive that Alstom have proposed a suitable overall solution which will provide the Customer and the Onboard Customers with efficient maintenance solutions regardless of which package they choose. It is assessed positive that Alstom have provided a very comprehensive, efficient and suitable proposal for in service monitoring which will do away with most of the repetitive preventive maintenance tasks and increase the service levels through real-time analysis of the ERTMS Onboard System status. It is assessed positive that Alstom s proposal for a high degree of predictive maintenance and low duration for preventive maintenance will together with the redundant systems make the maintenance planning very easy and flexible. It is assessed negative that Alstom does not provide efficient maintenance support to the Onboard Customers in terms of quick overall failure restoration time mainly due to a cumbersome telephone service concept but also due to a relatively high MTTR for LRU replacements.

33. It is assessed positive that Alstom does not state any limitation for the customer to change maintenance package during the course of the maintenance period. It is assessed positive that Alstom have allowed for the Onboard Package 3 Customers repairing almost all types of equipment and only state few and insignificant limitations to the works which can be performed by the Onboard Customers. For the second part of this element Part B it is assessed positive that Alstom have proposed a maintenance organisation which covers all important Key Functions and which has the necessary competences. It is assessed positive that Alstom demonstrates that they have the necessary organisational systems such as Competence Management, Obsolescence Management, Supplier Accreditation etc in place to control the difficult processes such as SW Failure corrections and Obsolescence Management to secure the quality of deliverables. It is assessed negative that Alstom have provided insufficient information to assess how they will ensure that the very limited core organisation in Denmark and extent of responsibilities of local partners will be able to provide the services needed to secure a suitable, robust organisation in terms of size. It is assessed negative that Alstom propose only to be represented in Denmark in one physical location during maintenance because this seems insufficient for Alstom to supervise all Customer participation works and it is considered unlikely to secure a robust suitable sized organisation meeting the requirements. For the third part of the element Part C it is assessed positive that Alstom have stated compliance with 6 out of 6 non minimum requirements linked to this Award Criteria in the Compliance Matrix. It is the overall assessment that Alstom s BAFO for the element 3.3 Maintenance Execution is Very Satisfactory.«Den af indklagede opstillede tabel over Alstoms opfyldelsesgrad for så vidt angår ikke-minimumskrav er udelukkende en antalsmæssig optælling, men viser ikke væsentligheden af det enkelte krav og konsekvensen af den manglende opfyldelse, herunder særligt den økonomiske konsekvens for indklagede og den besparelse, Alstom har opnået ved ikke at eller kun delvist at opfylde krav, som ikke er minimumskrav. Det samme gælder den skriftlig erklæring fra Erik Damgaard af 24. februar 2012.

34. Såfremt klageren havde været bekendt med, at indklagede som tilfældet reelt har været at manglende opfyldelse af ikke-minimumskrav ikke ville give sig udslag i en ringere kvalitativ vurdering, ville klageren have udformet sit tilbud anderledes med en lavere pris og tilsvarende kvalitativt ringere løsning. Tilsidesættelsen af udbudsreglerne i relation til den anvendte evalueringsmodel og evalueringen af de modtagne tilbud har haft afgørende betydning for udfaldet af udbudsproceduren og dermed for tildelingen af den udbudte kontrakt, og overtrædelsen er dermed af en karakter, som må føre til annullation af tildelingsbeslutningen. Indklagede har principalt påstået påstand 2 afvist med henvisning til, at klagenævnet samt Retten og Domstolen efter fast praksis kun undtagelsesvis prøver ordregiveres skøn over, hvilket tilbud der er det økonomisk mest fordelagtige. Subsidiært påstås det, at klagen ikke tages til følge. Det er udokumenteret, at indklagede har givet Alstom en for god bedømmelse på de kvalitative underkriterier. Efter den grundige og saglige vurdering, der er foretaget, er der ikke grundlag for at tilsidesætte indklagedes skøn. Klagerens ensidige fokusering på opfyldelsen af ikke-minimumskrav synes i øvrigt at antyde, at metodikken i tilbudsevalueringen er misforstået af klageren. Høj grad af opfyldelse af ikke-minimumskrav indebærer således ikke i sig selv, at tilbuddet vurderes som værende af høj kvalitet. Tilbudsgivernes besvarelse af»instructions to Tenderers«indgår således også i evalueringen af tilbuddenes kvalitet. Der synes også at foreligge en misforståelse med hensyn til, hvordan forbehold over for ikke-minimumskrav håndteres. De prismæssige betragtninger i klageskriftet og klagerens oversigter er således uden relevans, da Alstoms omfang af opfyldelse af ikkeminimumskrav som foreskrevet i udbudsbetingelserne er taget i nødvendig betragtning i forbindelse med evalueringen af de kvalitative underkriterier, jf. blandt andet udbudsbetingelsernes pkt. 4.5 og punkt 3 i Attachement 5. Kalkulationerne i oversigten og klagerens seneste processkrift bestrides i øvrigt som udokumenterede gisninger og spekulationer. Kritikpunkterne i oversigten er i vidt omfang baseret på en overfortolkning af bemærkninger-

35. ne i sammendraget i evalueringsrapportens punkt 7.2 af bedømmelsen af Alstoms tilbud. For så vidt angår klagerens bemærkninger vedrørende ikkeminimumskravet TCR-115, hvor Alstom i»compliance Matrix«har tilføjet»substantial extra costs to be invoiced separately«har indklagede bemærket, at TCR-115 lyder:»the Customer, Onboard Customer and any third party that the Customer or Onboard Customer may appoint (e.g. G-ISA/NoBo) has the right to witness all or any tests and the Supplier shall make the appropriate arrangements to facilitate this«altsom har erklæret sig compliant med dette krav, men indklagede har vurderet tilføjelsen negativt, da den skaber en vis uklarhed. Indklagede har forstået tilføjelsen sådan, at indklagede eller Onboard-kunden (operatørerne) vil skulle betale rejseomkostninger for at overvære de tests, Alstom foretager, og som de har ret til at overvære ifølge kravet. Der er ikke krav om, at leverandøren skal afholde sådanne rejseomkostninger. Vedrørende klagerens indsigelse om, at Alstoms manglende opfyldelse af OBP.470, som knytter sig til delkriterium 2.1»Compliance with Delivery Requirements«til underkriteriet»onboard Solution«, efter klagerens skøn vil koste indklagede og operatørerne omkring 320 mio. kr., har indklagede, jf. erklæringen af 1. marts 2012 fra Erik Damgaard, anført, at Alstom i tilbuddet generelt har tilladt indklagede at udskifte og reparere langt de fleste komponenter, men ikke at anvende 3. parts (del)komponenter. Dette betyder, at sådanne komponenter i værste fald må købes hos Alstom til de af Alstom angivne priser. Da reservedelspriser indgår i evalueringsprisen allerede, betyder dette dog ikke merudgifter, men udelukker alene en potentiel besparelse, som af indklagede anslås til at være mindre end 10 mio. kr. Med hensyn til klagerens kritik af bedømmelsen vedrørende delkriterium 3.3»Maintenance Execution«til underkriteriet»project and Maintenance Execution«i relation til det, som er MTCR.040 har indklagede anført, at Alstom har erklæret sig compliant med dette minimumskrav i»compliance Matrix«, som ifølge kontraktens punkt 28.1 har forrang for resten af tilbuddet.

36. Markedet for signalanlæg Copenhagen Economics har for klageren udarbejdet et notat af 26. marts 2010»Nye signaler i Europa: Hvor stort er markedet?«. Af dette fremgår, at indklagedes igangværende udskiftning af signaler til ERTMS-typen indgår som en del af den på europæisk plan forventede udskiftning af signalsystemer til den nye fælleseuropæiske ERTMS-standard. I notatet vurderes størrelsen af markedet for denne udskiftning. Beregningerne tager udgangspunkt i antal kilometer jernbanelinjer og antal lokomotiver, der skal have installeret ERTMS (hardware og software) i EU samt i en pris per kilometer jernbanelinje og lokomotiv. Copenhagen Economics anslår det samlede europæiske marked til at være i størrelsesordenen 38 332 mia. kr. afhængig af, om man tager udgangspunkt i den europæiske udrulningsplan (EDP), EDP og nationale planer, udrulning på det transeuropæiske jernbanenet eller udrulning på hele jernbanenettet i de 27 EU-lande. Klagenævnet udtaler: Klagenævnet træffer afgørelsen om opsættende virkning efter 12, stk. 2, i lov om håndhævelse af udbudsreglerne m.v., der lyder:»stk. 2. Indgives en klage til Klagenævnet for Udbud i standstillperioden, jf. 3, stk. 1, har klagen opsættende virkning, indtil Klagenævnet for Udbud har truffet afgørelse om, hvorvidt klagen skal tillægges opsættende virkning, indtil den endelige afgørelse foreligger. Klagenævnet for Udbud kan kun tillægge klagen opsættende virkning, hvor særlige grunde taler herfor.«betingelserne for at tillægge en klage opsættende virkning er efter klagenævnets praksis: 1. En umiddelbar vurdering af klagen skal føre til, at klagen har noget på sig (»fumus boni juris«). Hvis klagen umiddelbart synes håbløs, er betingelsen ikke opfyldt. 2. Der skal foreligge uopsættelighed. Det vil sige, at opsættende virkning skal være nødvendig for at afværge et alvorligt og uopretteligt tab for klageren.

37. 3. En interesseafvejning skal tale for opsættende virkning. Klagerens interesse i, at klagenævnet tillægger klagen opsættende virkning, skal veje tungere end indklagedes interesse i det modsatte. Hvis blot én af de tre betingelser ikke er opfyldt, tillægger klagenævnet ikke klagen opsættende virkning. På denne baggrund vurderer klagenævnet klagen sådan: Vedrørende betingelse nr. 1 (»fumus boni juris«) finder klagenævnet efter en foreløbig vurdering, at de for indeværende foreliggende oplysninger og det til støtte for klagerens påstande anførte ikke kan give anledning til at slække på kravene til opfyldelse af betingelse nr. 2 om uopsættelighed. Det bemærkes herved, at påstandene og de anførte anbringender vedrører resultatet af bedømmelsen af teknisk meget komplicerede og omfattende tilbud. For så vidt angår betingelsen om uopsættelighed finder klagenævnet, at det forhold, at kontrakten vil have væsentlig betydning for klagerens markedsposition, ikke indebærer, at muligheden for erstatning, hvis betingelserne herfor måtte være opfyldt, ikke udgør et tilstrækkeligt værn mod det retstab, klageren ville lide, såfremt der ikke gives opsættende virkning, og klagenævnet efterfølgende, når kontrakten er indgået, måtte statuere, at der er begået overtrædelser, som påstået af klageren. Det samme gælder det forhold, at en manglende tildeling kan betyde, at klagerselskabet som indgår i en stor international koncern på sigt muligt må nedlægge de funktioner, som bestrides af 60 medarbejdere i Danmark. Heller ikke det forhold, at beskaffenheden af den i påstand 1 angivne overtrædelse indebærer, at der ikke vil kunne tilkendes erstatning i form af positiv opfyldelsesinteresse, kan føre til, at erstatning ikke kan anses for et tilstrækkeligt værn af klagerens interesser. Da betingelse nr. 2 om uopsættelighed herefter ikke opfyldt, tillægges klagen ikke opsættende virkning. Herefter bestemmes: Klagen tillægges ikke opsættende virkning.

38. Katja Høegh Nikolaj Aarø-Hansen Genpartens rigtighed bekræftes. Camilla Christina Nielsen kontorfuldmægtig