<Městská firma z Orlové dostala pokutu 50.000 za chybnou zakázku> <The municipal company from Orlová received a fine of 50,000 for a faulty contract>

Brno, January 9 (ČTK) - The city of Orlová will have to pay a fine of 50,000 crowns for erroneous contracts regarding the repairs of the local indoor swimming pool. The Office for the Protection of Competition (ÚOHS) found that the city company SMO agreed with the winning company on different conditions than those required in the tender for a hundred million crown contract, potentially influencing its results. The decision is already final, and the company did not succeed with its appeal. It can still turn to the court, but it must pay the fine.
The sole shareholder of SMO is the city of Orlová. The company's director, Ivo Kotaba, did not want to comment on the case today. "It was a long time ago, we appealed and I don't know anything about the outcome. Once we receive the decision, we will take a stance," he told ČTK. The city's leadership reacted similarly. "The mayor and deputy mayor currently have no information. We have to wait," city hall spokesperson Nataša Cibulková told ČTK.
The swimming pool, water slide, whirlpool, sauna, and ice chamber will cost Orlová even more than the city initially calculated. Due to a lack of funds, the price of the contract had to be reduced from 100 million to about 82 million crowns, but now, with the fine, costs have risen further. The fine could have been in the millions of crowns, but the office, despite significant errors, stayed at the lower limit.
The city announced the tenders through SMO in 2005. For the basic repair and modernization of the pool, it received 13 bids, disqualified two, and then drew five from the remaining ones. Four of them were then disqualified because they did not meet the conditions. Only one company remained - the Ostrava-based Tchas.
The city company signed a contract with it, which differed from the original parameters of the contract. Firstly, the price over 100 million crowns was reduced to 60 million due to a lack of funds in the budget, and only part of the work was carried out. According to the antimonopoly office, this is illegal because the contract terms do not correspond to those based on which other bidders prepared their offers.
"If a bidder's offer exceeded the financial capabilities of the contracting authority, and this fact could have been resolved by choosing another technical solution, the contracting authority should have canceled the tender and re-awarded the public contract with different conditions," stated ÚOHS Chairman Martin Pecina in the decision.