The Tenders Committee decided to ignore the score given by the subcommittee and changed it and by doing so also changed the identity of the winner of the tender.
The Court revoked the decision of the Tenders Committee and held that the winner to be selected is in accordance with the recommendation of the subcommittee. The Tenders Committee has an independent discretion not to accept the recommendation of a professional subcommittee, but it requires reasoning. Here, it is a tender in which it is decisively determined that the scoring will be done by a separate professional subcommittee when after the calculation of the scoring the holder of the highest score will be declared as the winner of the tender. Despite the fact that one bidder won a higher score, the Tenders Committee later decided to change the score, in a way that resulted in the selection of another winner in the tender. The Tenders Committee is not the professional body defined in the tender for granting the score and deviation from the recommendation of the professional subcommittee was done arbitrarily, without justification and without significant circumstances or defects in the work of the subcommittee that justified any intervention by the Tenders Committee. The fact that the Tenders Committee holds a different opinion does not, by itself, justify a deviation from the recommendation of a professional subcommittee, as such a deviation conveys arbitrariness that harms the tender participants' interest in transparency, certainty and reliance on explicit conditions set out in the tender. Therefore, the decision of the Tenders Committee was revoked and the bidder who received the highest score by the subcommittee was selected as the winner of the tender.