Court annuls Helsinki port-tunnel award over workshop confidentiality

Finland’s Market Court has annulled Helsingin Satama Oy’s award of the P1 Satamatunneli construction contract to a consortium of Skanska companies. In MAO:400/2026, the court found that arrangements for YIT Infra Oy’s tender workshop failed to safeguard equal and non-discriminatory treatment. The procurement’s estimated value was €200 million to €300 million, excluding VAT.

The court prohibited the port company from signing a contract under its 11 December 2025 award decisionFinlex or otherwise implementing that decision, backed by a €5 million conditional fine. If the port proceeds with the project through this competition, it must repeat tender stage two, including the workshops, compare the tenders again and issue a new reasoned award decisionFinlex.

The dispute concerned YIT’s workshop at Helsinki’s Olympic Stadium on 4 September 2025. Representatives of the successful consortium were rehearsing elsewhere in the building that day, ahead of their own workshop the following week. The port allowed them to remain, with separate lunch times and restrictions on movement near YIT’s room. Material attached to the workshop’s glass wall could be observed from a publicly accessible corridor.

After inspecting the premises, the court found at least a significant possibility that a rival representative could have obtained confidential information about YIT’s workshop. Conflicting witness accounts did not establish whether the consortium actually obtained such information. The court nevertheless considered a sufficiently concrete risk of disclosure capable of breaching equal treatmentFinlex. It found that the consortium could have used information in its later workshop and final quality tender.

Responsibility for suitable premises and confidentiality remained with the contracting entity, even though bidders led the workshop tasks. YIT had not been shown to have breached the instructions by displaying its material. The workshops contributed to the second-stage quality assessment, which decided the competition in the consortium’s favour; YIT had scored higher on price and first-stage quality criteria.

The port must also pay €35,000 towards YIT’s legal costs, plus late-payment interest. An appeal requires leave from the Supreme Administrative Court, and the judgment must be complied with despite an appeal unless that court orders otherwise.

The legal basis is erityisalojen hankintalaki (1398/2016), sections 3(1), 68(1) and 128(1), applying the remedies and appeal provisions of hankintalaki (1397/2016), including sections 154, 161, 165 and 168.