Supplier cost tables alone cannot topple tender price caps

The Court of Appeal of Lithuania, in its ruling of 15 October 2026 in case No. e2A-943-467/2026, dismissed the appeal of UAB "Raguvilė"Teismai and left in place the judgment rejecting its challenge to maximum unit ratesTeismai in Plungės rajono savivaldybės administracija tender No. 7620652 for town street, pavement, square, footpath, parking-area and stair maintenance. The supplier asked the courts to annul, as unlawful, the capped rates in rows 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of Annex 5 to the tender conditions, covering snow clearing, snow collection and removal, surface gritting and off-season pavement upkeep. It argued that the overall tender budget already capped spending, that its own detailed costings exceeded several caps, and that rates copied from one supplier's pricing forced loss-making operation and restricted competition.

Both courts held that a maximum tender value and maximum per-service rates serve different functionsTeismai: the former sets the overall financial ceiling, while the latter govern pricing of individual services actually ordered, which matters under fixed-rate pricing where quantities vary with weather and need. Capping individual rates is therefore a lawful means of pursuing rational use of funds under Article 17(2)(1) of the Viešųjų pirkimų įstatymasTeismai, and a contracting authority need not fit tender conditions to any one supplier's cost structureTeismai. The panel confirmed that discretion over economic tender terms is not unlimited, but the supplier challenging them must reliably and convincingly prove a manifest breach of mandatory procurement principlesTeismai; disagreement with the caps alone neither proves unlawfulness nor shifts the burden to the authority to justify each rate economicallyTeismai.

On the evidence, the supplier's cost tables alone did not meet that burdenTeismai. The 2023 predecessor tender drew similar offers from four independent suppliers, the salt price was shown to be unchanged at EUR 70 per tonne excluding PVM after a fresh May 2026 market check, and the January-February 2026 market survey priced comparable snow-handling machine-hours at EUR 35-65 excluding PVM against the disputed EUR 60 cap. The courts found the supplier's frequency, labour-time, fuel and overhead attributions unverified by primary data: the 13.5-times-per-month assumption for snow pushing, two workers and four litres of fuel per 100 square metres, and route-agnostic overhead allocation to each pricing unit were not backed by contract-performance records, even though the supplier had performed the analogous 2023-2026 contract. Its own earlier offers undercut its current cost claimsTeismai, including the EUR 9.20 single-gritting rate against the disputed EUR 12 cap and the EUR 0.80 off-season upkeep rate it offered again in this tender. Filing a compliant bid to preserve standing did not concede the caps' lawfulnessTeismai, but the courts treated it as relevant to the claim that services were impossible at the capped rates. The Public Procurement Office opinion was considered but not followed, since it rested substantially on a first-instance judgment since reversed on appeal and stopped short of finding the rates unlawful. The appeal was dismissedTeismai, the first-instance judgment left unchangedTeismai, and the supplier ordered to pay the authority EUR 3,416.66 in appellate litigation costs.

Legal basis: Article 17(2)(1) and Article 87 of the Viešųjų pirkimų įstatymas.