Public procurement

We will ensure fluent implementation of public procurement procedures for both suppliers and contracting authorities, ensuring compliance with legal regulations, optimising resources and time allocated to tender procedures and representing clients in publiv procurement disputes.

How can we
help you?
Drafting claims regarding public procurement procedures
We advise suppliers when they have to object to public procurement conditions and procedures or unlawful decisions taken by the contracting authority: restrictive conditions in the procurement documents, unjustified qualification or tender evaluation, rejection of a proposal, or when appealing against the decision to award contract to an unjustified supplier.
We also represent contracting authorities in dealing with suppliers’ complaints regarding public procurement conditions and procedures.
Representation in public procurement disputes
We represent suppliers in public procurement disputes; prepare applications for interim measures, applications for suspension of a procurement procedure or a conclusion of a contract.
We represent contracting authorities in court in disputes with suppliers over public procurement, and appeal against applied interim measures of protection. We also represent contracting authorities in disputes with supervisory authorities (Public Procurement Office, Central Project Management Agency, etc.).
Assistance in ensuring the proper performance of a public procurement contract
Helping you to ensure proper monitoring of a public procurement contract, suspension of the contract, and modification of the contract. We help you record breaches of contract and apply sanctions where necessary, and properly document unilateral or mutual termination of the contract. Advice on calculating and setting fines/penalties.
Advice on organising public procurement procedures
We prepare tender conditions, procurement documents and public procurement contracts. We also advise contracting authorities on issues related to the evaluation of suppliers’ qualifications, evaluation or rejection of a tender, etc.
Successfully
implemented projects:
- We consulted Judu on the organisation of procurement where the contract is to be concluded with all the economic operators willing to provide the services under predefined conditions. Suppliers seeking to conclude the contract were not competing, as all suppliers were subject to the same pre-defined conditions.
- We provide ongoing advice to the design company Aplan on participating in public tenders, drafting and submitting tender documents, drafting claims and disputes with contracting authorities, advidsed on contract performance.
- We represented the car service leader Martonas and helped the client, as the successful winner of tender, to defend itself against another tender’s unreasonable demands for the contracting authority to assess the client’s discounts on parts and repair prices and unreasonable attempt to assess differences in salary, trying to prove discrimination on grounds of gender. The courts of both instances upheld our arguments and rejected the applicant’s claim.
- We represented Lietuvos Kinas in a dispute regarding public procurement of the Naglis Cinema project. One of the suppliers objected to the decision to reject its project. Although the commission found the rejected supplier’s project to be the best, the supplier violated the tender conditions and failed to submit the required documents, which led to the rejection of his project. The Court held that, although the project had been declared the best project, that did not mean that the requirements of the public procurement procedure for determining the successful contractor did not apply to the applicant in that case.
- We represented the Lietuvos mokinių neformaliojo švietimo centras in a dispute with a supplier regarding the capital repairs of Camp Pasaka. We succeeded in lifting the interim measures applied by the supplier and in getting the claim dismissed.
- We represented the design company Aplan in successfully defending the client’s rights after the contracting authority unreasonably rejected the supplier’s proposal. The contracting authority unlawfully required the client to provide documents proving its qualifications, even though the client relied on the experience and resources of joint entities.
- We represented Šiaurės miestelio technologijų parkas in a dispute regarding legality of the terms of a public procurement. The supplier objected to the terms of the tender, even though it was clear that the supplier had no intention of participating in the procurement. The Court of Appeal of Lithuania upheld our arguments that the plaintiff (the supplier) failed to prove its interest in objecting to the terms of the procurement, in addition, failed to comply with the mandatory pre-trial procedure. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claim was rejected.
- We represented the client in three parallel public procurement cases against municipalities of different cities, objecting to the discriminatory terms of the procurement (technical specification) against suppliers. In all three cases, the Court of Appeal upheld our position, declared the requirements of technical specification unlawful and terminated the procurement.
- We regularly provide trainings and seminars for suppliers and contracting authorities.
Experience-based
solutions
We have been advising businesses for more than 15 years. We have gained extensive experience in advising both suppliers and contracting authorities. We keep track of the changing business and regulatory environment; therefore, we offer our clients well-thought-out solutions based on years of experience.
Trusted by









