Škoda Transtech is correcting the most significant misleading and incorrect statements made by Kaupunkiliikenne in this press release.

“Helsinki Metropolitan Area Public Transport has commented on the request for action submitted by Škoda Transtech to the authorities in a manner which indicates that it has not
familiarised itself with the matter,” says Juha Vierros, Managing Director of ŠkodaTranstech.

“Helsinki Metropolitan Area Public Transport appears to be attempting, in public, to intimidate decision-makers with the threat of liability for damages, even though a suspension carried out for justified reasons does not give rise to liability for damages. The company accuses others of presenting misleading figures, even though it itself is concealing the price of the winning bid, which is not a trade secret. What is it about the price that needs to be hidden?” says Juha Vierros.

 

1. “The procurement is legally valid” (Statement by City Transport in a press release dated 29 July 2026)

Škoda does not claim that the Market Court’s ruling on the matter is not legally binding. However, the fact that the ruling is legally binding does not mean that the Finnish
Competition and Consumer Authority (KKV) cannot, in the course of its supervisory duties, conclude that the procurement procedure was conducted in an unlawful manner. The KKV
still has at its disposal means of intervention that are not tied to the Market Court’s decision (point 2).

A decision having the force of law is a different matter from, for example, being ‘appropriate’ or ‘favourable’. The Market Court ruled on a single question: whether it was formally possible to exclude Škoda’s tender.

The Market Court did not assess the price, the financing, the content of the winning bid, or why no competition arose. City Transport also overturned its own procurement decision on
one occasion.

2. “The Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority (KKV) (…) cannot overturn (…) a procurement decision”

In its press release, City Transport states that the KKV is not an appeal body and therefore cannot overturn a procurement decision made in accordance with the law. Furthermore, the
press release states that the Authority does not resolve disputes between tenderers nor overturn procurement decisions. These statements are correct in themselves. They do not alter the fact that the KKV has independent powers to monitor compliance with the Public Procurement Act and to intervene in unlawful procurements.

The purpose of the KKV’s supervision is, amongst other things, to intervene in procurements that are procedurally grossly flawed or discriminatory, such as those equivalent to direct award. In its request for action, Škoda has argued that the maintenance and support contract has been left so open-ended and vague in terms of pricing that there is a risk of substantial contract amendments during the contract period that are equivalent to direct award. Supervision is separate from the appeal process and safeguards the transparency and non-discriminatory nature of procurement procedures.

The KKV’s range of measures includes, amongst other things, prohibiting unlawful direct award and issuing warnings and other administrative guidance to the contracting authority.
Such guidance is not binding on the contracting authority, but it enables the KKV to urge the suspension of an unlawful procurement procedure. Administrative guidance may also be
issued in relation to a procurement procedure for which a legally binding procurement decision has already been made.

Škoda’s view is that the procurement should be suspended, as the costs of the project in question are rising significantly. In case law concerning public procurement legislation, the
suspension of a procurement has been deemed lawful in such a situation, even after a legally binding procurement decision has been issued.

City Transport notes that the KKV’s supervision is primarily directed at unlawful direct awards and that the tram procurement was put out to tender using a negotiated procedure. However, it overlooks the fact that the KKV may also intervene in other unlawful procurement procedures in addition to unlawful direct awards. Nor does it comment on the other issues on the basis of which, in Škoda’s view, the procurement should be deemed to contravene the Public Procurement Act and on the basis of which the KKV should instruct Kaupunkiliikenne to suspend the procurement.

3. ‘(…) and a new tender could not be organised with the same requirements’

This claim is incorrect, and no such ‘rule’ exists. Following a suspension, the contracting authority may launch a new procurement procedure, even if the subject matter and requirements of the procurement are largely or entirely the same as in the suspended procurement.

Škoda also points out that Kaupunkiliikenne itself mentions the reason for the suspension of the procurement. Its own press release states that, of the two final tenders, only one met the requirements. Case law has held that the absence of genuine competition – for example, receiving only one acceptable tender – may constitute a genuine and justified reason for the contracting authority to suspend the procurement.

4. “The Public Procurement Act protects both the contracting authority and the tenderer”

Škoda has not claimed that the requirements set out in the invitation to tender should be relaxed in favour of a single tenderer.

In its request for action submitted to the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority (KKV), Škoda has argued that, during the procurement procedure, Kaupunkiliikenne set
comparison criteria that discriminated against Škoda, altered the details of the procurement and otherwise acted in a manner which, in Škoda’s view, demonstrates favouritism towards a single tenderer and has restricted competition to a single tenderer.

5. “Liability for damages relates to damage caused during the procurement procedure and does not require a contract to have been concluded.”

The suspension of a procurement procedure may give rise to liability for damages only if the suspension contravenes procurement regulations.

Kaupunkiliikenne considers that it has conducted the procurement procedure in accordance with the Public Procurement Act. Škoda, on the other hand, considers that grounds for suspension exist: Kaupunkiliikenne considered that it had received only one acceptable tender and that the costs of the procurement have increased significantly in relation to the original budget.

If the procurement is suspended in accordance with the Public Procurement Act and for a genuine, justified reason, the suspension does not give rise to liability for damages.

6. “The price information presented in the media is misleading”

Kaupunkiliikenne criticises the fact that the tender amounts published by Škoda are not comparable with the maximum price set out in the project plan, and notes that the maximum
price is not the same as the winning bidder’s price.

A comparison is not possible solely because City Transport itself refuses to disclose the price of the winning bid. Kaupunkiliikenne’s criticism is therefore contradictory, as it complains about the impossibility of comparing the prices set in the tenders with one another, even though it is precisely Kaupunkiliikenne that is keeping the price information
that would enable such a comparison confidential.

The publication of top-tier prices is very common in similar projects, and there is no regulatory obstacle to doing so.