In autumn 2025, Pääkaupunkiseudun Kaupunkiliikenne Oy made its procurement decision regarding future tram vehicles. It plans to purchase 63 trams, with an original cost estimate of €271 million. Following the procurement decision, Stadler’s bid was revealed to amount to €332 million, exceeding by €61 million the budget approved for the project by the city councils of Helsinki and Vantaa. To date, Pääkaupunkiseudun Kaupunkiliikenne has disclosed only the procurement prices.

Škoda Transtech’s bid amounted to €264 million.

In August 2026, the matter will be considered both by the Corporate Division of the Helsinki City Executive Board and by the Vantaa City Executive Board as a budget amendment related to the project plan. The proposal would increase the original procurement amount by up to 41.2%.

Pääkaupunkiseudun Kaupunkiliikenne Oy originally estimated the total procurement value, including options, at €1.6 billion, but the amount is likely to increase by several hundred million euros due to optional vehicles and a life-cycle support services agreement included in the project. Kaupunkiliikenne Oy has not disclosed the evaluation price of the procurement, although procurement legislation requires it to do so.

The procurement contract has not yet been signed, and the outcome of the tender procedure is not binding on the cities. The procurement decision is conditional upon the Helsinki and Vantaa city councils approving increases to the maximum project budgets.

“The tram procurement is on track to exceed its estimated costs in an unprecedented manner. This is likely partly a consequence of a failed procurement process in which ultimately only one bid was accepted. The majority of the procurement costs remain hidden because the costs of lifecycle support and spare parts have not been disclosed,” says Juha Vierros, Managing Director of Škoda Transtech Oy.

Procurement Price Comparison (€ million)

	Urban Trams (30 units)	Light Rail Trams (33 units)	Total	Difference from Budget
Budgeted	107	164	271	0
Stadler	151	181	332	+61
Škoda Transtech	104	160	264	-7

 

Škoda Transtech contends that the competition was narrowed to a single bidder as a result of favoritism toward another participant. In its supervisory request to the FCCA, the company highlights several factors which it believes indicate preferential treatment:

• The lifecycle calculation for the rolling stock was changed after the procurement process had begun, from 40 years to 30 years. According to Škoda, the change aligns with the characteristics of Stadler’s vehicle type.
• The evaluation criteria were amended at the very end of the negotiated procedure to require that there be no steps whatsoever inside the tram (the so-called “stepless seating” requirement). According to Škoda, this requirement was not discussed with it during the negotiations, despite procurement law requiring that such requirements be addressed before issuance of the final invitation to tender. Škoda argues that the requirement corresponded to Stadler’s technology and demonstrates that the evaluation criteria were adjusted in Stadler’s favor. The scoring system allegedly made it impossible to win the tender if even a single step was present, effectively turning the criterion into a mandatory requirement.
• Because of the late changes to the evaluation criteria, Škoda requested an extension to submit its final bid, but no extension was granted, although procurement law requires deadlines to be extended where significant amendments are made to procurement documents. According to Škoda, the justification provided by Pääkaupunkiseudun Kaupunkiliikenne, namely that the criteria had been disclosed earlier, was incorrect and has subsequently been repeated publicly.
• The bids were allegedly not assessed equally. Škoda Transtech’s bid was rejected due to drafting errors, incorrect internal references and other minor formal issues. Pääkaupunkiseudun Kaupunkiliikenne concluded that these meant the offer failed to meet technical requirements. Based on this, it also made statements publicly regarding the safety of Škoda’s trams, which Škoda considers incorrect. According to Škoda, Stadler’s bid was not subjected to equivalent scrutiny.

“The law requires equal and non-discriminatory treatment of bidders, and that has not happened here. It is in the interest of taxpayers and of open competition that the FCCA intervenes at this stage and investigates the matter thoroughly,” says Juha Vierros, Managing Director of Škoda Transtech Oy.

According to established case law, a procurement may be discontinued if the anticipated costs, based on the bids received, become significantly higher than planned. Stadler’s final offer substantially exceeded the figures approved by the Helsinki and Vantaa city councils for the project. The overrun amounts to as much as 41.2% of the original project cost.

“Pääkaupunkiseudun Kaupunkiliikenne Oy is presenting decision-makers with incorrect claims that failure to approve the increased budget could result in liability for damages. This is not true because the contract has not yet been signed. These incorrect statements further raise concerns as to whether the procurement has at any stage been managed transparently,” Vierros says.

Kaupunkiliikenne Oy has justified the increase in prices by referring to the general rise in costs caused by Russia’s war of aggression. However, according to Škoda Transtech’s calculations, Stadler’s price exceeds the relevant index increases by approximately a factor of two.

“This is clearly the result of a failed procurement process that ultimately led to a situation where only one bid remained valid. It is now essential for the competent authority to investigate the matter thoroughly before the final procurement contract is concluded,” Vierros says.