1. The subject of the contract is the supply of software for the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution. 2. The subject of the contract was divided into two lots: Part 1: Purchase of a subscription to access the graphic package; Part 2: Delivery of antivirus software package. 3. The description of the subject-matter of the contract (hereinafter ‘OPZ’) is set out in detail in Annex 2 to the FTZ and in Annex 2A to the FTZ — ‘Equivalence criteria’. 4. The manner of performance of the subject of the contract is specified in detail in the draft provisions of the contract, which constitute, respectively, Annex 3a to the FTZ (for Lot 1) and Annex 3b to the FTZ (for Lot 2). 5. In cases where the procurement documents indicate trademarks, symbols, patents, origin, source or a specific process, characterising certain products or services, provided by a specific Contractor, which would lead to the preference or elimination of certain Contractors or products, this means that the Contracting Authority cannot describe the subject-matter of the contract in a sufficiently precise and comprehensible manner and this is justified by the specific nature of the subject-matter of the contract. In this case, the Ordering Party allows the submission of tenders, with equivalent products. Any indications of trademarks, patents, origin, source or specific process should be read with the words ‘or equivalent’, whereby the criterion used to assess equivalence is to meet at least the same characteristics (i.e. functional and performance characteristics) as those given in the description of the subject-matter of the contract and technical parameters at least at the level indicated by the Employer (in this respect, the Employer also allows better solutions than those described by him, in particular resulting from technological modernisation of the production line). The economic operator offering equivalent products shall prove in its tender, in particular by the means of proof in question, that the solutions proposed satisfy to an equivalent extent the requirements set out in the description of the subject-matter of the contract. The contractor must indicate in the tender the name of the equivalent product, the name of the manufacturer and demonstrate equivalence by specifying the characteristics of the equivalent product, in particular by means of information from the manufacturer, e.g. a description of the product or printouts/printouts from the manufacturer's websites or the manufacturer's data sheet or a description/technical specification of the product or other means of proof in question. The evidence referred to above shall not be supplemented. 6. In cases where the Contracting Authority describes the subject of the contract by reference to standards, technical assessments, technical specifications and technical reference systems referred to in Art. 1 point 2 and paragraph. 3 of the Public Procurement Act, this means that it allows solutions equivalent to those described, and such a reference is accompanied by the words ‘or equivalent’. The Contractor who relies on equivalent solutions is obliged to demonstrate in the tender, in particular by the means of evidence in question, that the solution offered by him satisfies to an equivalent extent the requirements specified by the Contracting Authority. The evidence referred to above shall not be supplemented. 7. The contracting authority intends to allocate for the performance of the contract: PLN 34 597.32 gross of which: Part 1: 21 121,00zł gross, Part 2: 13 476,32zł gross. 8. In the proceedings in question, the Contractors will communicate with the Ordering Party via the ProPublico on-line platform (hereinafter: ‘Platform’) at https://e-propublico.pl. 9.The deadline for binding the offer expires on 13.12.2026. Details of the SWZ
Text automatically translated in your browsing language
