The tender commission for granting concessions to Montenegrin airports will hold a new session in the coming days, at which it will consider whether the scoring should be annulled and how to proceed. The reason for this is the position of the State Concession Commission that the award of zero points is legal, which was previously disputed, so the question of the justification of the second scoring of technical offers is now raised.
This was announced for "Vijesti" by the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Tender Commission. Nick Djelosaj.
The State Concessions Commission, deciding on the objection of the second-ranked bidder "Corporacion América Airports SA" (CAAP), determined that the Tender Commission for the concession of Podgorica and Tivat airports must re-explain the ranking list of bidders, because that list does not have a sufficiently clear and valid explanation of the scoring, which opens up room for arbitrariness and calls into question the transparency of the procedure.
"Our goal is to complete the report as soon as possible with all the instructions and amendments ordered by the Concessions Commission and to send it to the competent ministry, because this is a decision of strategic importance for the state and the economy," said Đeljošaj.
According to the ranking, the first place is taken by the South Korean company "Incheon International Airport Corporation" (IIAC) with 96,18 points awarded, and the second place is taken by the Luxembourg-American consortium "Corporacion América Airports SA" (CAAP) with 65,15 points awarded.
DON'T MISS IT
The Commission's decision, which "Vijesti" has access to, states that CAAP pointed out that the ranking list lacks an explanation and instructions on legal remedies and that it was not personally served, that there was an illegal repeated scoring of the bids, that IFC (the Government's consultant in this matter - the International Finance Corporation) exceeded its authority, that the independence of the commission members was violated, that the awarding of zero points was not legal and that there was indiscriminate disclosure of confidential information to the public and influence of the Government of Montenegro on the members of the Tender Commission. CAAP proposed, as stated, that the ranking list be returned with an order to hold a new session of the Tender Commission and confirm the first evaluation in which it was ranked as the first and only bidder.
"The Tender Commission session will be scheduled in the coming days. Our goal is to complete the report as soon as possible with all the instructions and amendments ordered by the Concessions Commission and to send it to the competent ministry, because this is a decision of strategic importance for the state and the economy," said Đeljošaj.
"Vijesti" asked whether the new ranking list of bidders would be published with clear explanations of the points according to all criteria.
"Absolutely. Each new ranking list must contain clear and reasoned explanations for each scoring criterion, so that the process is maximally transparent and in accordance with the law. We will no longer rely on a consultant, although we pay him, but on our capabilities and we will consider hiring a local expert consultant," the Deputy Prime Minister emphasized.
The Concessions Commission has determined that it is not disputed that a bid can be scored with 0 points, but only if there is a clear and justified basis for this - such as failure to meet the conditions of the public invitation or another objective reason. The same applies to the award of a maximum of 5 points - and then it is mandatory to state why the bidder fully met the required criteria.
The tender commission evaluated the technical part of the bids twice and allowed the Koreans to proceed to the second round of evaluating the financial part of the bids only after the IFC intervened, claiming that the tender rules on voting had not been respected. During the first scoring of the technical bids, the IIAC remained “below the line” because some members gave zero points. Đeljošaj publicly accused the IFC of working for the Koreans and demanded that they sign a statement taking responsibility for the legal interpretation, which the IFC refused to do.
When asked by "Vijesti" what his position was regarding the Concessions Commission's assessment that it is not disputed that a bid can be rated with 0 points and whether there can be a new scoring and change in the ranking, Đeljošaj said: "My previously stated position, which has now been confirmed by the Concessions Commission, is that it is completely legal to award zero points when a bid does not meet the criteria."
"This eliminates any dilemma. After this opinion, there was no legal basis for a new scoring, which further calls into question the second scoring and whether it should be annulled or how to proceed, will be decided by the tender commission at the next sessions. I mentioned the part of the concession commission's decision in the explanation when I singled out the opinion on the final adopted ranking list. Let me remind you that the only reason for repeating the scoring was precisely the awarding of zero points. Imagine the absurdity of the position of the IFC and several members of the tender commission, that zero points should not be awarded to a bidder who, instead of the mandatory 200 million investments in two phases, offers 150 million. Not that it is allowed, but in that case the consultant would have to propose that such an offer not be considered at all, but rejected as incorrect," emphasized the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Concessions Commission concluded that the allegations in CAAP's objections regarding the repeated evaluation of the bids were unfounded, because the Tender Commission, after several sessions in June 2025, ultimately unanimously decided to repeat the evaluation of both technical bids in the analysis and scoring of the Air Accessibility Development Plan and the Investment Plan Bid, after which both bidders exceeded the threshold of 80 points and qualified for the next phase.
Đeljošaj believes that the Tender Commission did not fully comply with the Law on Concessions, as indicated by the State Concession Commission, is the responsibility of those who, using unprofessional and illegal arguments, exerted influence to repeat the scoring, because the consultant was not satisfied with the outcome of the voting of the Tender Commission members.
"The majority of the members of the Tender Commission acted under this advice and in the belief that they were acting legally. Now, when the Concessions Commission has given a clear opinion, there are no more dilemmas, it is the obligation of all of us to fully comply with the Law on Concessions and to rely on our own interpretations, because the advisor has lost credibility. It is also possible that the advisor will change the personnel composition, because it is obvious that their positions were constructed and that their goal was not compliance with the law, but some other motives. I will remind the public of the inappropriate public letter from the IFC where they threatened to withdraw from the process if their opinion was not followed," Đeljošaj pointed out.
Domestic legal framework more important than IFC opinion
Đeljošaj pointed out that it was completely clear that the IFC's opinion was only advisory in nature.
“That was perfectly clear. IFC was engaged as an advisor, but their opinion is not binding and cannot replace the domestic legal framework. That is why IFC never accepted responsibility for the legal interpretations I sought, because they were clearly aware that they were advising in a way that was not in accordance with the law.”
In its decision, the State Concessions Commission assessed as unfounded the allegations of the objections relating to the role and legal opinion of the IFC, because it has only an advisory and instructive character and is not binding on the members of the Tender Commission.
During the procedure, IFC acted within the framework of its contractual obligations, providing analysis, recommendations and support in the evaluation of bids, but without the right to formal decision-making. “However, it follows from the minutes that individual members of the commission changed the points in accordance with the opinion of IFC, without an independent and reasoned assessment, although they were obliged to use their professional knowledge and independently justify their assessments,” the Commission said.
It is further stated that responsibility for irregularities, according to Article 26 of the Law on Concessions, lies with the members of the Tender Commission, who are appointed as experts and are obliged to provide their own, clearly explained evaluations of the bids.
Bonus video:
