News  ·  3 SeptemberCourt case on the ground handling tender: what was discussed?

During the hearing, the claimants explained why they disagree with the outcome of the tender process. Schiphol in turn explained why, in its view, the tender was conducted carefully and in accordance with the applicable rules.

• Assessment of the bids
  Aviapartner raised questions about the assessment of the plans it submitted and the scores that were awarded. Schiphol explained that all bids were assessed using pre-established criteria and that the scores were determined through a careful evaluation process.
  
• Selection of dnata
  Previous alleged incidents involving the company were discussed during the hearing. Schiphol explained that there has been one known incident involving the work permit of a single dnata employee. Given the limited nature of that incident and the corrective measures that were taken, Schiphol believes there was no legal basis to exclude dnata from participating in the tender. Doing so would not have been proportionate based on this incident alone. Schiphol also carried out extensive investigations into other allegations raised by the parties involved, but found no evidence that these allegations were substantiated.
  
• Selection and position of KLM
  The claimants raised questions about KLM’s role as both an airline and a ground handling company. Schiphol explained that KLM is permitted to participate in the tender as a ground handler and that it was assessed using the same criteria as all other bidders.
  
• Consultation of airlines
  The claimants argued that airlines were not consulted adequately during the process, particularly not at the right stages. Schiphol stated that airlines were extensively involved throughout the process and that all consultation took place within the boundaries of procurement legislation. The role of the Schiphol Airline Operators Committee (SAOC) was also discussed. The claimants argued that Schiphol should not have consulted the SAOC because its board includes representatives affiliated with KLM, Delta and Emirates, airlines that have links to ground handlers that received a provisional award.
  
• Selection of Viggo
  Questions were raised about whether Viggo will have sufficient staff and resources to carry out its future operations. Schiphol explained that operational feasibility formed part of the assessment and that the selected parties demonstrated that they are able to meet the required standards.
  

The hearing has now concluded. The court is expected to issue its ruling on 23 September. Until then, nothing changes in the planning of the tender process. Schiphol will await the court’s decision and remains confident that the process has been conducted with due care and diligence.