After having read speculations in the written media and claims of managers and counsels to Merko Ehitus as though Eesti Ehitus behaves unfairly in public procurements with the purpose to exclude competition, we deem necessary to clarify the issues. • Disputes in public procurement proceedings are neither unusual nor prohibited. They constitute an important aspect in the procurement proceedings. Upon occurrence of possible problems, such problems are resolved in respective appeal proceedings. Similar appeals are often submitted in procurement proceedings. This has been done previously by Eesti Ehitus, Järvevana AS (former Merko Ehitus) as well as all other market participants. • The aim of the Public Procurement Act is execution of public procurements on most favourable terms for the state, guaranteeing, at the same time, equal treatment of the tenderers and receipt of a service/product complying with the required quality. • In respect of public procurements, Eesti Ehitus has acted based on the understanding originating from the usual practice that the public procurement proceedings regulated in the Public Procurement Act is a formal proceedings where rules set with regard to the tenderers have to be accurately complied with in order to ensure transparency of the proceedings and equal treatment of the tenderers. In the procurement proceedings only the fact as to whether the particular tenderer and its tender comply with the requirements of the Public Procurement Act and the contract documents is assessed. In case the tenderer does not comply with the requirements, conclusion of a public contract with such a person is not possible. It should be understandable that only an enterprise with an outstanding reputation having passed fair competition and corresponding to all applicable requirements may conclude an agreement with the state. There are plenty of such enterprises in Estonia (i.e. not only one or two). • Eesti Ehitus does not argue in order to exclude a competitor from the market (which is ridiculous), but to guarantee equal opportunities (rights and obligations) to all competitors. We contested the resolution of the contracting authority as we wish to comprehend unambiguously and clearly certain conceptual alternatives which concern a large number of entrepreneurs in the country: may an enterprise whose activities may be connected to circumstances which might be considered as problematic upon successful participation in the procurement proceedings break away from such circumstances merely by establishing a new company or not. If, based on the appeal, it should be decided that this is possible, the setting of qualification criteria in the public procurement proceedings as well as the proceedings itself may be considered as useless. Provided that the understanding of Eesti Ehitus proves to be wrong, it is clear that all enterprises, including all tenderers in public procurements, must take into account that: • The Public Procurement Act does not apply equally to everybody and interpretations of law based on the ability of the participants of the tenders to provide suitable interpretations and persuade the public authority of the correctness of such interpretations are accepted.' • The possibility of division of companies set forth in the Commercial Code is a simple possibility to break away from all problems and pursue activities, taking along, however, the strong positive indicators from the period preceding the problems and leaving the negative indicators to the “old” company or a company established with this special purpose. • This would enable repeated division of a company always when serious problems that need to be getting rid of occur. All entrepreneurs that have been re-established by making such a clean sweep may without any limitations make use of indicators (e.g. the turnover) of the initial enterprise upon taking part in public procurements and competing with other enterprises. Kind regards, Jaano Vink Chairman of the management board AS Eesti Ehitus