It is possible to submit a summary of fais, with important legal information.

1.- On 03/26/2021 it is published on the Public Sector Procurement Platform Announcement of tender, for the award of Comprehensive maintenance service of the network of Canarias RESCAN emergencies and security and assistance with technical support for support the project, lots I and II, for an amount of 7,767,520.12 EUR (7,259,364.6 EUR, excluding taxes) and through the open procedure. The conditions of the tender can be consulted in the Summary of the Specifications and in the Document of approval of the File - in which there are Attached are the Specific Administrative Conditions and Technical Specifications. The general documentation of this tender dossier can be consulted at

File: 20 087 SR JD AB OA42

2. - On 04/14/21, the contracting table proceeds to open the offers submitted for the

lot I, with regard to the subjective conditions or requirements of contracting, resulting in the

participation of the following candidates:

A). "A" which is a UTE, promoted by the following companies: A1, A2 and A3, of which A3 is a company with registered office in Australia. After analyzing the information, there is no evidence formally the certification of reciprocity necessary for the participation of companies from third countries to the EU, for which it is granted a period of 3 days for its correction

B). "B", which is a Spanish mercantile company, which presents two sides of commitments of companies N and N 'in which they undertake to provide necessary technical elements for the fulfillment of the solvency conditions.

C). "C", which is a trading company domiciled in the Netherlands.

D). "D", which is another joint venture, made up of companies D1, D2, D3. In this case the Lack of the necessary commitment to establish the UTE and its formalization by the company D3

On the same date and, without prejudice to the result of the rectification proceedings initiated in relation to candidates A and D, envelope 2 corresponding to the criteria based on value judgment and their ordering their referral to technical services so that they raise a report on the offers presented.

3.- On 04/19/21 the table meets again and proceeds to accept the corrections and clarifications made by the required candidates and, after analyzing the report issued by technical services, proceed to approve it as an evaluation of the offers with the following result:

A). Bidder A: 23.1

B). Bidder B: 12, It is noted that some elements have not been considered for lack of accreditation of compliance with the legal conditions necessary to be able to comply with the commitments made in relation to these criteriaC). Bidder C: 24.2D). Bidder D: 25 4.- On 07/21/21 the hiring table meets to assess the criteria corresponding to the criteria that can be evaluated automatically or by means of mathematical formulas. With the following result:

Auto	Bidder	Total	Value
A	23,1	70	93,1
B	12	75	87
C	24,2	68,5	92,7
D	25	68,1	93,1

In the same act, in view of the tie between A and D, the hiring table proceeds to propose to D, as the winner of the contract, through a lottery carried out in the same session that, in addition, being "D" the current service provider guarantees greater continuity at the same5.- On 07/26/21, they request in writing, candidates A and C request access to the file prior to filing an appeal against the award proposal.6.- On 07/30/2021 the agreement of the contracting body is published through the that lot I is awarded to bidder D7.- On the same date 07/30/21, the request for access to the file was resolved negatively, since the award proposal was not an actionable act.8.- On 07/31/2021 A and D filed an appeal against the award on the basis of the following allegations:A). A: (1) non-compliance with the award regime in the event of a tie, (2) character not The documentation relating to the subjective requirements of "D" and (3) breach of the principle of equality can be rectified since the award would have taken into account criteria not provided for in the specifications.B). B: (1) lack of specification in the specifications of the evaluation criteria corresponding to those assessable through value judgment; (2) failure to comply with the principle of equality to the extent that it has not been allowed to correct the deficiencies considered in relation towith your proposition.

C). C: (1) possible conflict of interest and infringement of the principle of legality derived from the

circumstance that D is the current service provider; (2) Non-rectifiable nature of

defects noted in documentation related to subjective requirements