I have comments on the following:
p. 6.2. Exclusion criterion
In Sweden is now applied (according to the Directive 2014/18/EG) a signed statement (Sw: Sanningsförsäkran) by the tenderer that the relevant legal representatives have not been convicted by a definitive ruling of a crime.
The tenderer can also supply extracts from the penal register (Sw: Utdrag ur belastningsregistret) but this rarely occurs and is usually only required if there is cause for suspicion. Only the actual natural person can request the extract from the penal register for himself/herself.
The Swedish Law does not provide a possibility to control if the crime has been convicted by the legal entities. It is possible to control only individuals as stated above.
Sweden has not incorporated the new Directives yet. It will be done by January 1, 2017. It is not possible to say now how Sweden will apply this criterion. The criterion that is described above in the p. 6.2 is not possible to fulfill according to the acting legislation.
This issue has been reported by Irina Svensson
Comments
6.2 section is an example on the use of the model to represent an exclusion criterion in a procurement process. Does this example contradict general practice in public procurement? Does Sweden want to use another example or modify it to cater for individuals instead of organizations?