Court overturns "exaggerated" decision Army rejects favorable procurement offer due to typing error
One wrong cross - and a contract worth millions for the army was lost. Now the Federal Administrative Court is stopping Armasuisse and ordering a re-evaluation.
No time? blue News summarizes for you
- An incorrectly placed cross in an offer form initially cost Flaigg AG the order worth millions for the army's grease and oil cans.
- The army procurer Armasuisse excluded the company despite immediately pointing out the obvious error and awarded the contract to Sig Sauer.
- The Federal Administrative Court has now overturned the decision: the exclusion was "excessively formalistic" and Flaigg's bid had to be re-examined.
It was a simple mouse click that almost cost a contract worth millions. When Armasuisse was looking for a manufacturer of grease and oil cans for the army in spring 2025, the Basel-based company Flaigg AG submitted the most favorable offer.
However, a crucial mistake was made in the documents: "No" was marked in the question as to whether Flaigg accepted the army's contract conditions.
Flaigg noticed the mistake immediately and declared that it would of course accept the contract in full. But Armasuisse remained stubborn: a "no" is a "no", they said, adding that the rules were clearly formulated.
Anyone who ticked the wrong box would bear the consequences. There is no provision for queries, especially not in a procedure that requires absolute equal treatment. And so the contract worth almost two million francs was awarded to the traditional Schaffhausen company Sig Sauer - and not to the Basel region.
Court: the army should have asked
Flaigg was not prepared to accept the fact that an inadvertently placed cross could scupper an economically advantageous bid. The company filed a lawsuit - and fell on sympathetic ears at the Federal Administrative Court.
The judges showed little understanding for the fact that a single form field should weigh more heavily than the substance of the entire offer. According to the court, anyone who submits such a favorable and comprehensible dossier and at the same time deliberately rejects the core of the contract cannot disqualify themselves.
In the view of the judges, the error should have been obvious to Armasuisse, and a brief inquiry would have been obvious. The ruling states unequivocally that such a query was "obvious" - not least because the alleged defect could have been corrected "very easily, quickly and in good time". The authority's decision was therefore "excessively formalistic", i.e. stricter than objectively required.
The ruling annuls the award and sends the case back to Armasuisse. The federal authority must now make a new decision - and actually examine Flaigg's bid instead of letting it fail on a technicality. The ruling can still be appealed to the Federal Supreme Court. Flaigg's managing director did not wish to comment on the ruling when asked by blue News.
