Renewal of Checkmarx license integration implementation

Preliminary method of proof required in the tender, which is also necessary for the evaluation of tenders: pursuant to Section 67 (1) of the Kbt. (Public Procurement Act), the tenderer must submit in its tender its declaration contained in the ESPD. Pursuant to Section 2 (5) of the Kr.

(Government Decree 321/2015), the contracting authority stipulates that compliance with the minimum suitability criteria specified in the contract notice must be verified preliminarily by completing Section α (alpha): "Global indication for all selection criteria" in Part IV of the ESPD. The contracting authority does not require the provision of detailed information in Part IV of the standard form.

The contracting authority carries out the verification of compliance with the suitability requirements in two rounds, in accordance with the provisions of Section 69 of the Kbt.: in the first round, it verifies the declaration made in the ESPD, and in the second round, it verifies the certificates to be submitted pursuant to Section 69 (4) of the Kbt. In the case of joint tendering, each joint tenderer must submit a separate ESPD.

Method of verification required during evaluation (based on the contracting authority's request pursuant to Section 69 (4) of the Kbt.): REFERENCE: Suitability requirement: M1. The Tenderer is deemed unsuitable if it does not have at least 1 reference performed in accordance with the regulations and contractually during the 3 years (36 months) preceding the dispatch of the contract notice, concerning the supply of security source code analysis software or a security source code analysis system.

The contracting authority takes into account deliveries completed during the period under examination, but commenced within a maximum of six years (72 months). The date of completion of performance shall be the date of issuance of the certificate of performance. Method of verification: M.1.

The tenderer shall, pursuant to point a) of Section 21 (1) of the Kr., present its deliveries corresponding to the subject-matter of the public procurement performed in the 3 years (36 months) preceding the dispatch of the contract notice, certified in the form specified in Section 22 (1) of the Kr., i.e. by a declaration of the tenderer (or, where applicable, of another entity participating in proving suitability) or by a reference certificate issued by the other contracting party. The reference declaration or reference certificate shall contain at least the following information:

• the name and address of the other contracting party;
• the duration of performance, specifying the start and end dates with at least year-month accuracy (or year-month-day accuracy if necessary for examining the duration);
• the subject-matter and quantity of the completed delivery, specified in such detail that compliance with the suitability requirement can be established [the specific delivered product must be indicated on the reference certificate/declaration; a general description (software) is not sufficient];
• a declaration as to whether performance was carried out in accordance with regulations and the contract.If performance did not take place in accordance with the contract, the Tenderer must describe, pursuant to Section 22 (2) of the Kr., in the certificate or declaration the reason for and extent of the divergence, as well as, in the event of a breach of contract by the economic operator, whether the economic operator is liable for the breach of contract.If suitability is verified by a declaration of the tenderer, candidate, or other entity participating in verifying suitability, the declaration shall also indicate whether the other contracting party disputes the contractual nature of the performance or—if the economic operator has declared so—the circumstance that the economic operator is not liable for the breach of contract. The contracting authority is entitled to stipulate the provision of further data necessary to determine suitability among the…

PROFESSIONAL Condition: M2. The tenderer is unfit if he does not have at least 1 person in the Hungarian language involved in the performance, who has at least 3 years of professional experience (education and / or enlargement and / or development and / or installation) with regard to the recommended security source code analysis software or security source code analysis system.

Method of certification: According to § 21 (1) (b) Kr., compliance with the M2 eligibility requirement is described by the experts (organisations), in particular those responsible for quality control, their qualifications and qualifications, and their professional experience to be involved in the performance. § 67 (3) Kbt. on the basis of the information provided by the organisation providing its capacity, it shall demonstrate compliance with the relevant eligibility criteria in the same way as the required certification methods.

The applicant shall accept experience gained in the work of the professional in which at least one of the tasks listed in the competence requirement M.2. was assigned to him [specific products in use, at least 1, need to be marked in the CV, such as software, are not sufficient].

The applicant points out that the tasks, part of the tasks set out in the technical specifications, must be carried out by a professional presented in the field of competence, subject to the provisions of Article 138 (2) of the Kbt: i.e. the professional person may be amended, supplemented during the performance of the contract, but all professionals must comply with the requirements laid down as a condition of competence. Documents to be attached:

• declaration of involvement, presentation of professionals [ECR form],
• professional CV of the expert (s), self-signed, with a detailed description of the conditions required between the minimum requirements of competence on the basis of which the conditions are clearly established (in professional experience, time overlap is not permitted), [the qualification related to the existence of professional experience in the CV, the specific task to be carried out with the safety source analysis software or safety source analysis system at the workplace specified in the self-biography (e.g. software development) is not sufficient;
• general designation (e.g. software development) is not sufficient, availability, and a declaration that it is required to include in the procedure. § 65 (6), (7), (9), (11) and (12) Kbt. also apply. According to § 67 (3) Kbt, the entity providing its capacity shall demonstrate compliance with the relevant eligibility criteria in the same way as the required certification methods.The applicant shall define the required M2eligibility requirement more strictly than the "Bronze 'classification of the Public Procurement Authority, given that the professional experience of the expert to be presented should be specifically relevant to the experience acquired by the safety source code analysis software or safety source code analysis system (education and / or expansion and / or development and / or installation).