Following a complaint from SO.GI.N., an Italian company which led a consortium that bid for a 4 M€ EU project concerning the harmonisation of energy policies between the EU and Russia, the European Ombudsman, P. Nikiforos Diamandouros, criticised the European Commission for unfairly excluding this company after recalculating the consortium's bid without consulting the complainant. As a result of its recalculation, Commission wrongly concluded that the bid exceeded the maximum allowable budget of EUR 4 million by 21 €.

In 2005, the Italian company Sogin S.p.A. applied for an EU project under procurement procedure held by EuropeAid, concerning the harmonisation of energy policies between the EU and Russia (EuropeAid/115584/C/SV/RU). The maximum budget available for this project was EUR 4 million.

The company led a consortium comprised of itself, the Italian company CESI S.p.A., the French companies Sofregaz and Petrostrategie, the Spanish company Mercados Energéticos and the former British company LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae (LLG&M).

The Commission received 21 offers, but only two, including the complainant's offer, complied with the technical requirements. The evaluation committee, however, proceeded to exclude the Italian company's bid. In the Commission's view, the bid exceeded the maximum allowable budget of EUR 4 million.

According to the complainant, its bid did not exceed the maximum allowable budget. It pointed out that the evaluation committee wrongly understood the bid to contain arithmetical errors. It then, without consulting the complainant, proceeded to recalculate the bid. These recalculations led the evaluation committee to conclude that the bid exceeded the maximum allowable budget by 21 euros. The Commission then automatically awarded the tender to the only remaining other applicant, a French company, BCEOM French Engineering Consultants. This was done even before the Italian company was informed that its bid had been rejected.

During his investigation, the Ombudsman took the view that there were no arithmetical errors in the complainant's bid. He noted that the misunderstanding of the evaluation committee could have been avoided if it had sought clarifications from the complainant. The Ombudsman concluded that the Evaluation Committee manifestly erred when it failed to exercise its power of discretion to ask for clarification as regards the SO.GI.N. bid. This failure resulted in the exclusion of the SO.GI.N. from the tender, thus depriving it of a "serious chance" to win the tender. This constitutes an instance of maladministration.