Tram procurement proceeding as planned

Metropolitan Area Transport Ltd has selected rolling stock manufacturer Stadler as the supplier of new trams for the Helsinki metropolitan area. The procurement comprises a total of 63 trams, which will replace Helsinki’s ageing tram fleet and enable the expansion of the light rail network in Vantaa and West Helsinki.

A request for action regarding the procurement was recently submitted to the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority (FCCA), requesting that the tram procurement process for the Helsinki metropolitan area be suspended and the tender be reorganised.

In response, Metropolitan Area Transport Ltd provides the following update on the status of the procurement procedure and the project.

The procurement decision is final

The company whose bid was rejected referred the matter to the Market Court for review, as permitted by law. In its decision MAO:159/2026 of March 2026, the Market Court stated that the rejected tender was contrary to the invitation to tender on several grounds and that the procuring entity had not acted incorrectly in excluding it from the tender process. The Market Court stated that, under public procurement legislation, a tenderer is responsible for ensuring that its tender complies with the invitation to tender. The Market Court also assessed the allegations concerning discriminatory practices in the tender documents and changes made to the requirements during the procedure, and found that such clarifications were permissible under the negotiated procedure.

The Market Court stated the following, referring to established case law:

“Excluding from the tender procedure a tender that does not comply with the invitation to tender is not only the right of the procuring entity, but the procuring entity is also obliged, in order to ensure the fair and non-discriminatory treatment of tenderers, to exclude from the tender procedure any tender that does not comply with the invitation to tender when the incompleteness of the tender or its non-compliance with the invitation to tender jeopardises the fair and non-discriminatory treatment of tenderers in the comparison of tenders.”

The exclusion was therefore not contrary to the principle of equal treatment of tenderers; it was, in fact, necessary to ensure equal treatment.

The Market Court also dismissed the allegations that the tender documents were amended during the procedure and that the successful tenderer was allowed to make an error in its application to participate.

The Market Court considered that there was no need to grant the additional time requested by the tenderer, as the remaining tender period was sufficient and the procuring entity had not acted incorrectly. On 2 June 2026, the Supreme Administrative Court decided not to grant the company leave to appeal, and so the Market Court’s decision is final.

It has been suggested in the media that suspending the procurement process would not give rise to any liability for damages, as the procurement contract has not yet been signed. However, liability for damages under public procurement legislation applies to damage caused during the procurement procedure and does not require a contract to have been concluded. Furthermore, an appeal against the decision to suspend the procedure could be lodged with the Market Court, and a new tender procedure could not be organised under the same conditions.

Public procurement legislation protects both the procuring entity and the tenderer

The mandatory requirements for the tram procurement define the minimum standards required for the trams to operate safely on the Helsinki and Vantaa rail networks at reasonable life-cycle costs. These requirements are not mere formalities, as they were defined on the basis of genuine needs to meet the rolling stock requirements of the rail network over the coming decades.

Public procurement legislation ensures that tenderers actually offer what the procuring entity has specified in the invitation to tender. According to section 78 of the Act on Public Contracts and Concessions of Entities Operating in the Water, Energy, Transport and Postal Services Sectors, a tenderer must demonstrate that the product that it is offering complies with the requirements, and tenders that do not comply with the invitation to tender shall be excluded from the tendering process. Without a tender that meets the specified requirements, a tenderer could drive down the price by offering something other than what has been requested. If tenderers do not offer the product or service being procured in accordance with the same requirements, comparing the tenders becomes impossible.

All tenderers price their solutions on the basis of the same requirements, and showing flexibility towards one tenderer would put a tenderer who has met the requirements at a disadvantage. Public procurement legislation ensures both the equal treatment of tenderers and the protection of the procuring entity during the procurement procedure.

In the tram procurement process, only one of the two tenderers who submitted a final tender met the mandatory requirements.

The Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority cannot overturn the procurement decision

The Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority (FCCA) is responsible for general supervision of compliance with public procurement legislation. The FCCA’s supervision focuses primarily on illegal direct procurements that have not been reported at all and that have not been put out to tender in accordance with public procurement legislation. In the case of the tram procurement, an EU contract notice was published, a comprehensive market consultation was carried out and the procurement was put out to tender using the negotiated procedure. Furthermore, the finality of the procurement decision has been confirmed by the Market Court.

The FCCA is not an appeal body. The FCCA cannot overturn a final procurement decision, order the suspension of a procurement procedure or require a new tender to be organised, as these matters fall within the jurisdiction of the Market Court. The FCCA does not settle disputes between tenderers, nor does it overturn procurement decisions. According to the FCCA’s own guidelines, tenderers have the right to appeal to the Market Court, and in this procurement procedure, the appeal process has been carried out to its conclusion at the Market Court and the Supreme Administrative Court.

The price information presented in the media is misleading

The increased maximum price of €332 million presented in the project plans includes, among other things, project management, supervision, in-house work, interest during the project period, a project contingency, training, simulators, specialised tools and a spare parts package. The maximum price presented in the project plan is therefore not the same as the price of the winning tender. As such, the maximum price presented in the project plan and the amounts quoted in the rejected tender are not comparable, as one is allegedly only the sale price of the carriages, while the other includes not only the price of the carriages, but also other items supplied and the project’s other costs.


Metropolitan Area Transport Ltd is continuing with the project preparations as planned. The increase of the maximum prices in the project plans will be discussed in the decision-making processes of the owner cities during August–September. The rise in the general price level and the impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine are discussed in more detail in a previous press release (in Finnish): Rising manufacturing costs are driving up the prices of tram projects.

Explore the topic (in Finnish):

Tram procurement decision final – Supreme Administrative Court refused leave to appeal (in Finnish): https://kaupunkiliikenne.fi/raitiovaunu/raitiovaunuhankinta-lainvoimainen-korkein-hallinto-oikeus-ei-antanut-valituslupaa/

Delivery schedule of the tram procurement (in Finnish): https://kaupunkiliikenne.fi/uutisartikkelit/raitiovaunuhankinnan-toimitusaikataulu/

Rising manufacturing costs are driving up the prices of tram projects (in Finnish): https://kaupunkiliikenne.fi/uutisartikkelit/teollisuuden-kustannustason-nousu-kasvattaa-paakaupunkiseudun-raitiovaunuhankkeiden-hintoja/