In competition for the design of a new Center for Experimental Puppet Art in Stara Zagora, 98 projects from 28 countries competed, evaluated by an international jury. The project by “Unas Studio” – a limited liability company that also won the competition for the new building of “Karin Dom” in Varna – was ranked first. Projects by authors from the United Kingdom and Bulgaria secured the second and third places, respectively.
Two participants in the competition – architect Krasimir Krastev (“Studio Krastev” Ltd.) and architect Emil Nenov Popov – have filed complaints with the Commission for Protection of Competition, disputing the results of the competition.
Grounds for the Appeal
The appeal to the CPC is not a mere formality, but a desire to ensure compliance with the rules as the only condition for conducting a fair competition, assert the two architects.
In both complaints, it is pointed out that the project ranked first from “Unas Studio” did not meet the requirement that the dimensions of the main hall must be at least 12/22 m, although this obligation is stated in the assignment and repeatedly confirmed in the explanations provided by the client in response to questions from participants in the public procurement. With dimensions of 14.75/17.75 m, the winning design achieved a simplified “clean” plan and therefore gained an advantage over the other projects.
However, if the hall dimensions were adhered to, the project would not be feasible as a functional scheme and volumetric-spatial composition.
It is also unclear on what basis preliminary studies were conducted for the competition’s assignment and how the prize fund was determined, given the apparent disproportion between the prizes for the design project and the subsequent design phase. Concerns were raised about whether conditions were created to favor certain participants in the competition. “The designer’s fee for the working project, author supervision, and consulting services at a bid of 300,000 leva or 160 leva/sq.m. far exceeds what is normal in practice in Bulgaria, as well as the construction cost stated by ‘Unas Studio’ of 4.6 million leva for the construction of metal halls with a suspended facade, as is the winning project,” commented architect Popov in his complaint. This, according to him, suggests that
the aim of the competition, even as an international one, is more to achieve legitimacy for financial rather than architectural goals.
The submission of project documentation has also been challenged. The client allowed submissions to occur not only through the legal method via the electronic public procurement platform (CAIS EOP) but also through the competition’s website, which, according to the complainants,
is a gross violation of the Public Procurement Law and grounds for terminating the procedure, as it does not ensure the anonymity of participants and effectively means a lack of conditions for competition and equality among them.
“This address as an alternative for submitting project proposals was not indicated in the announcement of the public procurement and thus deprived the participants of the legal opportunity to contest the illegal action of the client, which consisted of using an electronic platform without legal grounds for it,” states one of the complaints. Documents for participation in the competition were also submitted in paper format directly to the “State Puppet Theatre” in Stara Zagora.
On competition’s website, the client published a sample attorney’s power of attorney, which was not included in the documentation on the electronic public procurement platform. This, on one hand, deprives some participants of the opportunity, should they wish, to utilize the attorney’s services.
On the other hand, it creates a possibility for violating anonymity, as there is a basis for linking each project to its author due to unclear conditions regarding the authorized person.
The attorney appointed by the client, Lilko Petrov – a retired general and former head of the military prosecutor’s office – is directly related to Tsveta Yotsova, co-owner of “Optimistas” Ltd. – the organizer of the competition. She is also part of the team at the law firm “Yotsov and Co.,” established a check by “For the Truth.”
This connection could potentially influence the results of the public procurement, which “contradicts the principles of competitiveness and equality among participants and constitutes a conflict of interest,”
architect Popov emphasizes in his complaint to the CPC and raises the following questions:
– Is permissible for the client to designate an attorney to represent the participants in the competition?
– How many participants can an attorney represent if they receive their projects through the competition’s website and submit them to the electronic public procurement platform, given that competitiveness is an absolute condition for the legality of the procedure?
The “Optimistas” Ltd. has a contract with the “State Puppet Theatre” for consulting and assisting the client in organizing and conducting the public procurement, thus participating as an external entity. According to the requirements of the Public Procurement Law, “all information exchanged regarding the preparation for awarding a public procurement must be published in the buyer’s profile, including the result obtained from the client, and if this is not possible, the profile should indicate where this information may be obtained. Through these actions, the client ensures the non-violation of competition and the principles of non-discrimination and transparency,” writes architect Krastev in his complaint to the Commission for Protection of Competition. However, the client did not publish this information on the electronic public procurement platform within the mandatory five-day period, but three months later,
which is an independent ground for annulment of the public procurement due to its illegality.
In violation of the principles of transparency, publicity, and equality, the client – “State Puppet Theatre – Stara Zagora” allowed the participation of an external legal entity in all phases of the public procurement, both in the preparation phase, including the drafting of documentation, and in the execution phase. However, the presence of the same external entity throughout the entire public procurement process violates the Public Procurement Law since “Optimistas” Ltd., as an external expert, should have concluded its involvement in the preparation phase.
Even more striking is the fact that the company is named as the organizer of the competition in the public procurement assignment, while no other entity besides the client can have the status of “organizer” when public funds are involved.
Architect Popov also points out that the client did not publish its contract with “Optimistas” Ltd. on the electronic public procurement platform, despite legal obligations. In his complaint, he highlights that “Optimistas” Ltd. participated in the competitions for the Thermal Power Plant in Sofia in 2017 and for “Karin Dom” in Varna in 2020, executed by the construction company “Planex.” According to him, both competitions had egregious violations of the assignment requirements – in the “Karin Dom” case, identical to the current competition, the winning proposal, “Unas Studio,” offered around 625 sq. m. for a required minimum area of approximately 750 sq. m on the first floor. In the Sofia Thermal Power Plant case, the violation was in the non-compliance with building parameters.
“In a third such recurring case, an impression of systemic behavior in organizing competitions, judging, and determining winners is created,” writes architect Popov.
Architect Krastev also points out two other significant violations, in his opinion.
- The project ranked second has a hall depth of more than five meters underground, which violates the Regulation for Buildings for Public Service.
- In both awarded projects, the rehearsal hall is also designed underground, while the assignment states that there “may be children’s schools” there.
These and other violations in the opening and conduct of the competition cannot be rectified without changing the conditions under which it was announced, according to architect Popov.
He contends that the decision made on July 28 of this year, in which the results of the international architectural competition are announced, should be annulled as unlawful, and the conducted public procurement should be terminated.
The position of “Optimistas” Ltd., the organizer of the competition:
Attorney sveta Yotsova-Stoeva responded to questions posed by “For the Truth,” stating that discussing a conflict of interest simply because she is a partner in “Optimistas” Ltd. and the daughter of the authorized attorney Lilko Yotsov demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of the competition procedure.
When asked why an attorney was necessary at all in organizing the public procurement, Yotsova replied that only three participants submitted documents without an attorney’s power of attorney, while 98 others utilized the services of attorney Yotsov. She explained that this was due to the fact that documents on the electronic public procurement portal can only be accepted with a Bulgarian electronic signature, which the overwhelming majority of participants do not possess, many of whom are also foreigners.
“The attorney only receives the power of attorney, fills out the single European public procurement document, signs it, and submits it on the electronic platform,” said Yotsova. She emphasized that the authorized attorney does not have access to the projects submitted to the client in electronic form or printed on paper. The fact that documents for participation could be submitted in several ways does not violate the Public Procurement Law; rather, it simply provides greater access to the public procurement process, commented attorney Yotsova.
Regarding the necessary preliminary studies before drafting the assignment, she explained that analyses and geodetic measurements had been conducted to allow for the possibility of projecting even from the other side of the world. As for the construction price of 4.6 million leva, mentioned by the winning proposal “Unas Studio,” attorney Yotsova noted that price is a criterion mandated by law but carries only a 5% weight in the evaluation of the projects.
According to her, the conduct of competitions is fundamentally misunderstood, as the price holds no significance in evaluating a design project. It has even been discussed multiple times to eliminate it as a requirement in these competitions. She pointed out that there were participants who proposed construction prices ranging from 300,000 to 20 million leva.
When asked whether the dimensions of the main hall of the designed building were not mandatory, Yotsova responded:
“Only legal conditions are imperative; specifying dimensions is merely a way to understand what the client is looking for, but the jury’s decision is law. In this case, we couldn’t do anything because it was explicitly stated that only participants who violated the anonymity of the competition would be disqualified. The jury provides this ranking, and the theater director has no grounds not to accept it. The competition is meant for people to see your dream and interpretation different from your own vision,” noted attorney Yotsova as a partner in “Optimistas” – the organizer of the competition in Stara Zagora.
Answers the theater director Darin Petkov.
Thein Petkov to “For the Truth,” naively charming like a children’s puppet play, went like this: “We got to know the company ‘Optimistas’ (there is also a foundation by that name in the APIS system) two and a half years ago at an urban meeting. We chose them because we trusted their owners – an architect and a lawyer with knowledge and experience beyond our competence. They also participated in organizing other international competitions like the one for ‘Karin Dom’ in Varna.”
Whether preliminary studies were conducted, the director did not know but stated that he explained what he wanted in terms of the functionality of the hall, what the connections to the stage should be, etc., because “after all, this thing needs to be operated, and it should be comfortable.” According to Petkov, these studies most likely included conversations the company had with the artists, the theater staff, and the audience to consider all viewpoints.
When asked if he knew that the parameters of the main hall defined in the public procurement assignment were not met in the project that won first place, Darin Petkov replied that the jury consisted of 9 people gathered from all over Europe, and he did not have a say in it. He stated that the mentioned dimensions were not set imperatively but were recommended.
The financing of the project will most likely come from one of the EU programs, said the director of the puppet theater, who has no concerns about securing the required 4.5 million leva. The theater has submitted a statement requested by the CPC in connection with the complaint filed (at the time of our conversation, there was only one). He noted that only after the commission makes its decision will they proceed to the next stages of implementing the project, which may also undergo further adjustments.
Whether is a conflict of interest and violations of the law and procedures in the organization and conduct of the competition remains to be seen from the case that the Commission for Protection of Competition will initiate.
“For the Truth” will follow the developments in this case, which, after the Commission for Protection of Competition, may also go through the sanction of the Supreme Administrative Court. All opinions expressed by any of the affected parties will be published in subsequent articles.
