Facts

Parties:

  • Appellant: Company [A.] , represented by attorney Daniel Roten
  • Respondent: Company [C.] , represented by attorney Michael Graber
  • Awarding authority: Municipality of Fiesch, represented by attorney Aron Pfammatter

Facts:

  • The awarding authority of the Municipality of Fiesch tendered textile floor coverings for a school building. Four offers were submitted, including those from Company [A.] (CHF 179,965.15) and Company [C.] (CHF 184,868.35).
  • The awarding authority adjusted the offers and awarded the contract to Company [C.] at a net price of CHF 175,339.05.
  • The Cantonal Court of the Canton of Valais dismissed the administrative court appeal of Company [A.] .
  • The appellant filed a subsidiary constitutional complaint, requesting the annulment of the Cantonal Court's judgment and the award of the contract to Company [A.] .

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court examines its jurisdiction and the conditions for admissibility ex officio. The appeal in public law matters is not admissible, as no question of law of fundamental importance is at stake. The subsidiary constitutional complaint is admissible, however, as the appellant has a legally protected interest in the annulment of the challenged judgment.

The appellant alleges a violation of the right to be heard under Art. 29 para. 2 Cst., a breach of the principle of equality before the law under Art. 8 para. 1 Cst., and an arbitrary application of Art. 38 PPA and Art. 19 kVöB/VS. The Federal Supreme Court finds that the lower court did not violate the right to be heard, as the appellant did not provide sufficient grounds for…