CONDITIONS
EXPLANATION
Explanation of competition conditions - 1
Inquiry on 27.4.2026
Hello,
Article 4.1(f) of the competition conditions specifies a requirement for a team member—a licensed engineer for bridges and civil engineering structures—who: “must demonstrate that, within the last 10 years from the date of the competition announcement, they have served as the responsible designer of a pedestrian or bicycle bridge with a span length of at least 80 m and a clear span of at least 35 m at the DSP, DÚSP, PDPS, or VD-ZDS stage.”
We would like to request an explanation as to why the required reference is limited exclusively to footbridges or bicycle bridges. Does the contracting authority insist on this restriction?
We believe that a licensed engineer who served as the lead designer for a highway, road, or railway bridge with similar parameters—i.e., a span length of at least 80 m and a clear span of at least 35 m—demonstrates comparable, or even broader, professional experience in the design of bridge structures of corresponding technical complexity.
At the same time, we request an explanation of the time limit restricting the required reference to the last 10 years. Given the specific definition of the reference—namely, the current restriction to a footbridge or bicycle bridge, the specified length parameters, and the required level of design documentation—we believe that this condition may, on the whole, significantly narrow the pool of individuals capable qualification, even though they may have demonstrable and relevant professional experience with similar or technically more demanding bridge structures.
We therefore request that you consider amending the competition conditions so that the required qualifications may also be demonstrated by references to bridge structures for road, highway, or rail transport, provided they meet the specified length and design parameters; alternatively, we request that older relevant references be allowed to be considered, provided their technical nature meets the tender requirements.
Otherwise, we believe that requirements formulated in such a cumulative manner may be disproportionate and may unreasonably limit the pool of potential tender participants. A condition formulated in this manner could create unjustified barriers to competition within the meaning of § 36 odst. 1 zákona č. 134/2016 Sb., o zadávání veřejných zakázek.
Thank you for your explanation and for any amendments to the tender conditions.
Answer:
Thank you for your inquiry.
The requirement for a reference relating exclusively to a footbridge or bicycle bridge is based on the specific nature of this type of structure, as opposed to other types of bridge structures. Competitors are expected to have experience specifically with the design of this type of structure.
Regarding the length of the reference period, the contracting authority notes that Act No. 134/2016 sb., o zadávání veřejných zakázek., stipulates in § 79 odst. 2 písm. a) a default reference period of 5 years. This has been extended to 10 years, thereby expanding the range of eligible references beyond the legal standard to the benefit of competitors. The contracting authority considers the 10-year reference period to be reasonable and does not consider it to restrict competition in any way.
This explanation does not alter the competition conditions or the deadline for submitting proposals.
Explanation of competition conditions - 2
Inquiry on 12. 5. 2026
The contracting authority has set a qualification requirement for the authorised engineer's experience in designing a pedestrian or cyclist footbridge with a total span length of at least 80 m and a clear span of the largest field of at least 35 m, which we consider disproportionate and restrictive of competition. In common design practice, multi-span footbridges with shorter individual spans, or single-span arch or cable-stayed structures, are resolved with comparable or greater technical complexity, yet do not meet this criterion despite placing equivalent demands on the designer. The contracting authority has provided no justification for why the requirement for a clear span of at least 35 m is specifically necessary for the proper performance of the subject of the contract, and the requirement as formulated is therefore contrary to the principles of proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination under Section 6 of Act No. 134/2016 Coll. on Public Procurement. We therefore propose that the qualification requirement be amended to allow professional competence to be demonstrated through other structurally comparable references, so as to avoid an unjustified narrowing of the field of eligible participants.
Answer:
Thank you for the inquiry.
The requirement for a clear span of the largest field of at least 35 m directly reflects the conditions of the specific site. The proposed footbridge must span a combination of a railway line, a tram line, a road and the Bílina riverbed, which will likely require one or more fields of comparable clear span. Experience in designing a structure of similar span length is therefore directly relevant to the proper performance of the subject of the contract, and the contracting authority considers the requirement proportionate within the meaning of Section 6 of Act No. 134/2016 Coll. on Public Procurement.
This explanation does not alter the competition conditions or the deadline for submitting proposals.
Explanation of competition conditions - 3
Inquiry on 14. 5. 2026
We are writing to ask about the competition brief for MO-JE LÁVKA. According to the brief, the location of the footbridge on the city side is clearly defined. Would a different approach be considered a violation of the competition conditions? Given the ambition not only to physically reconnect the space but also to symbolically and mentally reunite both parts of the city, it would be a shame to work solely from the existing traffic and terrain situation without also considering the troubled memory of this place.
Answer:
Thank you for the inquiry.
According to article 2.3.1 of the competition conditions, all requirements in the competition brief — including the location of the footbridge — are recommendations, not strict rules. A different approach will not lead to disqualification, and the jury will evaluate all proposals according to the criteria set out in article 7.
That said, the location was chosen based on a feasibility study and close consultation with the city and local stakeholders. We therefore strongly recommend that participants follow the defined location.
This explanation does not alter the competition conditions or the deadline for submitting proposals.
Explanation of competition conditions - 4
18. 5. 2026
We would like to inform all participants that we found an inconsistency between Annex 03 — Affidavit and the competition conditions. An updated version of the Affidavit has been uploaded to the contracting authority's profile - Tender Arena.
Should a team fill in the original version, do not worry — this will not be an issue or grounds for not accepting the submission.
We apologize for the inconsistency.
This explanation does not alter the competition conditions or the deadline for submitting proposals.
Explanation of competition conditions - 5
Inquiry received on 18. 5. 2026
Dear Statutory City of Most,
we are writing to request clarification on the following matters in connection with the competition brief for the MO-JE Lávka architectural design competition.
After reviewing the competition documentation, we would like to raise the following questions:
1. Would it be possible to add the coordinates of the areas of interest in the JTSK coordinate system — specifically the vertices of polygons 1P, 2P, and 1L — so that their boundaries are unambiguous?
2. Article 11.4.5 of the brief states: "The proposed solution must provide adequate parking capacity for visitors and staff of the museum. It is also appropriate to consider the fact that the site may become a new starting point for visiting the surrounding lake area…" Could this requirement be further quantified, particularly by providing an indicative number of parking spaces — including spaces for persons with disabilities — primarily for museum staff and at least approximately for visitors? The same applies to parking spaces for lake visitors. We consider this information to be one of the key inputs for the design of the public space.
3. Article 11.5.10 of the brief states in its second sentence: "Movement of maintenance vehicles and possibly also emergency service (IZS) vehicles is expected on the footbridge." However, the same paragraph later states: "…movement of IZS vehicles is not expected." We request clarification as to whether access by emergency service vehicles is to be considered in exceptional circumstances, and whether the design load for this purpose should be limited to 3.5 tonnes in accordance with Article 5.6.3 (Note 2) of ČSN EN 1991-2.
4. Would it be possible to place a slender support or pier on plots no. 7539 and 136, which are under the management of Povodí Ohře, state enterprise? For reference, the adjacent bridge has a pylon located on these plots. If so, please clarify the conditions under which such placement would be permitted.
We thank you in advance for your response and for providing the clarifying information, which is important for the preparation of our competition entry.
Response dated 21. 5. 2026:
Thank you for your questions. Please find our clarification to each of them below:
As a general note, it is worth recalling that acording to Article 2.3.1 of the Competition Conditions, the requirements defined in the Competition Brief are set out as recommendations, and failure to comply with them is not grounds for disqualifying a design from assessment or for excluding a participant from the competition.
1. The design area — both its detailed project zone and its conceptual zone — has intentionally not been defined by precise coordinates. It is left to participants to develop a distinctive design for the footbridge and its bridgehead areas that is feasible and meets the requirements for logical spatial connections. At the same time, we are uploading a higher-resolution vector PDF drawing of the design area to the contracting authority's profile. We believe this material will be of significant help when considering the boundaries of the design area in your competition entry.
2. Parking capacities are described in Article 11.4.5 in general terms, with the aim of balancing the need for parking with other aspects of a quality public space — the forecourt of the footbridge. In response to this inquiry, the Contracting Authority has decided to provide more specific guidance on parking, and is expanding Article 11.4.5 from its original wording:
"Propose suitable organization of stationary traffic in the site area. The proposed solution must ensure sufficient parking capacities for visitors and museum employees. Furthermore, it is suitable to take into account the fact that the place may newly become a starting point for visiting the lake surroundings; this type of parking is considered desirable but only as supplementary capacity, with a short-term parking regime expected for part of the parking spaces in the future. To ensure parking capacities, it is possible to consider moving part of the parking spaces to the space in front of the District Archive (2P)."
to the following (text in bold was added/altered):
"Propose suitable organization of stationary traffic in the site area. The Contracting Authority requires the proposed solution to ensure sufficient capacity for visitors and museum employees. The current parking lot capacity is 48 spaces; the Contracting Authority recommends that, following modifications, the solution should include at least 35 parking spaces for the above-mentioned purposes. Furthermore, it is suitable to take into account the fact that the place may newly become a starting point for visiting the lake surroundings; this type of parking is considered desirable but only as supplementary capacity, with a short-term parking regime expected for part of the parking spaces in the future. To ensure parking capacities, it is possible to consider moving part of the parking spaces to the space in front of the District Archive (2P)."
3. Emergency vehicles – article 11.5.10 contains a typographical error that occurred during the typesetting of the Competition Brief. Both the version assuming EMS vehicle access and the version excluding it were unfortunately printed in the final document. We sincerely apologize for this error. An updated version of the Competition Brief has been uploaded to the contracting authority's profile with the error corrected. The correct wording of the paragraph is as follows, and is now consistent with the updated document:
"The footbridge will be designed for loads according to ČSN EN 1991-2. Maintenance vehicles and potentially Emergency Medical Service (EMS) vehicles are expected on the footbridge. A service vehicle according to Article 5.6.3 of ČSN EN 1991-2 will be considered for the footbridge design."
4. Supports – to Article 5.11 of the Competition Brief, "Supports of the footbridge will not be placed in the designated flood zone of the Bílina watercourse and on land managed by Povodí Ohře." Placement of a support or pier on plots no. 7539 and 136 is therefore not permissible within the scope of the competition brief.
This explanation does not alter the competition conditions or the deadline for submitting proposals.
Explanation of competition conditions - 6
Inquiry received on 20. 5. 2026
Article 4.1.1, paragraph e) of the Competition Conditions defines the technical competence of the applicant. With regard to the architect's qualification, point 1 of this paragraph requires a team member who is an authorised architect holding authorisation A.0 or A.1 according to the ČKA, and point 3 requires an architect for the field of Landscape Architecture holding authorisation A.3 according to the ČKA. With reference to the ČKA, authorisation A.0 is a general-scope authorisation and as such encompasses the authorisations for the individual fields designated A.1, A.2 and A.3. Will the Contracting Authority consider the technical competence requirement to be met if the team includes only an authorised architect holding authorisation A.0, which covers the requirements of both points 1 and 3?
Response dated 22. 5. 2026:
Thank you for the inquiry.
The Contracting Authority insists on the inclusion of a landscape architect (authorisation A3, or a foreign equivalent) in the team.
Explanation:
The Competition Conditions, in Article 4.1.1(e), explicitly and separately require an authorised landscape architect (A3 according to the ČKA, or a foreign equivalent) as a member of the competition team:
"meet the technical competence requirements under Section 79 of the Act, i.e. have team members who are: 1. authorised architect (A0 or A1 according to the Czech Chamber of Architects, or a foreign equivalent), 2. authorised engineer for bridges and engineering structures (IM00 according to ČKAIT), 3. authorised landscape architect (A3 according to the ČKA, or a foreign equivalent)"
These are three separate and distinct requirements for the composition of the team. The Contracting Authority's intent is for the team to include a member with demonstrable expertise in landscape architecture as an independent professional discipline.
This requirement stems directly from the nature and scope of the competition. The Competition Brief is conceived as an architectural and landscape competition, and one of its key themes is landscape connection — the connection of the city with the lake and the surrounding landscape, and the design of a park at the bridgehead area of the footbridge.
This explanation does not alter the competition conditions or the deadline for submitting proposals.
Explanation of competition conditions - 7
Inquiry received on 24. 5. 2026
1. Can the conditions set out in Article 4.1(f) regarding the experience of the authorised engineer be met by a competition participant holding citizenship and a licence in another European state?
2. What is the required design level of the one-hundred-year flood (Q100)?
Response dated 26. 5. 2026:
Thank you for your inquiry. The responses to the individual questions are set out below:
1. Article 4.1.1(e), point 2 of the Competition Conditions explicitly requires an authorised engineer for bridges and engineering structures (IM00 according to ČKAIT). The answer to the question is therefore no. The engineer must hold authorisation from ČKAIT.
2. At the location of the proposed bridge crossing, the water level of the Bílina watercourse at Q100 is 227.30 m a.s.l.
This explanation does not alter the competition conditions or the deadline for submitting proposals.