IBPA® on Public Works. Impact on bids.
Win public Tenders with IBPA®
Legally compliant even when not prescribed in the project specifications.
IBPA®, mandatory on RITE (RD 1027/2007, IT 1.2.3. IT 1.2.4.8.),
Officially alternative, high efficiency and available technology.
​
​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
​​
​​ORIGIN OF THE LEGAL OBLIGATION TO COMPARE HIGH-EFFICIENCY TECHNOLOGIES.
​​​​
The obligation to compare high-efficiency energy technologies or systems in building projects does not originate in the Spanish Thermal Installations in Buildings Regulation (RITE) itself. Its origin lies in European Union law, specifically in the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD), which has progressively evolved over time:
​
-
Directive 2010/31/EU, arts. 6 and 7 (new and existing buildings)
​​
-
Amended by Directive 2018/844/EU (EPBD), and
​​
-
Most recently reinforced by Directive 2024/1275/EU (EPBD).
​​
These Directives establish a binding requirement for Member States to ensure that building projects systematically assess and prioritize highly efficient technical solutions, based on objective performance criteria, not just conventional or prescriptive systems.
​​​​
​​​​
​​
FROM EU DIRECTIVES TO SPANISH REGULATION
​​
Spain transposed these mandatory European obligations through Royal Decree 178/2021, which amended the RITE (Royal Decree 1027/2007).
​​​
This transposition is not optional. Under EU law, Member States must adopt technical regulations that effectively implement the objectives set out in the Directives.
​
Within the RITE, this obligation is realized through:
​​
-
IT 1.2.3: ALTERNATIVE HIGH-EFFICIENCY SYSTEMS COMPARISON.
​
This Technical Instruction mandates to compare the proposed thermal installation against oficially 'high-efficiency' available alternative systems.
​
-
Applyiance: Any building project (whether new construction or renovation)
​​
-
Compliance & Filing: This assessment must include a technical, economic, and environmental feasibility study integrated into the project's design documentation comparing the oficially high-efficiency available alternative systems
​​
OBJECTIVE: To ensure that the best available technologies (BAT) are evaluated before finalizing a technical solution.
​
​​
-
IT 1.2.4.8: ASSESSMENT OF OVERALL ENERGY PERFORMANCE
​​
This instruction requires a formal assessment of the general energy efficiency of the already compared by IT 1.2.3 thermal installation under the following circumstances:
​
-
New, Replaced or Upgraded Installations: An assessment must be conducted on the replaced or modified components and, where applicable, the resulting overall performance of the entire installation.
​​
-
Compliance & Filing: This assessment must be properly documented and integrated into the project’s technical specifications or the "as-built" memory submitted to the relevant Regional Competent Authority.
​​
Only after conducting the IT 1.2.3 comparison should the thermal installation’s assessment of overall performance be conducted, as required by IT 1.2.4.8.
​​
OBJECTIVE: To ensure a comprehensive efficiency evaluation of the entire system for informed decision-making.
​​​​
​​
​​
IBPA® CERTIFICATION AND COMPLIANCE
​
Pradditive's IBPA® has been certified and registered with the Ministry for the Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge (MITECO) as an officially recognized alternative, highly efficient, and available system.
​​​
It fully complies with the requirements of IT 1.2.3 since the entry into force of RITE 178/2021, providing a legally valid and technically superior alternative to conventional installations.
​​
​​
​​
DEFINITION OF 'HIGH-EFFICIENCY' TECHNOLOGIES.
​​​
Not all energy efficiency systems are 'high-efficiency' systems!
​​
"High efficiency" is named just two times in the Royal Decree RD. 1027/2007 and both just inside the IT 1.2.3, however is not defined in the RITE standard. Its what is legally known as an 'indeterminate legal concept' (ILC). This means Its definition must be sought in other regulations or standards of equal rank (Royal Decrees) or superior rank (EU Directives).
Acordingly to the spanish law, only measures that independently meet the eligibility thresholds for EU Generation Next Funds, as established in RD 853/2021 and RD 691/2021, qualify.
​​​
A measure is legally high-efficiency if it achieves:
​​​
-
At least a 30% reduction in the building's non-renewable primary energy consumption (EPNR), or
​​​​
-
A 25–35% reduction in annual global heating and cooling energy demand, depending on the building's climate zone.​​
​​​
​​​
​​​​
DETECTED NON-COMPLIANCE AT PUBLIC AND PRIVATE WORKS.
​​
Pradditive has identified systemic non-compliance with IT 1.2.3 and IT 1.2.4.8 in both public and private works.
​​
Failing to perform the required comparison with officially alternative, highly efficient, and available technologies:
​​
-
Renders projects non-compliant with EU Directives 2010/31 → 2018/844,
​​​
-
Violates binding RITE obligations, and
​​
-
Constitutes illegal project execution under Spanish law.
​​
​​
Specific violations include:
​​​
-
Omitting the comparison with officially available registered high-efficiency alternatives, as required by IT 1.2.3 subsection 5.
​​​​
-
Failing to include overall installation performance in the project report (without previous IT 1.2.3 comparison).
​​​​
-
Commissioning installations without required authorization, registration, or submission of mandatory documents under applicable legal provisions.
​​​​​​​​​​Why is Pradditive filing complaints and appeals on the Administrative Courts for Contractual Resources (TARC's) against illegal projects in public works throughout Spain?
​
​Pradditive files appeals with the Administrative Courts for Contractual Resources (TARC) because the tendering of technical projects that violate the efficiency energy standards are not merely a formal irregularity or a matter of interpretation.
​​
These are technically illegal projects, used as the basis for the contracting and execution of public works financed with national public funds (ICO, REHABILITA, CAE) and, in many cases, European funds (FEDER, EU NEXT GENERATION/PRTR), which poses a direct risk to the public interest and the correct use of these resources.
​​​
​​
​​​​
NON-COMPLIANT UNDERMINE EU EFFICENCY POLICY?
ILLEGAL PROJECTS = DIRECT RISK TO PUBLIC INTEREST = MISUSE OF PUBLIC FUNDS
PRADDITIVE SAYS NO TO ACQUIESCENCE
​​​
​​
​
When a thermal installation project:
​​
-
Does not carry out the mandatory comparison with officially recognized alternative high-efficiency systems (IT 1.2.3 of the RITE),
​​​
-
Does not assess IT 1.2.4.8. overall energy performance after such comparison based on IT 1.2.3,
​​​​
-
Or ignores available and certified technologies that meet the European high-efficiency thresholds,
​​​​
​​​
it not only breaches a national technical standard but also serves as a basis for compromising and/or misusing national and European public funds under conditions contrary to applicable regulations, which require maximum efficiency while also complying with the cost-effectiveness principle (art. 145 LCSP).
​​​
A project that originates without meeting these efficiency energy requirements should not be tendered, awarded, or executed, regardless of the specific source of funding.
​​​
​​​
​​​
THE ROLE OF TARC'S AS A PREVENTIVE MECHANISM:
​​
The Administrative Courts for Contractual Resources (TARC) constitute the first level of legal oversight designed to prevent flawed projects from being consolidated through their award and execution.
Their function is to:
​​​
-
Ensure the legality of public procurement procedures,
​​
-
Prevent fraud or distortions in competition,
​​​
-
Protect the public interest before national or European funds are spent.
​​
​​
Pradditive approaches the TARCs because they provide the legally prescribed channel to correct, at an early stage, projects that violate mandatory rules and that would otherwise be executed using public resources.
​​
​
​​
LEGITIMATE INTEREST AND COMPETITION IMPACT:
​​
Projects that omit the mandatory comparison with high-efficiency systems:
​​
-
De facto exclude officially recognized and market-available solutions, as IBPA,
​​​
-
Impose conventional technologies without objective technical justification,
​​
-
Alter the actual competitive conditions among economic operators.
​​
​​
It is important to note that maximum energy efficiency in a building can be achieved by accumulating multiple energy-saving measures, progressively increasing investment. However, applicable regulations —especially in public works— do not permit this approach without limits.
​​
The legal framework requires that efficiency be achieved by prioritizing the solution that provides the best energy outcome with the minimum necessary investment, evaluated according to objective life-cycle cost criteria. It is precisely at this point that the concept of “high efficiency” gains full legal and technical significance, as reinforced in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/2273.
​​
Omitting this comparison is not neutral; it causes direct and objectively measurable harm to companies that do comply with current technical and european energy regulations and investments, establishing a clear legitimate interest to appeal projects that distort the competitive framework of public procurement and misallocate public funds.
​​
​
​
EUROPEAN DIMENSION OF THE ISSUE:
​​
A substantial portion of public works in Spain is fully or partially financed with European funds, including structural funds and funds linked to the EU’s energy efficiency and decarbonization objectives (FEDER, EU NEXT GENERATION/PRTR).
Executing projects that violate the mandatory comparison of high-efficiency measures:
​​​
-
Contravenes the principles established in the European Energy Performance of Buildings Directives (EPBD 2010/31, 2018/844, and 2024/1275),
​​
-
Prevents achieving EU energy efficiency and emissions reduction targets in a sustainable and economically responsible manner,
​​
-
May result in European funds being allocated to projects that fail to meet the material conditions justifying their financing.
​​
When these illegal projects are tendered, awarded, and executed without correcting such violations, the issue ceases to be purely technical or administrative and acquires a European dimension, potentially affecting the legality and purpose of Union-funded expenditures.
​
For this reason, in the case of illegal projects, Pradditive’s actions include notifying these practices to the competent European control and supervisory bodies, such as OLAF, the European Commission, or the EPPO.
​
​
​
OBJECTIVE OF PRADDITIVE’S ACTIONS:
​
Pradditive’s objective is the technical and regulatory development of IBPA. As an alternative, high-efficiency, and available measure, our responsibility —and that of all stakeholders— is to ensure that, especially in public works, the regulations are executed under conditions of equality (art. 1 LCSP), without technological discrimination (art. 126.1 LCSP), and with the best cost-effectiveness ratio (art. 145 LCSP) in projects funded by public resources.
​
We ensure that:
​
-
Projects are legally compliant from their inception,
​​
-
National and European obligations regarding energy efficiency are respected,
​​
-
National and European funds are used in accordance with applicable regulations,
​​
-
Competition in public procurement is based on real, verifiable, and transparent technical criteria.
​​
Filing appeals with the TARCs is, therefore, a preventive, proportionate action aligned with the public interest and the financial interests of the European Union.
​​​
​​​​​​​​​​How to Leverage IBPA® in public tenders, even when NOT prescribed
​​
Including IBPA® in a public tender is not only technically optimal but also legally valid, even if the tender specifications do not explicitly mention it.
​
IBPA® is not a voluntary upgrade or discretionary innovation: it is an alternative, high-efficiency, and officially available measure that should have been mandatorily evaluated during the project phase, in accordance with RITE’s IT 1.2.3.
​​​​​​​​​
​​​
​​​​​​
WIN WITH IBPA®: LEGALLY COMPLIANT FOR PUBLIC BIDS,
MAXIMIZES COMPETITIVENESS, ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS
EVEN WHEN ABSENT FROM PROJECT SPECS.
​​​​​
​
​​​​​​​​​
TECHNICAL BENEFITS OF IBPA®:
​​​
-
Drastically reduces ventilation and overall building thermal load.
​​​​
-
Lowers the power requirements and total cost of the thermal installation.
​​​​
-
Cuts annual HVAC energy consumption by an average of 50%, providing the highest lifecycle energy savings currently available.
​​​​
​​​​
LEGAL SUPPORT (LCSP):
​​​
-
Art. 126 LCSP: Technical specifications must allow solutions that meet the required performance without limiting innovation. If IBPA® was not included in the specifications, it is a project omission, not a prohibition.
​​​
-
Arts. 145 and 146 LCSP: Award criteria must be based on best value for money and lifecycle cost, where IBPA® clearly outperforms conventional solutions.
​​​
-
Art. 139 LCSP: Ensures equal treatment and regulatory compliance; any bid excluding IBPA®, which is necessary to comply with IT 1.2.3, is objectively incomplete.
​​​
​​​
CONCLUSION:
​​
-
Submitting IBPA® as a high-efficiency alternative is fully legal, even if not prescribed.
​​
-
If the project or other bidders do not include it, the bid incorporating IBPA® is the only fully legally compliant option.
​​
-
Ignoring IBPA® does not maintain neutrality, compromising energy efficiency compliance and proper use of public funds.
​​
​​
​​​​​​​​​​HAS YOUR BID BEEN PROVISIONALLY SUSPENDED?
​
Do you not know what arguments to submit when the Administrative Court requests your ALLEGATIONS?
​​
Pradditive only appeals a public tender if the RITE has been violated in its Technical Instructions IT 1.2.3 and IT 1.2.4.8—that is, if the mandatory comparison of the thermal installations with officially recognized, high-efficiency, and available alternative measures has not been conducted in the Project Report.
​​​​​​​
​​​
​​
​​​​​​​​​
PRADDITIVE® ONLY APPEALS A PUBLIC TENDER IF RITE
IT 1.2.3. COMPARISON OR IT 1.2.4.8 OVERALL ENERGY PERFORMANCE (RD. 1027/2007)
HAS BEEN VIOLATED IN ITS TECHNICAL INSTRUCTIONS​​​​
​​
​
​
​
Contrary to what citizens tend to believe, the technical knowledge of the Administrative Courts for Contractual Appeals (TARC) is frankly poor, and their advisory resources are very limited. Normally, they can only rule on legal issues affecting the RITE as regulations, and only insofar as these, in turn, impact the LCSP.
​​
This is why such appeals are complex and extensive, and it is not uncommon for them to end up in the Contentious-Administrative jurisdiction.
​​
When appealing a tender in the award phase, the procedure is automatically suspended on a precautionary basis. Upon receiving an appeal, TARCs typically limit themselves to referring it to the interested parties—the contracting authority and the bidders—requesting their allegations.
​​
-
A copy of the Pradditive appeal
​​​
-
A request to submit allegations regarding the appeal, granting 5 business days for submission
​​
​​
In this context, the Court is not evaluating technical preferences or optional improvements, but whether the project and the bids comply with mandatory legal obligations regarding energy efficiency, public procurement, and proper use of public funds.
​
And this is key: the Court does not evaluate your company or question the merit of your allegation. There are no "blacklists" or reprisals in public procurement. The Tribunal is providing the opportunity to exercise your rights in a fair, transparent tender under equal conditions.
​
Submitting allegations is not a mere procedural formality; it is the decisive moment of the process. If you are not the awarded bidder, failure to submit allegations can mean losing the tender—but if you submit your allegations and contact Pradditive, you still have a chance to win the re-tender.
​
​
IF YOU ARE NOT THE FIRST BIDDER AT AWARD STAGE, THIS IS RELEVANT:
​​​
If your company was not awarded, and Pradditive has appealed the tender, the Court has requested allegations from you. You have a new opportunity to win because the tender, by violating the RITE in IT 1.2.3 and IT 1.2.4.8, IS NULL AND VOID and must be retroactively corrected to address the project errors.​​​
​​​​​
​​​​​
STEPS TO VERIFY YOURSELF THE NULLITY OF THE TENDER:
​
There are just a few preaty easy steps to check if a tender is null and void, and has to be corrected,
​​​
1º.- Search for 'IT 1.2.3' in the Project Report and Thermal Installations Report.
​​​​​
2º.- Search for 'IBPA' in the Project Report and Thermal Installations Report.
​​​​
​​
If a comparison exists, it should be compleat and exhaustive—technical, economic, and environmental—covering the thermal installations against the different officially recognized, high-efficiency, and available technologies, clearly identified under IT 1.2.3. This must constitute a complete chapter in the project report, extensive, descriptive, and computational, spanning several pages for each of the measures compared.
​
​
​​
IBPA® IS OFICIALLY ONE OF THESE TECHNOLOGIES. IF IT'S NOT
IT IS A SINGULAR ALTERNATIVE, HIGH-EFFICIENCY AND AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY BY RD. 36/2023
INCLUDED IN THIS COMPARISON, THE TENDER IS NULL AND VOID.
​​
​
​
Now, lets finish our rapid check,
​​​
3º.- Search for 'IT 1.2.4.8' in the Project Report and Thermal Installations Report.
​​​​​
​​​
IMPORTANT NOTE: You may find an IT 1.2.4.8. section evaluating the overall installation’s energy performance, that preatty often. However, if the steps 1 or 2 are missing, that IT 1.2.4.8 evaluation is INCORRECT, as the selection of the thermal installation was not based on IT 1.2.3.
​​​​​
​​​​​
YOU DIDN'T FIND THE IT 1.2.3 COMPARISON IN THE REPORT AND ARE UNSURE HOW TO FORMULATE ALLEGATIONS TO THE COURT?
​​​​​
Allegations must be neutral, without value judgments. If you are unsure or it is your first time submitting allegations, we provide a standard template, also available in .docx for download, which you only need to digitally sign and submit to the Court by the method they have indicated.
STANDARD ALLEGATION TEMPLATE:
​
TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT FOR CONTRACTUAL RESOURCES
CASE FILE: [tender file number]
SUBJECT: Allegations of the [second/third/...] bidder regarding the Special Appeal filed by PRADDITIVE IAQ, S.L.
In my capacity as legal representative of [Company Name], with [Tax ID number], bidder in the referenced procedure and interested party, I hereby appear and, without entering into legal assessments which are the competence of this Court,
DECLARE:
SOLE POINT – Verification of missing mandatory content in the Technical Project.
Following the notification received from this Court, this party has reviewed the project report, the technical documentation contained in the file, which served as the basis for the tender and subsequent award (PTT). As a result of this review, the following factual circumstance is brought to attention:
​
The execution project report does not include the technical, economic, and environmental comparison of the thermal installations with alternative high-efficiency and available systems, as expressly required by Technical Instruction IT 1.2.3 of the Thermal Installations in Buildings Regulation (RITE), approved by Royal Decree 1027/2007.
​
This regulation establishes, as a mandatory requirement, the obligation to conduct this comparative study in advance for new construction or renovation projects. In the documentation of the present contract, the material omission of this essential comparative procedure with alternative high-efficiency measures is confirmed.
​
For all the above, it is requested that this Court takes note of this statement for the appropriate purposes.
​
In [City], on [day] of [month], [year],
​
Signed by [Name of Signatory]
Legal Representative of,
[Company Name]
​
(digital signature)
​​​