ICAP Challenges Greek Defense Systems Tender

Greek firm ICAP Outsourcing Solutions has filed a legal appeal against a public tender issued by Hellenic Defense Systems (EAS), alleging that the terms of the tender are unlawful

The appeal, contests the legitimacy of specific clauses in the March 10 tender, which seeks to establish a framework agreement for enhancing EAS’s operational capacity through the provision of specialized personnel. ICAP is calling for the annulment of the tender in its entirety, arguing that several of its provisions violate core principles of transparency, equality, and fair competition. The company also demands the suspension of the entire procurement process and the postponement of the bid submission deadline, currently set for April 15, 2025.

The tender relates specifically to EAS’s facilities in the Athens metropolitan area and aims to hire external professionals to support the organization’s core defense manufacturing activities. Hellenic Defense Systems, a key player in Greece’s defense sector, produces NATO-standard weapons, ammunition, and missile systems, both for the Greek Armed Forces and international defense contractors. The company operates four plants across the country, three of which are in Attica and one in western Greece. Until now, these services were provided by ONEX, a private firm owned by entrepreneur Panos Xenokostas, under a contract that began in 2021 and covered around 150 outsourced employees. Although that contract officially ended in October 2024, it has been temporarily extended. The future of this collaboration is now uncertain as EAS moves forward with a new competitive bidding process.

The tender has drawn criticism for including terms that some view as tailor-made for certain bidders, particularly ONEX, which is expected to compete again under more favorable conditions. The new contract is valued at €17.6 million, with a 50 percent expansion clause that could raise the total to €26.4 million (including VAT). The agreement is intended to last for 24 months.

In its appeal, ICAP claims that despite having the necessary industry experience, it is effectively barred from competing due to specific tender requirements it deems both legally unfounded and practically exclusionary. Central to the complaint is a financial criterion that demands a credit capacity equal to 70 percent of the contract’s value. This must be split equally between available working capital and bank guarantees. ICAP argues that such a demand is inconsistent with Greek procurement law and case law, which define credit capacity strictly in terms of liquid financial resources and not guarantees. By including guarantees in the calculation, the appeal argues, the tender permits participation by companies that possess only 35 percent actual liquidity, thereby undermining the project’s integrity and distorting competition.

The company also criticizes the tender’s technical and professional capacity criteria. One such requirement states that a bidder must have completed a previous project in the last three years employing at least 230 workers, but without specifying the financial value of that contract. ICAP argues this opens the door to companies with negligible operational scale to qualify. In another example, the tender mandates that bidders must have employed 230 workers for each of the past three years, yet makes no distinction between part-time and full-time staff or the nature of their employment. According to ICAP, this allows bidders to meet the numerical threshold even if they employ large numbers of workers for just a few hours, which does not ensure the level of organizational stability or expertise needed for such a contract.

To illustrate its point, ICAP presents a hypothetical scenario in which a firm hires 230 individuals—such as cooks or accountants—for just one hour on a single day, resulting in a total wage cost of €1,343.20. Even under these minimal conditions, such a company could technically qualify for the tender, despite lacking the resources or experience necessary for managing large-scale defense operations.

Further controversy surrounds the tender’s requirement for specific certifications, notably ISO standards and the SA 8000:2014 certification, a global benchmark for social accountability in the workplace. While ICAP affirms that it complies with the SA 8000 standards in practice, it argues that obtaining the certificate itself would impose unnecessary costs. The company considers the certification requirement to be disproportionate and unrelated to the nature of the contract, and claims it unfairly advantages certain bidders who already possess it.

ICAP’s legal case cites decisions from Greece’s Authority for the Examination of Pre-contractual Appeals (AEPP) and the Council of State, the country’s highest administrative court, in support of its claims. These precedents reject the inclusion of bank guarantees in calculations of creditworthiness and affirm the principle of proportionality in public procurement—meaning that requirements should be relevant and commensurate to the scope of the contract.

If the appeal is upheld, the contested provisions may be amended or removed, allowing ICAP and other firms to participate under fairer conditions. However, this would likely delay the bidding process until a revised tender is issued. If the appeal is rejected, the current criteria will remain in place, excluding ICAP from the competition unless it seeks further legal recourse through Greece’s administrative courts.