And in this case if it would be possible to speak, in one secrecy second opportunity for the bidders who did not obtain the concession to first. But these are truly exceptional assumptions. If it is managed to oppose a contest, the normal thing is that the judicial organ declares the irregularity of a concrete proceeding having to repeat the contest beginning by this one. However, in these cases the result is very deceptive, since it is very difficult that the final result defers much from the first decision and this is necessary to have it well clearly if is desired to resort the result of the same. And this I do not believe that it is the solution wished for the appellant. Why we affirmed this? Simply because whatever phase of the contest to that the activities are pred-date opening of the administrative documentation, phase of admission or exclusion of bidders, or any other, the film stars of this film are the same. Indeed, they become to face the organ of valuation, conformed by the same members that in its original composition, and the same supplies, which, once presented/displayed, cannot be modified or be altered by application of the principles of equality and transparency and competitive equality, cardinal in all process of competitive concurrence.
He would be, therefore, illogical to think that a result very different from the initial could occur, because that it would be to admit that in one first valuation aspects have not considered that yes have considered in second or vice versa. And that yes would be to keep awake clear irrationality, incoherence and negligence in his to act. The hypothesis of a change of criterion that, at an extreme case, could end at a change of order in the scores, feasible in would be only supposed of a difference of so close score between bidders who any mini change of criterion took to this end. In any case the variations are going to be minimum and, almost with complete certainty, they are not going to modify the final result. For this reason, a bidder whose score is been very remote del that has taken the highest valuation in the first consideration is extremely difficult that in one second return to the contest can give upset and this is a circumstance to very consider at the time of resorting the awardings with hope to obtain the license. In conclusion, before making a decision to oppose the results of a contest he agrees to have well clearly and to analyze carefully the possible irregularities observed in the action of the Administration, because in case these can originate the invalidity of right plenary session of the final resolution would only be possible to speak in secrecy of one second opportunity for the appellant. In case of appreciating simple procedural irregularities most possible it is than the result in the end is the same. For that reason the decision to resort properly has to be meditated, in avoidance of majors damages the appellant to reach the same result.