„Chapel for the Memorial Site Ležáky“ – report on the course of the competition

At the end of last year, a public competition was held for the design of the "Chapel for the Memorial Area of Ležáky." Its process and evaluation were heavily criticized. Today, it has already been decided, and the competition is de facto closed. With the information provided below, I do not wish to excuse the actions of the jury or relinquish substantial responsibility for its poor decision, which I personally regret. However, as the chairman of the competition jury, I would like to offer insight into the organization and process of the competition. I believe that such information can be beneficial for the organization of future competitions. I will attempt to be as objective and impartial as possible.

The following description of the course of the controversial competition is a sequence of events that I have compiled to the best of my knowledge and belief. Apart from the events that I was personally present for, I include important dates that I learned about later, directly from the competition commissioner (the Lidice Memorial, a contributory organization of the Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic), from the expert advisor of the commissioner and contractor of the competition conditions in "one person" (Eurotender s.r.o.), and from publicly presented written information (including information from the Czech Chamber of Architects). The information in the following text has been approved by the commissioner, expert advisor, and contractor of the conditions, as well as all the jury members – architects.

At the beginning of 2011, the management of the Lidice Memorial, together with the residents of Miřetice (a village located approximately 1.5 km from Ležáky), decided to use a grant from the Ministry of Culture to conduct an architectural competition and to organize a tender for the design of a memorial chapel. They are not unfamiliar with the responsibility for the fate of the memorial site, and they have long initiated actions that enhance the memorial in Ležáky.
To organize the competition, that is, the tender, they find the company Eurotender, which specializes in organizing public procurement and has many years of experience in the field. Neither the representatives of the Lidice Memorial nor the Eurotender company at that time knew the Czech Chamber of Architects; they were also unfamiliar with the "chamber" laws. As usual, Eurotender follows the applicable laws of the Czech Republic.

At the beginning of September 2011, the competition is announced in accordance with Act No. 137/2006 on Public Procurement, with the deadline for submission set for 31/10/2011. The competition assignment is compiled, among other things, in collaboration with the heritage institute, and thus it is stipulated in the conditions for the design that the chapel should be based on the archetype of a Gothic chapel and should use stone and wood. The location of the chapel is not defined in any way. It is assumed that the chapel will be placed in the area of Zárubka Hill.

At the end of September (just before the halfway point of the time designated for developing competition proposals), the Czech Chamber of Architects warns the commissioner that although the competition is legally without defects from the perspective of the law on public procurement, it does not comply with some binding provisions of the Competition Rules of the Czech Chamber of Architects and is therefore irregular from the perspective of the Chamber, preventing architects – members of the Chamber from participating. The Lidice Memorial and Eurotender want to complete the competition with as broad a range of participants as possible, and so they try to fulfill the conditions of the Chamber additionally, among other things, seeking authorized architects who would, in a total of four architects, supplement the seven-member competition jury.

On 14/10/2011, I receive a phone call from the commissioner offering me a position on the jury, which I confirm orally. On the same day, the conditions of the Czech Chamber of Architects are met, and on the same day the Chamber declares the competition regular, including the competition conditions, and subsequently does not intervene in the competition any further. The deadline for submission is postponed to 7/11/2011 in accordance with the requirement of the Chamber. The submission date cannot be postponed further, as it would not be possible to use the mentioned grant for the competition.

From the beginning of October, alongside the aforementioned events, Eurotender responds to the queries of the competitors in four waves. The first wave of responses is sent on 5/10/2011, the last on 25/10/2011. The responses change the basic competition conditions. In the first two waves on 5 and 7/10/2011, the requirement for the chapel to exhibit characteristics of Gothic style is brought down to the level of merely a "guideline," whereas maximum dimensions for the chapel (5x6x7.4m) are defined and the location of the chapel is radically specified to the area of the National Cultural Monument Ležáky, specifically to plot No. 101 in the cadastre of Louka near Vrbatov. Graphic materials marking the boundaries of the construction site are first sent with the last wave of responses, i.e., on 25/10/2011.

On 21/10/2011, we are invited by the commissioner to sign a "commitment of jury member," which we promptly sign. We are also assured that further information about the proceedings will be communicated to us in due time.

On 31/10/2011, we receive information from the commissioner that the first meeting of the jury will take place on 9/11/2011 at the premises of the National Memorial of Lidice.

On 7/11/2011, a total of 80 competition proposals are submitted.

On 9/11/2011, at 10:00 AM, we gather for the first jury meeting. All members of the jury are present, including the jury's substitutes. After the prescribed procedures (i.e., signing of required documents, election of the chairman, etc.), the competition conditions are presented to us. At that moment, we assume that if they have been approved by the Chamber and elaborated by a professional firm, they are in order. Nevertheless, we discuss some unclear points with the commissioner and his expert advisor (including the issue of potential placement of the chapel). Our inquiries are answered. We are reassured and essentially convinced that it is primarily about a conceptual proposal, and thus, in the interest of a higher goal, we all lean toward the opinion that the competitors do not need to adhere to a precisely defined location of the building in such a narrow sense.

We agree that the competition administrator, the Eurotender firm, will check each proposal for completeness upon opening, after which the proposals will be submitted for evaluation. The jury members will individually study them independently.

Upon opening the envelopes, two competition proposals are disqualified by representatives of Eurotender for not meeting the qualifications.

The jury members, each on their own, are ready after about two hours (the deadline was not set) to assign their votes to a maximum of ten proposals (from me, this was done for eight proposals). Each proposal that receives at least one vote proceeds to the second round of selection. Thus, twenty proposals advance to the second round. The jury subjects each of them to critical discussion and recommends five proposals for awards (including two as jury awards besides the main prizes) and for voting on the final ranking (there is no doubt about the winner; it advances to the second round as the only one with six votes from seven jurors). After about six hours without a break, a provisional decision is made. The next meeting will occur in a week, and in the meantime, the commissioner and advisor will review the proposals to see if they meet the conditions. The jury has time to consider whether they will definitively approve the award proposals.

On 16/11/2011, after a week, the jury meets again to discuss the selected proposals, reevaluate them, and confirm that they do not violate the conditions. In the debate over the proposals, we assure ourselves that we stand by the proposals and do not wish to change the selection or ranking. We definitively approve the ranking, reveal the authors, and inform the winners of the jury's decision by phone. In the coming days, the competitors and other competent authorities are informed of the results.

On 7/12/2011, within the statutory period, one of the competitors files an objection against the jury's procedure in assessing the competition proposals to the commissioner. The objection concerns the placement of the chapel in the winning proposal and in the proposal that took second place. Both proposals place the chapel outside the designated area. Immediately, as the chairman of the jury, I contact the representatives of Eurotender (expert advisor and contractor of the competition conditions) to know their opinion and offer assistance. I am told that they are reviewing the objection with the commissioner. We agree that I will be invited to collaborate when needed.... Subsequently, two other complainants from among the competitors join the objection with a request for the exclusion of proposals placing the chapel outside the defined areas.

On 15/12/2011, at the end of the statutory period for resolving the objection, I learn for the first time over the phone from a representative of Eurotender that the objection is valid and will be granted. I am asked by Eurotender to write an opinion on behalf of the jury.

On 19/12/2011, I send a joint statement from the jury members – architects to Eurotender, in which I acknowledge our share of the blame, but I state that considering the qualities of the selected proposals, we remain firmly convinced of the selection. We recommend the selected proposals for further processing if it were up to us.

On 19/12/2011, the representatives of the commissioner of the Lidice Memorial, on the recommendation of the expert advisor from Eurotender, send a letter to the complainants stating that their objection is valid and will be granted.

On 27/02/2012, at the request of the commissioner of the Lidice Memorial, the jury meets again, together with the representatives of the Lidice Memorial and representatives of Eurotender. During the meeting, the jury members are again briefed on the content of the objections, the map materials are reviewed again, the responses to the questions of the contestants are examined, and the conditions are discussed. The original jury decision is revoked, and three competition proposals, originally placed first, second, and jointly fourth or fifth, are subsequently disqualified from the competition. After the disqualification of the proposals, only a third prize and an honorary fourth prize are awarded. Because the jury remains convinced of the quality of the originally awarded proposals, they exercise their right and despite the violation of the competition conditions, unanimously highlight the three disqualified competition proposals. As jury members, they recommend to the commissioner to organize an exhibition of all competition proposals.


Epilogue…

In the sequence of events surrounding this competition, under the weight of the responsibility of being a jury member or chairman, I find myself in early February 2012 going through all 78 assessed proposals again outside the competition and subjecting them to additional scrutiny to see if they contradict the monitored condition. I also incorporate the condition that the chapel has maximum dimensions of 5x6x7.4 m (I consider it as a guide for the above-ground part of the building because the condition arises from a justified fear of creating an undesirable dominance and I do not consider it a violation if the dimensions are exceeded by an insignificant part of the structure, such as a supporting wall or entrance steps). Upon detailed study of the competition conditions, I regard this condition as equally important as the condition concerning the placement of the chapel. Furthermore, the incorporation of this condition into the competition conditions has a strikingly similar history.

I share the results with the other jurors, the commissioner, and the expert advisor, and we review the competition proposals again. They agree with my conclusions.

The results are as follows:

10 proposals did not comply with the placement condition (of which 4 advanced to the second round, and 2 were among the last five)

18 proposals did not comply with the maximum dimension condition (of which 5 advanced to the second round, and 1 was among the last five)

5 proposals did not comply with both conditions simultaneously (one of the three complainants also did not comply with both conditions)

In total, therefore, 33 proposals that we did not exclude did not comply with the basic competition conditions.

Had we been thorough and well-versed in the competition rules of the Czech Chamber of Architects, we would have certainly deemed the competition irregular and, in light of the above, we would have annulled the competition without assessment. However, this would have occurred only after signing the "commitment of jury member," i.e., not before 21/10/2011.

---

Official minutes of the jury meeting: http://www.lezaky-memorial.cz/curently_cz.aspx?idAkce=86