The Swedish Fund Selection Agency has submitted its statement in the review proceedings

In its statement, FTN emphasizes that:

• the procurement has been conducted correctly in accordance with the applicable regulatory framework,
• Indecap’s fund Indecap Guide 2 has not had any realistic possibility of being awarded a fund agreement, and
• the review proceedings in practice delay important changes to the fund platform for premium pension savers.

FTN submits that the requirement of damage has not been met. Indecap’s tender received such low scores in the evaluation compared with its competitors that it is not tenable to claim that the company has missed out on a fund agreement.

The full version of the statement can be requested from the Administrative Court in Stockholm, case number 4909-26.

Below is a brief account of FTN’s view on the grounds invoked by Indecap.

1. The EU procurement directives are not applicable to the procurement

FTN maintains that the Act (2022:760) on the Procurement of Funds for the Premium Pension Fund Platform (LUP) is the act that must be applied when procuring funds for the premium pension fund platform.

FTN underlines that the procurement concerns the right to purchase fund units and that, under EU law, fund units constitute capital, not services or service concessions as claimed by Indecap.
“What is being procured is therefore a right to purchase fund units during the term of the agreement.”
And further:
“This means that FTN is not procuring services or service concessions.”

FTN refers to the TFEU, the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on capital movements, and the UCITS framework, which clearly show that funds are subject to the free movement of capital and that the procurement therefore falls outside the scope of the EU procurement directives (LOU, LUK). The legislation adopted by the Swedish Parliament for the premium pension fund platform (LUP) is therefore applicable.

2. Investment objective of outperformance appears from the tenders

Indecap claims that several competing funds do not meet the requirement that their investment objective is to outperform the benchmark index, since this does not appear sufficiently clearly from the prospectuses.

The assessment of the requirement must be made on the basis of both the fund’s legal documents and the content of the tender. This follows from the answers that FTN has given in the context of the procurement.
“FTN’s response is clear and unambiguous. It is not necessary that the fund’s legal documents in themselves show that the requirement is met.”
And regarding Indecap’s position:
“In other words, it is obvious that Indecap’s assertion that fulfilment of the requirement must appear from the legal documents is incorrect.”

In its statement, FTN submits that the tenderers challenged by Indecap have, in their respective tenders, described investment objectives of outperformance relative to the benchmark index. FTN further underlines that this information has been verified using quantitative data (tracking error, active share) and in interview meetings, precisely to ensure that the funds in practice meet the active outperformance mandate.

3. Personal signatures may be digital

Indecap challenges four tenders with reference to how the signature appendix has been signed.

FTN notes that the requirement is that an authorised representative must sign the tender with a “personal signature” and that a scanned PDF must be attached. Against that background, FTN submits that various types of electronic signatures can also qualify as personal signatures.
“According to FTN, there can be no doubt that such electronic signatures are also personal, i.e. executed by the person him- or herself.”

FTN links this to today’s digital society, where different forms of electronic signatures can be personal in the same way as a physical, pen-and-paper signature. There are no additional formal requirements for the signature, and circumstances such as the signatures being, for example, small in size therefore cannot be used as a basis for finding that the requirement of a personal signature has not been met.

4. Allegation of award to the wrong company

Indecap claims that Waystone did not submit a tender, but that this was done by BIL Manage Invest S.A., and that FTN has therefore awarded a fund agreement to the wrong legal entity.

FTN clarifies that this concerns a change of name:
“BIL and Waystone are the same legal entity, with registration number B178517.”

It is thus the same legal entity, and no award has been made to any legal entity other than the one that submitted the tender.

5. The categories “Global” and “Global and Sweden”

Indecap criticises the merger of the fund categories “Global” and “Global and Sweden”.

FTN refers to Chapter 2, Sections 2 and 5 of LUP and to the mandate of the authority:
“It is for FTN to determine what breadth of funds is to be represented on the fund platform and thereby which types of funds are to be procured.”

The Agency stresses that funds with a Global and Sweden focus were allowed to participate and have in fact been procured.
“By merging the two categories, FTN has therefore not excluded funds with a ‘Global and Sweden’ focus and thus not, as claimed by Indecap, deprived premium pension savers of the option to invest in that type of fund.”

“Against this background, FTN does not see that a separate procurement of a distinct ‘Global and Sweden’ category would add any substantive benefits for the system or for savers, but would rather risk be favouring a small number of fund managers at the expense of premium pension savers.”

6. The fund manager is central to assessing fund quality

FTN has already, in its statement of 23 March 2026, provided a detailed account of why the assessment of fund quality under Chapter 2, Section 19 of LUP focuses on various characteristics of the fund manager. FTN emphasizes that an analysis and assessment of the fund manager is necessary to determine the quality of the fund being offered. The award criteria relating to the fund manager therefore have a clear link to the object of the procurement, i.e. the fund.

FTN refers to the preparatory works to LUP, which expressly state that assessing a fund’s quality requires an extensive analysis of both the fund and the fund manager.

7. Supplementation regarding the list of identified conflicts of interest

Indecap alleges that certain tenderers were allowed to supplement their tenders with documentation regarding conflicts of interest, while Indecap was not given this opportunity. Indecap argues that this would have advantaged competitors in the evaluation.

FTN contests Indecap’s assertion. Under sub-criterion 4.5 of the tender documentation, the list of identified conflicts of interest and the handling of these is only requested at step two in the process. The tenderers who progressed to step two, the interview meetings, were allowed to supplement their tenders in line with what was set out in the tender documentation. Indecap’s tender did not progress to step two.

It is also not possible to obtain a higher score at step two; only score deductions are applied. FTN concludes that the evaluation and verification of the tenders received has been conducted in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner, in accordance with the procurement documents.

8. FTN’s evaluation treats tenders equally

Indecap claims that the reasons given for the scores it has received are unclear, incomplete or impossible to discern. Indecap argues that it should have been awarded different scores.

FTN emphasizes that it is each tenderer’s responsibility to submit clear, complete and well-substantiated responses. FTN cannot interpret unclear answers or award unwarranted points, as this would, among other things, conflict with the principle of equal treatment. All tenders have been assessed based on the same evaluation model and award criteria. FTN stands by the qualitative evaluation and scoring applied to all tenders.

FTN submits that, based on the arguments put forward by Indecap in the case, there are no grounds for the Administrative Court to carry out a revised or entirely new substantive evaluation and scoring of the company’s tender.

9. Documentation, information and timeliness

Indecap alleges that FTN has not documented its assessments sufficiently and has not provided sufficient information on the relative advantages of the winning tenders.

FTN points to the extensive documentation and underlying material that has already been disclosed:
• scores per sub-criterion,
• summaries before and after the interviews and price revisions,
• interview minutes, etc.,

and concludes that the documentation duty under Chapter 2, Section 18 of LUP and the information duty under Chapter 2, Section 16 have been fulfilled.

Time, motives and the requirement of damage

Finally, FTN raises the issue of motives and the time involved in the proceedings. FTN notes that:
“96.27 per cent of the capital invested in Indecap’s fund comes from premium pension savers.”
“For every month that Indecap’s fund remains on the fund platform, Indecap’s revenues amount to SEK 10,375,000.”

In its statement, FTN writes:
“It is a reasonable assumption that the company’s primary purpose in bringing these review proceedings is to delay the procurement and thereby postpone the replacement of the existing global funds on the fund platform.”

“FTN currently regards the case as fully investigated and notes that, for virtually all grounds of appeal, it is sufficient to examine and establish that Indecap has not suffered and does not risk suffering any damage.”

For questions, please contact:
Viktor Ström Head of Communication, the Swedish Fund Selection Agency, FTN.
+46 73 321 64 46 or viktor.strom@ftn.se