But what happens when a tenderer is sent the Standstill letter and the scores that they have received appear to be inconsistent with the evaluation and scoring criteria?
We have been involved in a case recently where a major social care provider had taken part in a public procurement exercise and had been successful at PQQ stage. Next they were asked to submit method statements responding to specific questions asked in the ITT, as well as to submit an hourly rate based on a set weekly volume of hours. Each method statement was marked between 0 (fail) and 5 (Excellent). No surprises so far!
However, when the Standstill letter was received, it delivered bad news and our client was informed that they had been unsuccessful. They were provided with their overall scores together with those of the successful tenderers. However it was unclear why they had been scored so low for quality and why the winning bidder had scored so high. The client had not been provided with adequate information on the reasons for the scores, including the characteristics and relative advantages of the winning tenderer. This is a clear requirement of the relevant procurement regulations now enshrined in Regulation 86 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015.
Our client wrote to ask for proper feedback and so did we, but it was not provided. The dilemma for our client and so many disappointed tenderers is that without adequate explanations, it is difficult to know whether the process has been run fairly and in compliance with the Regulations or not. The added difficulty is that the Regulations provide very tight timescales for challenge. Effectively, unless a claim is issued at Court within 30 days from when a tenderer knew or ought to have known that there was the basis for a claim, then any subsequent claim will be out of time.
Usually, Commissioners will provide sufficient feedback to enable tenderers to understand why they have not won. However in this case it was not provided and on day 29 following the issue of the Standstill letter, we were instructed to issue a claim at Court.
It transpired during the course of the legal proceedings that the procurement team had retained little contemporaneous evaluation documentation, having destroyed the notes made by evaluators after the meeting in which tenders were scored.
Upon receipt of the method statements provided by the successful tenderers, our advice was that without the necessary records, there was no adequate explanation for the scores that had been awarded and that this breached the principles of equal treatment and transparency in the scoring of the bids.
Fortunately, there had been another case like this one that had recently gone through the Courts in 2015, called Woods Building Services v Milton Keynes Council. This was a case where Woods Building Services had been tendering to provide asbestos services to the Council and were not appointed. It was almost on all fours with the case of our social care provider, in that there was also a complete lack of contemporaneous records as to how the quality questions were scored. The judge said that if Commissioners don’t keep adequate records from the evaluation panel to explain why they scored the way they did, this could automatically amount to a breach of the Regulations because there is a lack of transparency. The judge even said what he thought the scores should have been for some of the questions and in his judgment said that Woods should have won.
Coming back to the case of the social care provider, the Commissioner fought hard in the litigation to try to persuade our client to discontinue the process; it took great resolve to keep going. Eventually, we got close to trial and the Commissioner said that they would be prepared to attend a mediation process. At the mediation a confidential settlement was reached where the Commissioner agreed to pay to our client a substantial sum in damages for their loss of profit and other expenses, as a result of failing to be awarded a contract. The majority of our client’s legal costs were also paid.
So what should tenderers and Commissioners learn from these cases, as they move through the tender process?
By taking early advice both tenderers and Commissioners can ensure that the right process is undertaken and challenges can be kept to a minimum.
Please contact Andrew Lancaster.
Providers need to be alive to the risk of contractors becoming insolvent and how to limit the resulting inevitable disruption.
Housing associations must continue to deliver core functions effectively and compliantly notwithstanding the uncertainty over the standards to which you will be held in the future.
Over the last few years the meaning of “asset management” has changed from being all about repairs to understanding that assets might not stay in an organisation forever.
The Grenfell Tower tragedy has understandably prompted a fundamental reconsideration of how building safety is approached for High-Rise Residential Buildings.
Results from the latest three-yearly valuation of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) are starting to trickle through.
The potential for Brexit with or without a deal causes uncertainty, and credit rating agencies do not like uncertainty.
Let’s face it, Wills are underappreciated and often overlooked. In fact, around 54% of the British public do not have one!
A recent case throws light on the scope of the exemption for “land transactions” from the need for an OJEU tender process.
A leaked report into maternity services at the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospitals NHS Trust revealed by The Independent has been described as the “largest maternity scandal in NHS history”.
The Pensions Regulator is showing its determination to improve the prudent management of Local Government Pension funds by digging deep into the internal workings of these funds.
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.