In the fourth part of our series on contract management pitfalls, we look at the risks arising out of varying the terms of construction contracts.
The recent decision of the European Court in LitSpecMet  has confirmed our long held view and the Opinion of the Advocate General in that case. This is that where a parent contracting authority relies upon the “Teckal”  exemption, now contained in Regulation 12 , to avoid tendering a contract with its subsidiary via OJEU, that subsidiary must follow the EU procurement rules for their own purchases.
The Regulation 12 exemption enables a contracting authority to avoid an OJEU tender process when contracting with a subsidiary that meets certain requirements, including that the contracting authority “controls” the subsidiary and that over 80% of the subsidiary’s business is with the contracting authority. The justification for the exemption, which UK case law  seems to confirm, is probably because the parent contracting authority and subsidiary are regarded as one organisation for the purpose of the EU procurement rules.
In addition to having subsidiaries which rely on Regulation 12, a contracting authority can have a subsidiary which is wholly “commercial”. Broadly speaking, the main objective of such a subsidiary will be to make a profit. It will not have to follow the EU procurement rules for its own purchases. However, it will not benefit from the exemption from tendering for contracts with its parent organisation.
From a contracting authority’s point of view, it would be great if they could set up a subsidiary they could contract with outside the EU procurement rules, with that subsidiary itself avoiding the EU procurement rules for its own purchases because it is “commercial”. This would provide a very easy way round a contracting authority having to follow EU procurement rules for its own procurements, simply by routing those procurements through a Regulation 12 subsidiary.
This is not possible, as Andrew Millross pointed out in his earlier e-briefing “Not having your cake and eating it”. We have always been of the view that “commercial” subsidiaries who act independently to make a profit cannot rely on the Regulation 12 exemption. The fact that they are “commercial” means they cannot be treated as being part of the same organisation as the parent contracting authority, which “meets needs in the general interest, not having an industrial or commercial character”.
For more information
Please contact Alistair Smith.
- LitSpecMet UAB v Vilniaus lokomotyvu remonto depas UAB, Case C-567/15
- Teckal Srl v Comune di Viano (Reggio Emilia), Case C-107/98
- Regulation 12 Public Contract Regulations 2015 which enacted the Teckal case
- Risk Management Partners v Brent LBC,  2 AC 34
A local authority recently received a "roasting" by the Pensions Ombudsman for their delay in processing an employee’s ill-health retirement pension, following her diagnosis with advanced cancer.
The Times is looking for three or four charities to feature in their editions running in December 2019 and early January 2020.
Cliff Mills defines and talks about the importance of social value in his blog, and its potential within Greater Manchester.
Following a power outage at Anthony Collins Solicitors’ (ACS) Birmingham office, our employees and partners currently have limited functionality, including no access to emails.
Joint ventures present an opportunity for housing associations to build organisational capacity, the revenues from which could help deliver on wider social housing commitments.
Residents are now unable to make applications to prohibit landlords from seeking to recover the cost of legal proceedings through the service charge on behalf of other residents, without consent.
Natalie Barbosa summarises some of the legal challenges facing fundraisers in the charity sector.
We hosted a breakfast roundtable with Insider Midlands magazine that had attendees from a range of organisations addressing housing needs in the Midlands. The discussion explored JVs in more detail.
The decision of the Court of Appeal in The Harpur Trust v Brazel & Unison has made clear that employers can no longer legally calculate part-time holiday based on 12.07% of hours worked over a year.
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.