Source: https://thelawreviews.co.uk/edition/the-government-procurement-review-edition-7/1193619/united-kingdom
Timestamp: 2020-01-21 13:43:19
Document Index: 450032856

Matched Legal Cases: ['EWCA ', 'CJEU ', 'EWCA ', 'UKSC ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'UKSC ', 'art 3', 'UKSC ']

United Kingdom - The Government Procurement Review - Edition 7 - TLR - The Law Reviews
The key procurement legislation2 applicable in England, Wales and Northern Ireland is the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR), the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016 (UCR), the Concession Contracts Regulations 2016 (CCR), and the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011 (Defence Regulations), referred to collectively in this chapter as the 'procurement regulations'.
The PCR, UCR and CCR do not apply to Scotland, which has its own procurement legislation, while the Defence Regulations apply throughout the United Kingdom. The Scottish Ministers have devolved competence to make procurement regulations by virtue of Section 53 of the Scotland Act 1998. The key procurement legislation applicable in Scotland, which implements the corresponding EU directives, is similar to that in the rest of the United Kingdom: the Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2015; the Procurement (Scotland) Regulations 2016; the Utilities Contract (Scotland) Regulations 2016; and the Concession Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2016, all of which came into force on 18 April 2016.
The procurement regulations implement the corresponding EU directives. The PCR came into force on 26 February 2015, and the UCR and CCR came into force on 18 April 2016.3 Contracts for health services above £615,278 in value let by the National Health Service (NHS) and clinical commissioning groups can be subject to the 'light touch regime' in the PCR (see Section V.ii). Separate procurement regulations4 specific to the health sector continue to apply (alongside the PCR) to contracts for NHS healthcare services regardless of contract value.
The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (SBEE Act) gives the UK government power to make further regulations in relation to procurement.5
Beyond the EU Directives and procurement regulations, it is also important to consider the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the General Court, the general EU Treaty principles of transparency, equal treatment, non-discrimination and proportionality, and the decisions of UK courts.
The Cabinet Office (part of Her Majesty's Treasury) has responsibility for central government procurement policy; it and the Crown Commercial Service (CCS), an executive agency of the Cabinet Office, publish guidance notes and procurement policy notes (PPNs) on a range of issues. One of the most recent sets of guidance issued by the CCS in relation to procurement was the publication of an Outsourcing Playbook, which is designed to improve government procurement and deliver better public services.6 In Northern Ireland, policy and guidance are issued by the Central Procurement Directorate, and the Welsh Minister for Finance and Government Business has issued the Wales Procurement Policy Statement. The Scottish Ministers issue guidance under the equivalent Scottish legislation.
Formal legal challenges to procurement decisions are made in the High Court. However, less formal options exist. The Cabinet Office's Public Procurement Review Service7 allows bidders to make complaints, and the SBEE Act reinforces this by providing a statutory basis for its procurement investigations and enabling the investigation of procurement processes and practices of certain contracting authorities by a government minister. Bidders can also refer matters to NHS Improvement, where the contracting authority is a Clinical Commissioning Group or NHS England. NHS Improvement may use its investigation and enforcement powers under the Procurement, Patient Choice and Competition Regulations (No. 2) 2013 to prevent or remedy breaches of procurement law, and can even declare arrangements for the provision of NHS healthcare services ineffective if there has been a serious breach.
This year has been dominated by Brexit as the UK and EU have continued to negotiate how Brexit will be implemented and the UK has sought to prepare for both a negotiated and a 'no deal' exit.
As part of the UK's domestic preparation for Brexit, the UK government and Scottish Ministers have introduced Statutory Instruments (amending regulations8) that, on exit, will amend or remove provisions in the UK regulations that would otherwise be inoperable or inappropriate once the UK has left the EU. The key difference under these changes is that procuring entities will have to send notices (e.g., contract advertisements) to a new UK e-notification service instead of to the EU Publications Office. The UK government has also published a number of guidance notes on matters relating to public procurement as part of its preparations for Brexit.9
In the event of a 'no deal' Brexit, the amending regulations would come into effect immediately. If the UK leaves under the proposed EU–UK Withdrawal Agreement (which the UK Parliament has so far not approved in a meaningful vote), it is intended that most of these changes would be deferred. Instead of coming into effect on exit day, the changes would come into force at the end of the expected transition period under the EU–UK Withdrawal Agreement (which currently runs to the end of 2020). In these circumstances the UK regulations and EU law would continue to apply unamended during the transition period. After any transition period, the changes made by the amending regulations would come into effect and Ministers would have powers, for a short period, to make further necessary amendments and corrections to the UK regulations to ensure they are workable in the UK context. However, more significant changes would need to go through the full parliamentary procedure and are unlikely in the short term.
The UK is currently a party to the World Trade Organisation Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) through its EU membership. The UK began negotiations in June 2018 to become a member in its own right following its withdrawal from the EU, and on 27 February 2019 the GPA members approved the UK's accession to the GPA as an independent member when the UK leaves the EU. This will require the UK to open up higher value public procurement opportunities to other GPA parties (including EU Member States) in exchange for their public procurement market being opened up in a similar way.
Other developments have included the coming into force on 18 October 2018 of postponed provisions in the PCR which now require all procurement communications to be fully electronic and e-Certis coming into effect.
There have also been several key court decisions, including Faraday,10 which is the first case in England and Wales in which a court has declared a contract 'ineffective' (prospectively void). The case concerned a development of land where the developer had an option to draw down parcels of land for development under long leases. If the developer did not exercise the option, it would be under no obligation to carry out any works. However, if the developer did draw down the land it came under an obligation to develop. The Court of Appeal decided that this type of contingent obligation to carry out works was sufficient to amount to a public works contract caught by the PCR (and, therefore, should have been advertised and competed in accordance with those regulations). The judgment has raised significant issues for procurers seeking to structure development agreements in a manner that falls outside the public procurement regime.
The courts' recent decisions in relation to the regular applications to lift the automatic suspension have tended to reinforce the difficulty for challenging bidders in maintaining the suspension. This is particularly the case when the procurements relate to significant projects of widespread or national importance. Key examples include Bombardier v. Hitachi Rail11 and DHL Supply Chain.12 In both cases, the procurement concerned had significant impact on large scale projects (in rail and health services respectively) and demonstrate the difficulty challenging bidders have in maintaining the suspension.
Finally, a potentially significant decision of the court was made in Amey Highways13 in which the court was prepared to extend the time limit for commencing proceedings to challenge the procurement. This case indicates a potential softening of the courts in England and Wales to the historically strict application of the 30-day limitation period.14
The PCR regulate most public sector entities. Many are specifically listed in the PCR (e.g., government departments); others are regulated on the basis that they are 'bodies governed by public law'.15
Contracts awarded by private firms are regulated by the PCR in limited circumstances for certain projects. Contracting authorities are required to ensure that, where they subsidise certain works and services contracts by more than 50 per cent, the subsidised contract is competitively tendered under the PCR.16 More generally in relation to grant-funded projects, a condition of the funding may in practice require grant recipients to let contracts for the project by competitive tender.
The UCR apply to utility activities carried out by a utility that is publicly owned or that operates on the basis of special or exclusive rights granted by a competent authority.17 Pursuant to EU derogations, the UCR do not apply to exploration for and exploitation of oil and gas, or to the generation and supply (but not transmission) of electricity and gas, on the basis that these are competitive markets.
The Defence Regulations apply to utilities and contracting authorities as defined in the UCR and the PCR respectively, and in the equivalent Scottish regulations.
Generally, contracts for the construction of works, supply of goods and provision of services valued at or above specified EU financial thresholds are subject to the procurement regulations.18
The financial thresholds applying from 1 January 2018, are:
Goods £118,133 or 181,302** £363,424 Not applicable
Services* £118,133 or 181,302** £363,424 £4,551,413
Works £4,551,413 £4,551,413 £4,551,413
* For 'light-touch' services, the threshold is £615,278 under PCR, £820,370 under UCR and £4,551,413 under CCR (there is no light touch regime for the Defence Regulations)
* Broadly, the lower threshold applies to central government and the higher threshold to all other authorities.
Below-threshold contracts are not subject to the procurement regulations, but some form of advertisement and a fair, competitive tender procedure is required if there may be certain cross-border interest.19 The PCR, however, contain limited additional provisions for below-threshold contracts that are designed to assist small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)20 which go beyond the requirements of the 2014 Public Sector Directive (e.g., the advertising obligations outlined in Section V.i).
The UCR apply only to regulated utility activities.21 Procurements in relation to a utility's other activities are unregulated unless the utility is also a contracting authority for the purposes of the PCR.22
The Defence Regulations apply to the procurement of defence and sensitive security equipment, works and services.
One area that can cause particular difficulties is land redevelopment. Land redevelopment often requires cooperation between a local authority and a private developer, and these arrangements are negotiated directly between a major local landowner and the authority without a competitive process. In practice, a number of local authorities have taken such arrangements outside the procurement regulations by avoiding imposing any legally binding obligation upon the developer to build.23 As noted in Section II, a recent UK Court of Appeal decision24 has found that contingent legally enforceable obligations to perform works will constitute a public works contract that ought to be advertised and procured under the procurement regulations.
Framework agreements are extensively used. Many are multi-supplier frameworks, typically involving a mini-competition among all framework panellists at the call-off stage. The CCS frameworks for central government are an example of this. Single-supplier frameworks are also common.
Framework agreements are often established by one authority on behalf of itself and a (frequently very large) number of other authorities.
Dynamic purchasing systems are not widely used at present.
Utilities have used both framework agreements and qualification systems widely to reduce the burden of procurement processes, often establishing single-supplier framework agreements for one or two control periods (i.e., five or 10 years). Under the UCR, frameworks must now be limited to eight years, unless a longer period can be justified.
Public–public JVs are common. They have typically relied on the Teckal25 or the Hamburg Waste26 exceptions for 'in-house' and cooperation agreements in the public sector that meet certain conditions, which are not subject to competitive tender under the procurement regulations. These exceptions are 'codified' in the PCR, UCR and CCR.27
JVs have sometimes been used in public–private partnerships (PPPs), but typically the appointment of the JV partner is advertised and tendered.
PPPs have typically been procured under the competitive dialogue procedure. The PCR now provide the option of the competitive procedure with negotiation.28 This has obvious similarities with competitive dialogue, but the greater flexibilities29 offered by the competitive dialogue procedure may mean that it remains the more attractive option.
The UCR have separate rules on JVs and intra-group supplies. In practice, however, they have not been as widely used as the public sector rules embodied in the Teckal and Hamburg Waste exceptions.
Above-threshold30 contracts must be advertised in the Official Journal of the EU (OJEU). The PCR also require contracting authorities to publish details of these contracts on the government portal (Contracts Finder). Similarly, the PCR require that, where a contracting authority advertises contracts that meet lower minimum thresholds (£10,000 or more in the case of central government authorities, and £25,000 or more for sub-central contracting authorities or NHS trusts), it must also publish information about the opportunity on Contracts Finder, regardless of any other means it uses to advertise the opportunity. These transparency obligations were reiterated by the CCS in late 2017.31 This requirement does not apply to contracting authorities carrying out devolved functions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In Scotland, contracts that meet a minimum threshold of £50,000 (for supplies and services contracts) or £2 million (for works contracts) must be advertised on the Public Contracts Scotland website.32
Voluntary ex ante transparency (VEAT) notices can be used where authorities directly award a contract without a competitive process, to seek to overcome the risk of the contract being declared ineffective because it was not properly advertised in the OJEU. However, a VEAT notice is unlikely to offer such protection unless the authority, acting diligently, had a legitimate belief that the procurement regulations did not apply and has been sufficiently transparent in the VEAT notice about the proposed transaction.33
For above-threshold contracts, the procurement regulations generally require use of one of the prescribed procedures. Under the PCR these are the open, restricted, competitive with negotiation, competitive dialogue and innovation partnership procedures. The PCR also provide for the negotiated procedure without prior publication of an OJEU advertisement (that is, a direct award) in certain exceptional circumstances. The procedures available under the UCR are the open, restricted, negotiated, competitive dialogue and innovation partnership procedures.
The PCR and UCR include light-touch regimes34 for the award of contracts for health, social, education and other specific services.35 Subject to compliance with certain mandatory requirements (e.g., principles of transparency and equal treatment), contracting entities have significant flexibility in determining the procedures to be applied.
The PCR apply a number of procedural requirements to below-threshold contracts. In addition to the advertising requirements (described in Section V.i), these are a prohibition on including a separate pre-qualification stage in the tender process and a requirement to publish information on Contracts Finder in respect of contracts that have been awarded.
Under the CCR, contracting entities are free to decide on the procedure to be followed, subject to certain specified safeguards; even lighter requirements apply in respect of light-touch services.
The Defence Regulations offer unrestricted use of the restricted and the negotiated (with prior advertisement) procedures. The competitive dialogue procedure is available for particularly complex contracts and the negotiated procedure (without prior advertisement) in extremely limited circumstances.
Under the Defence Regulations and the UCR, authorities and utilities generally use the negotiated procedure with prior advertisement in the OJEU.
In a number of court cases, the courts have upheld an authority's refusal to allow bidders to correct defects in, or omissions from, their bid.36
However, whether the authority may allow correction of defects in, or omissions from, bids has not often arisen in the courts. In our experience, authorities take different approaches to this issue.
The PCR and UCR contain express provisions dealing with tenders where information or documentation appears to be incomplete or erroneous.37 Although those provisions appear to allow authorities to request information or documentation to clarify or complete information or documents at tender stage (as well as pre-qualification stage), the authority must observe the principles of equal treatment and transparency in exercising this right. Therefore any decision to allow the submission of such information must be taken with care and with regard to those principles.
The procurement regulations replicate the grounds for assessing bidders' fitness to contract set out in the corresponding EU directives.
There are also Cabinet Office and CCS publications on the qualification stage, which require that:
authorities use a standard Selection Questionnaire (which has been aligned with the requirements of the European Single Procurement Document) and have regard to associated CCS guidance on the selection stage that develops general principles including self-certification, 'self-cleaning' and proportionality;38
selection criteria relating to a bidder's reliability, as demonstrated by its performance of past contracts, are established and applied in procurements by central government departments, their executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies for contracts relating to information and communications technology, facilities management and business processing outsourcing and which have a value of £20 million or greater;39 and
bidders convicted of tax offences or successfully challenged under the 'General Anti-Abuse Rule' may be excluded from public procurements.40
The PCR, UCR and CCR require authorities to take appropriate effective measures to prevent, identify and remedy conflicts of interest.41 Economic operators may be excluded from participation in a procurement procedure where a conflict of interest cannot be effectively remedied by other less intrusive means.42 The provision is very wide, extending to 'financial, economic and other personal interest' that is either actual or even 'perceived' to compromise impartiality. In Counted4,43 the court noted that 'other personal interest' need not be financial but could amount to anything pertaining to the relevant individual. This has become an area of increased scrutiny by both challenging bidders and contracting authorities, as the circumstances where a conflict may arise, or an allegation of conflict could be made, are wide ranging. The CCS has issued a PPN reminding contracting authorities of their obligations in applying mandatory and discretionary exclusion grounds and managing conflicts of interest in public procurement.44
The procurement regulations do not prevent foreign suppliers from tendering for public contracts, but utilities may (or in some cases must) reject certain bids to supply goods from third (non-EU) countries with which the EU does not have reciprocal agreements.45
The PCR, UCR and CCR only confer a right to challenge a breach of the regulations upon:
a person from an EEA46 state;47
a person from a World Trade Organization GPA state,48 where the GPA applies to the procurement concerned;49 and
a person from another state if a relevant bilateral agreement applies.50
The Defence Regulations only confer rights to challenge breaches of the regulations on persons who are nationals of, and established in, an EU Member State.
Arguably, foreign persons who do not have a right to challenge under the procurement regulations may seek to bring a similar challenge by way of judicial review or for breach of an implied contract. In practice, however, many foreign-owned businesses have rights to challenge because they bid through a subsidiary incorporated within the EEA.
Most contracts are awarded using award criteria implementing a blend of quality and price.51 Approaches to setting award criteria vary. Many authorities use a very detailed marking scheme with each small element of the project receiving a predefined mark (e.g., 0.3 per cent for proposals on staffing levels); others take a much broader approach, with no subcriteria and global figures for each criterion of, say, 15 or 20 per cent. Tenders structured to be entirely pass or fail on quality aspects, with the rest of the evaluation based on price, are also encountered.
Under the PCR, UCR and CCR, authorities must disclose the evaluation criteria from the date of publication of the notice in the OJEU. This allows bidders to understand what is important to the authority and to decide whether to participate accordingly.52 Where the Defence Regulations apply, authorities must disclose the marking criteria, at the latest, when issuing the contract documents (e.g., in the invitation to tender).
The courts tend to uphold disclosure of the main criteria and subcriteria only, on the basis that disclosure of the finer detail would not in fact affect the content of bids.53 Nevertheless, in practice many authorities disclose full details of the marking scheme, regardless of whether this is strictly required by law.
Under the procurement regulations, national interest can be taken into account only to a limited extent. Authorities may not favour local business. For example, while specifications may refer to British Standards, they must expressly permit equivalent standards from other European jurisdictions. The issue of national interest came to the fore in early 2018 with the award to Franco-Dutch company Gemalto of the contract to print and supply Her Majesty's Home Office with British passports after Brexit. The award of the contract to a non-UK company attracted adverse press coverage in the UK, even though Gemalto's bid would ultimately offer substantial cost savings to the UK taxpayer.
The government has adopted a policy on how procurers should deal with businesses that have adopted certain aggressive tax avoidance measures.54
Another key government policy is securing access to public contracts for SMEs. This policy is in part implemented through the PCR55 and reinforced by CCS guidance.56 The government has acknowledged the importance of prompt payment for SMEs by requiring public sector contracting authorities to pay invoices to their suppliers within 30 days and to ensure that prompt payment is enforced through the supply chain. Contracting authorities are required to publish data demonstrating compliance with these requirements at the end of each financial year.57
The PPN on supply chain visibility,58 also states that, from 1 May 2018, authorities tendering contracts under the PCR with a value above £5 million per annum must require the successful prime suppliers to:
advertise on Contracts Finder any subcontract opportunities with a value over £25,000 that arise after contract award (although authorities may consider setting a higher threshold where the £25,000 threshold is overly burdensome to suppliers); and
report on how much they spend on subcontracting and how much they spend directly with SMEs in the delivery of the contract.
From 1 September 2019, central government departments, executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies tendering public contracts valued over £5 million per year will be required to assess bidders' approach to payment and supply chain as part of the selection process.59
The Cabinet Office is currently consulting on a new evaluation model for taking account of social value as part of the award criteria for assessing tenders for central government contracts, where social impact is linked to the subject matter of the contract.
Further policies include obtaining commitments from suppliers to provide training and apprenticeships.60
During the procurement process, authorities must ensure they give bidders sufficient information to enable them properly to understand the authority's requirements and to ensure a 'level playing field'. This is particularly important where an incumbent service provider will be in a privileged position when a new procurement is run because it has additional information. The PCR and UCR require authorities to take appropriate measures to ensure that competition is not distorted by the participation of bidders that have had prior involvement in the procurement procedure (e.g., in the preparation stage).61 Where the distortion of competition cannot be effectively remedied by other less intrusive means, bidders may be excluded from the procedure.62
Authorities may withhold information from bidders on a number of grounds such as the public interest, the legitimate commercial interest of any person or possible prejudice to fair competition between economic operators.63 Additionally, authorities must not disclose information reasonably stipulated by the bidder as confidential,64 and under the Defence Regulations an authority may impose measures to protect classified information.65
Under the procurement regulations, authorities are required to notify bidders and supply certain information when they make an award decision. They must then 'stand still' for a minimum of 10 calendar days before signing the contract.66 This period allows unsuccessful bidders time to bring a legal challenge to prevent the contract award if they consider that the award decision is unlawful, provided that the bidders are otherwise within the limitation period for procurement claims. The standstill requirement often proves to be onerous for authorities, which must supply scores and a narrative of the characteristics and relative advantages of the winning bid to each unsuccessful bidder.
Many authorities consider that best practice is to give fulsome details of their reasons in the standstill notice, so as to be seen to be transparent, to flush out any complaints as soon as possible, to seek to ensure that the time for bringing a challenge in the courts is running on any complaints (see Section IX.i), and to reduce the risk of delay where a bidder asks for more information and claims that the standstill notice is defective. Authorities should also be mindful of the need to provide standstill information to all bidders, even those who have previously been disqualified, unless the disqualification has been upheld by a court or the full extended limitation period for any challenge stemming from that disqualification has passed.
The EU rules on challenging procurement decisions, some of which are optional, have been implemented in the procurement regulations. The main options that have been adopted are that courts are not to make declarations of ineffectiveness where overriding reasons relating to the general interest require the contract to be maintained and that, in certain circumstances, courts may shorten the contract instead of declaring it ineffective.67
The courts may agree to expedite procurement cases at the parties' request, which means that a typical first instance judgment may be handed down within a number of months following commencement of proceedings. Nonetheless, because of the cost, delay and inherent litigation risk in proceedings, many cases are settled without a full trial. Expedition can be key to the success of any procurement challenge by an unsuccessful bidder; it significantly increases both the likelihood of maintaining the automatic suspension (as such a suspension would only be in place for a short time pending a full expedited trial)68 and the ability to adhere to a timetable, which means obtaining judgment on a mid-tender challenge before any contract is awarded.69
Procurement challenges necessarily require the establishment of confidentiality rings to protect tenderers' commercially sensitive and confidential information. The contracting authority will need to have recorded and be able to evidence its evaluation process, or face possible legal challenge and criticism by the court if it fails to do so.70 Disclosure of key information may be anticompetitive, prevent a fair and equal re-tender, or negatively affect the commercial interests of a bidder. The recent approach has been for contracting authorities to adopt a 'neutral' position on disclosure, as Merseytravel did in Bombardier v. Merseytravel,71 so that the real focus of any dispute is between the successful and challenging bidders who are often competitors in the same market. However, the court in that case ruled that costs will be payable by a successful tenderer (even if it is a non-party) if it does not permit the contracting authority and challenging bidder to agree sensible and reasonable disclosure directions.
The Technology and Construction Court in England and Wales published guidance in the summer of 2017 on confidentiality rings in procurement proceedings, disclosure and pre-action conduct in an annex to the Technology and Construction Court Guide.72 The protocol also seeks to encourage the use of alternative dispute resolution to resolve cases. While the protocol is not binding, failure to follow the protocol may lead to a party being penalised in costs.
The losing litigant is generally required to pay 60 to 70 per cent of the other party's legal costs in addition to all of its own legal costs, and in procurement cases this can extend to meeting the majority of the legal costs of the successful bidder if, as an interested party, the presiding judge feels the successful bidder has assisted the court.73
The trend continues towards increased challenges. Pre-action correspondence challenging a decision is frequently written and can be successful. In England, it is still rare for a bidder to be successful in a court challenge. There have been more bidder-friendly decisions in recent years, particularly on upholding the automatic suspension, as in Lancashire Care,74 Bristol Missing Link75 and Counted4,76, but that is still the exception rather than the norm. Northern Ireland is perceived by some to be more bidder-friendly due to recent decisions. However, as with the courts in England, in reality much turns on the specific facts and merits of the cases that have actually proceeded to a hearing or trial (and the appetite of the specific bidders and authorities to fight or to settle challenges). The case of Lowry Brothers77 shows that the authority can succeed in Northern Ireland.
Procurements can provide their own complaints mechanisms, but High Court litigation is the main method of challenging awards.
Each High Court jurisdiction (England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland) is separate, and has its own case law, save that the Supreme Court is the highest appellate court for all UK jurisdictions. Each court will have regard to relevant case law from the other jurisdictions.
The reason that challenges tend to be brought in the High Court stems largely from the very short time limit set for commencing these proceedings. At 30 calendar days (from when the claimant knew or ought to have known of grounds for bringing a claim), the limitation period for procurement claims is the shortest in English law. It can be extended (up to three months) where the court determines there is good reason. The trend in England has been to uphold the limitation period strictly;78 however, the recent case of Amey Highways79 provides an example of a case in which the court was prepared to extend time, albeit just for a few days.80 In Northern Ireland the courts are more flexible.81
Claims under the procurement regulations can be brought in the High Court by economic operators, including contractors, suppliers and service providers.
Some bidders and third parties, such as subcontractors, who do not enjoy protection under the procurement regulations, bring claims in judicial review in the High Court, asking the Court to review the decision of the public authority. However, it does appear that the approach to procurement challenges by subcontractors is changing after the Sysmex case,82 when Sysmex challenged as an embedded subcontractor only, even when it was not in a position to sign the contract, nor to deliver the services required as a whole.
Claims may be brought for breach of a duty owed to the bidder under the procurement regulations if the bidder either suffers or risks suffering loss. Examples include:
undisclosed evaluation criteria and weightings, in breach of the obligations in the procurement regulations, or the duty of transparency under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, or both;83
manifest error in evaluation;84 the error must be obvious, and expert evidence is not permitted to prove it;85
failure to exclude abnormally low tenders;86
unlawful abandonment of procurement;87 and
post-award substantial changes to contracts, in reliance on the codification of pressetext Nachrichtenagentur in the procurement regulations.88
There are four main grounds for judicial review of decisions:
irrationality or Wednesbury 89 unreasonableness (which is the closest that judicial review comes to a review of the merits);
procedural unfairness or breach of natural justice; and
The procurement regulations provide three main remedies: suspension, ineffectiveness and damages.
The 'automatic' suspension, which is unique to procurement challenges, arises when a claim form is issued before the contract is awarded, and does not require a court hearing. Once in place, the authority cannot award the contract until the court ends the suspension, or the parties end it by agreement or a consent order.
In England, in cases where authorities have applied to lift the automatic suspension, they have usually been successful (although much turns on the merits of those cases in which applications are actually made). Traditionally, it has been extremely difficult to maintain the suspension in contracts in the health and social care sector, where patient wellbeing and safety are paramount, but in Lancashire Care,90 Bristol Missing Link 91 and Counted492 the courts were persuaded to do so. The most recent cases show that it is still more often than not that the suspension is lifted, particularly where significant procurements with large-scale impact or national importance are concerned, such as in Bombardier v. Hitachi Rail93 and DHL Supply Chain.94 In Northern Ireland, suspensions have generally been maintained.95
Under the procurement regulations, the court may also set aside the decision or amend a document.
A declaration of ineffectiveness may be made when one of the grounds for ineffectiveness is satisfied. For the PCR,96 these are:
awarding a contract illegally without advertisement in the OJEU where this is required;
b awarding a contract in breach of the standstill period or automatic suspension with another breach of the procurement regulations; and
awarding a specific contract under a framework agreement when the requirements relating to the reopening of competition are not followed or when tendering procedures are not followed in a dynamic purchasing system.
Ineffectiveness means that a contract is prospectively, but not retrospectively, ineffective from the date of the declaration. The court can deal with matters consequent on the contract being declared ineffective. It must also impose penalties and may award damages. Some contracting authorities and utilities make contractual provision for the parties' rights and responsibilities in the event of a declaration of ineffectiveness (as expressly permitted by the procurement regulations97and encouraged by government guidance).98
2015 saw the first ever successful claim in the UK for a declaration of ineffectiveness. This was in Scotland in the Lightways Contractors case.99 The court found that a call-off contract under a framework had been awarded to an economic operator not on the original framework. In the absence of any other valid procurement process, the award was unlawful and the contract declared ineffective. Faraday100 is the first case in England and Wales in which the court has made a declaration of ineffectiveness, having decided that where a developer of land has an option to and does draw down land and, in doing so, comes under an obligation to develop that land, that contingent obligation to carry out works is sufficient to amount to a public works contract caught by the PCR (and, therefore, should have been advertised and competed in accordance with those regulations).
Unless grounds for ineffectiveness exist, damages are the only remedy that can be awarded under the procurement regulations after the contract has been entered into. Claims for damages are usually for wasted bid costs, or loss of profit or opportunities. The EnergySolutions101 case now requires that an authority's breach of the procurement regulations be sufficiently serious before damages can be awarded. It remains to be seen whether this will have a material impact upon the ability of claimants to recover damages.
The remedies available in judicial review are a quashing order (to set aside the decision made) and a mandatory order (requiring the authority to make the decision again). Damages may also be sought, although not as a sole remedy.
With substantial increases to court fees in April 2015, there has been a trend towards non-monetary procurement claims, as the court fees to issue proceedings for such claims are considerably lower than for claims involving damages, but still have the benefit of attracting the automatic suspension. If no damages are claimed at the outset, non-monetary claims may become a potential means to frustrate applications to lift until there is judicial consideration of the issue, but it is likely a court would consider a decision not to claim damages from the outset as definitive in such a case.
Despite the current uncertainty around the timing and terms on which the UK will leave the EU, it is clear that the rules governing public procurement in the UK will remain largely unchanged in the short term. The framework and principles of the procurement regime are not being changed and will continue to apply post-Brexit, whether or not the UK reaches agreement with the EU on the terms of its exit. The European Union Withdrawal Act 2018, which received Royal Assent in June 2018, will preserve the current UK regulations (which implement the EU Directives) in domestic law, on withdrawal from the EU. The main impact of Brexit in the immediate term will be changes brought about by domestic amendment regulations designed to ensure that the current regime continues to operate effectively after the UK leaves the EU, including the requirement to use a new UK e-notification service for the publication of notices rather than sending notices to the EU publications office.
After Brexit, the future shape of UK procurement law will depend on the international agreements it chooses to make with the EU and other countries. As a signatory to the GPA, but outside the EU, the UK could have more freedom to set its own procurement policy than it currently has as an EU Member State, although many of the basic principles would remain the same. Much depends, however, on the nature of the UK's future relationship with the EU. Further commitments on procurement could be made as part of any eventual UK–EU trade agreement or other arrangement, which could require the UK rules to stay in closer alignment with the EU rules.
1 Amy Gatenby is a legal director, Ryan Geldart is a managing associate and Bill Gilliam and Paul Minto are partners at Addleshaw Goddard LLP.
2 Except for defence and security procurement, where the rules are UK-wide, this chapter focuses on the legislation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
3 The EU directives corresponding to the UK regulations currently in force are, therefore, 2014/24/EU, 2014/25/EC, 2014/23/EC, 2009/81/EC and 89/665/EEC. References in this chapter to the EU directives are to those EU directives currently implemented in the United Kingdom, unless otherwise stated.
4 The Procurement, Patient Choice and Competition Regulations (No. 2) 2013.
5 To date, only the Public Procurement (Electronic Invoices etc) Regulations 2019 have been made, covering electronic invoicing following the UK's exit from the EU in a 'deal' scenario (see Section II).
6 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/780361/20190220_OutsourcingPlaybook_6.5212.pdf.
7 Previously called the 'Mystery Shopper' scheme but renamed on 29 November 2018.
8 Public Procurement (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 No. 560; Public Procurement (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) (No 2) Regulations 2019 No. 623; Defence and Security Public Contracts (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 No. 697; Public Procurement (Electronic Invoices etc) Regulations 2019; Public Procurement etc. (Scotland) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 No. 112; and Public Procurement etc. (Scotland) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Amendment Regulations 2019 No. 114.
9 These include guidance on public-sector procurement under the EU Withdrawal Agreement; guidance on public-sector procurement after a no-deal Brexit; and PPN(2) 02/19 - Preparing for the UK leaving the EU (updated 25 March 2019).
10 Faraday Development Ltd v. West Berkshire Council [2018] EWCA Civ 2532.
11 Bombardier Transportation UK Ltd v Hitachi Rail Europe Ltd [2018] EWHC 2926 (TCC).
12 DHL Supply Chain v. Secretary of State for Health & Social Care [2018] EWHC 2213 (TCC).
13 Amey Highways Ltd West Sussex County Council [2018] EWHC 1976 (TCC); further detail in Section IX.i.
14 See Section IX. i.
15 PCR 2(1).
16 PCR 13.
17 See Alstom Transport v. Eurostar International Limited [2012] EWHC 28 (Ch) paragraphs 70 and 71, where the court held that Eurostar was not a utility.
18 In this chapter, the term 'above-threshold contract' is used to refer to contracts meeting these EU financial thresholds and 'below-threshold contract' to those that do not meet them.
19 See Commission 'Interpretative communication on the Community law applicable to contract awards not or not fully subject to the provision of the Public Procurement Directives', OJEU 2006 C 179/02.
20 See CCS 'Guidance on provisions that support market access for small businesses', August 2015.
21 As listed in UCR 9 to 15.
22 C-393/06 Ing Aigner, Wasser-Wärme-Umwelt GmbH v. Fernwärme Wien GmbH, paragraph 59.
23 This relies on the CJEU decision in C-451/08 Helmut Müller GmbH v. Bundesanstalt für Immobilienaufgaben. See also R (on the application of Midlands. Cooperative Society Ltd) v. Birmingham City Council [2012] EWHC 620 (Admin); and AG Quidnet Hounslow LLP v. Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Hounslow [2012] EWHC 2639 (TCC).
24 See footnote 10.
25 C-107/98 Teckal Srl v. Comune di Viano and another.
26 C-480/06 Commission v. Germany.
27 See CCS 'Guidance on 'public/public' contracts', August 2015.
28 See Section V.ii.
29 For example, under competitive dialogue the authority is not required to set out its minimum requirements at the outset of the procurement, and there is more flexibility to clarify, fine tune and optimise final tenders and to confirm financial commitments and other terms of the winning bid, provided essential aspects are not materially altered and there is no risk of distortion of competition or discrimination.
30 See footnote 18.
31 PPN 02/17 'Promoting Greater Transparency', 13 December 2017.
32 Section 23, Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014.
33 C-19/13 Ministero dell'Interno v. Fastweb SpA, paragraph 50 and Faraday Development Ltd v. West Berkshire Council [2018] EWCA Civ 2532, paragraphs 87 to 91.
34 See CCS 'Guidance on the new light touch regime for health, social, education and certain other service contracts', October 2015.
35 Set out in PCR Schedule 3, UCR Schedule 2 and CCR Schedule 3.
36 For example, R (on the application of Harrow Solicitors and Advocates) v. The Legal Services Commission [2011] EWHC 1087 (Admin); R (on the application of All About Rights Law Practice) v. Legal Services Commission [2011] EWHC 964 (Admin); and Hossacks (A firm of Solicitors) v. The Legal Services Commission [2011] EWHC 2700 (Admin).
37 PCR 56(4); UCR 76(4).
38 Cabinet Office and CCS PPN 'Standard Selection Questionnaire (SQ)', 9 September 2016. The guidance is issued under PCR 107(1).
39 PPN 04/15 'Taking Account of Suppliers' Past Performance', 25 March 2015.
40 PPN 03/14 'Measures to Promote Tax Compliance', updated 15 May 2015.
41 PCR 24; UCR 42; CCR 35. There are no express conflict of interest provisions in the Defence Regulations, but the same obligations arise because of the duty to comply with the principle of non-discrimination – see T-160/03 AFCon Management Consultants and others v. Commission, paragraphs 75 and 90; although this case was decided under internal Commission rules, the same principles are likely to apply under the Defence Regulations.
42 PCR 57(8)(e); UCR 80; CCR 38(16)(d).
43 Counted4 Community Interest Company v. Sunderland City Council [2015] EWHC 3898 (TCC).
44 PPN 01/19 'Applying Exclusions In Public Procurement, Managing Conflicts of Interest and Whistleblowing'.
45 UCR 85.
46 The EEA comprises the EU Member States plus Liechtenstein, Norway and Iceland.
47 For example, PCR 89.
48 In addition to the 28 EU Member States, the other GPA states are Armenia, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Republic of Korea, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Montenegro, the Netherlands (with respect to Aruba), New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, Ukraine and the United States.
49 For example, PCR 90(1)(a).
50 For example, PCR 90(1)(b).
51 In Scotland, contracts must be awarded on the basis of best price–quality ratio; price or cost alone cannot be used as the sole award criterion (section 67, The Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2015).
52 PCR 49; UCR 69; CCR 32.
53 In Healthcare at Home Ltd v. The Common Services Agency [2014] UKSC 49, the Supreme Court endorsed the test of whether the 'reasonably well-informed and normally diligent' bidder would have understood the criteria in the same way.
54 See Section VI.i.
55 See Sections III and V.i
56 For example, PPN 05/15 'Prompt payment policy and reporting of performance', 27 March 2015.
57 PPN 03/16 'Publication of payment performance statistics', 29 March 2016.
58 PPN 01/18 'Supply Chain Visibility', 10 April 2018.
59 PPN 04/18 'Taking account of a supplier's approach to payment in the procurement of major contracts', 29 November 2018.
60 PPN 14/15 'Supporting apprenticeships and skills through public procurement', 27 August 2015.
61 PCR 41; UCR 9.
62 For example, PCR 57(8)(f).
63 See, for example, PCR 50(6) and 86(6).
64 See, for example, PCR 21.
65 Defence Regulations 11.
66 See, for example, PCR 86 and 87.
67 See, for example, PCR 100, and Section IX.iii on ineffectiveness.
68 Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust and another v. Lancashire County Council [2018] EWHC 1589 (TCC).
69 Joseph Gleave & Son Limited v. Secretary of State for Defence [2017] EWHC 238 (TCC).
70 See for example Lancashire Care (footnote 68) in which the court found a 'pervasive inadequacy' in the evaluation panel's approach, in particular in documenting the evaluation process carried out.
71 Bombardier Transportation UK Ltd v. Merseytravel [2018] EWHC 41 (TCC).
72 www.procurementportal.com/files/Uploads/Documents/TCC%20Guidance%20Note%20on%20Public%20Procurement%20Cases%20final.pdf.
73 Group M UK Ltd v. Cabinet Office [2014] EWHC 3863 (TCC).
74 See footnote 68.
75 Bristol Missing Link Ltd v. Bristol City Council [2015] EWHC 876.
76 See footnote 43.
77 Lowry Brothers Ltd v. Northern Ireland Water Ltd [2013] NIQB 23.
78 See J Varney & Sons Waste Management Ltd v. Hertfordshire CC [2011] EWCA Civ 708.
79 See footnote 13.
80 It should be noted that in this case the authority had agreed a 'standstill agreement' that time would not run for limitation purposes for a specified period of time. Whilst the authority did not seek to argue that the court should not exercise its discretion to extend time during that period, the court noted that 'the existence of that agreement is good reason to extend time'. It is yet to be seen whether, as a result of this case, such agreements will become common practice in procurement claims.
81 See Henry Brothers (Magherafelt) Ltd v. Department of Education for Northern Ireland [2011] NICA 59.
82 Sysmex (UK) Ltd v. Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust [2017]EWHC 1824 (TCC).
83 See, for example, McLaughlin & Harvey Ltd v. Department of Finance and Personnel [2011] NICA 60; Lettings International Ltd v. London Borough of Newham [2007] EWCA Civ 1522; Healthcare at Home Ltd v. The Common Services Agency [2014] UKSC 49.
84 Woods Building Services v. Milton Keynes Council [2015] EWHC 2011 (TCC).
85 BY Development Ltd v. Covent Garden Market Authority [2012] EWHC 2546 (TCC).
86 NP Aerospace Ltd v. Ministry of Defence [2014] EWHC 2741 (TCC).
87 Montpellier Estates Ltd v. Leeds City Council [2013] EWHC 166 (QB).
88 C-454/06 pressetext Nachrichtenagentur GmbH v. Republic of Austria and others. In Gottlieb, R (on the Application of) v. Winchester City Council [2015] EWHC 231 (Admin) the claimant was granted relief on this basis in a judicial review claim. The pressetext principles are now codified in the PCR, UCR and CCR (e.g., PCR 72).
89 Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corp [1948] 1 KB 223.
90 See footnote 68.
91 See footnote 75.
92 See footnote 43.
93 See footnote 11.
94 See footnote 12.
95 First4skills Ltd v. Department for Employment and Learning [2011] NIQB 59; Traffic Signs and Equipment Ltd v. Department for Regional Development [2010] NIQB 138, but see John Sisk & Son Holdings Ltd v. Western Health and Social Care Trust [2014] NIQB 56, where the suspension was lifted.
96 Under the UCR, the third ground (c) only relates to contracts awarded under a dynamic purchasing system; under the CCR, only the first two grounds (a) and (b) apply.
97 For example, PCR 101(5) and (6).
98 'Implementation of the Remedies Directive: OGC Guidance on the 2009 amending regulations Part 3: The new remedies rules', Office of Government Commerce, 18 December 2009, paragraphs 43 to 48.
99 Lightways Contractors Ltd v. Inverclyde Council [2015] CSOH 169.
100 See footnote 10.
101 Nuclear Decomissioning Authority v. EnergySoluitons EU (Ltd) [2017] UKSC 34.