Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

OCS Group UK Limited v Community Health Partnerships Limited

14 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3369 (TCC)
High Court
A company lost a big contract by a tiny margin and suspected foul play. They asked the judge to see the details of how the contract was awarded to check for errors. The judge agreed, saying the company had good reason to suspect mistakes, and the details provided weren't clear enough. The company won the right to see the documents, but had to pay some of the costs, and the losing company's request for an appeal was denied.

Key Facts

  • •Public procurement case challenging the award of a £236 million, nine-year cleaning services contract.
  • •Claimant (OCS Group UK Limited) lost to Mitie by a miniscule margin (0.02%).
  • •Claimant seeks specific disclosure of contemporaneous evaluation records and the Reg. 84 Report.
  • •The court considered the adequacy of reasons provided in the award letter and the principles governing specific disclosure in procurement cases.
  • •Disagreement on whether there are different duties to provide reasons at different stages of the litigation.

Legal Principles

Statement of reasons must allow judicial review and inform the person concerned.

Evropaiki Dynamiki (Case 272/06, Case 447/10)

Contracting authorities must inform unsuccessful candidates of reasons for rejection.

Healthcare at Home Limited v The Common Services Agency [2014] UKSC 49

Specific disclosure applications require identifying factual issues from pleadings; disclosure limited to relevant documents.

Harrods Ltd v Times Newspaper Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 294

In procurement cases, unsuccessful tenderers should receive essential information on evaluation to assess fairness and legality, but applications must be tightly drawn and avoid fishing expeditions.

Roche Diagnostics Limited v Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust [2013] EWHC 933 (TCC)

Reasons provided should be sufficient to enable unsuccessful tenderers to decide whether to issue proceedings; fact-specific.

Energy Solutions EU Ltd v Nuclear Decommissioning Authority [2016] EWHC 1988

Court must assess why the procuring authority awarded the scores it did; failure to explain scores fails basic transparency.

Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust & Anor v Lancashire County Council [2018] EWHC 1589 (TCC)

Procurement challenge may succeed due to contracting authority failures to ensure equal treatment.

Bombardier Transportation v Merseytravel [2017] EWHC 726 (TCC)

Regulation 86(2)(b) requires disclosure of reasons for the decision, but not necessarily the reasons for each score.

Public Contracts Regulations 2015, Regulation 86(2)(b)

Outcomes

Specific disclosure granted.

Claimant demonstrated a prima facie case based on arguable errors in the evaluation of questions 6 and 13, and the inadequate explanation of Mitie's scores. The lack of detailed pleading was a consequence of the claimant's lack of knowledge of the process.

Costs awarded to claimant, reduced to £42,275.

Although the claimant's cost statement was initially high, the court deemed a reduced figure reasonable and proportionate for the significance of the application.

Permission to appeal refused.

While the case raises important points of law, the court prioritised prompt resolution of the case and the potential disruption caused by an appeal.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.