OCS Group UK Limited v Community Health Partnerships Limited
[2023] EWHC 3369 (TCC)
Working on Wellbeing Ltd trading as Optima Health v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Ors
5 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 766 (TCC)
High Court
A company's bid for a government contract was rejected because it was too expensive. The company sued, saying the rules weren't clear enough. The judge ruled that the rules were clear, and rejecting the bid was fair because another company had bid correctly.
Key Facts
- •Optima Health's bid for an occupational health and employee assistance programmes (OHEAP) call-off contract was rejected by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) for exceeding maximum unit prices on three service items.
- •Optima argued that the ITT documentation lacked clarity on the consequences of exceeding the Framework Pricing Schedule and that the rejection was unlawful, disproportionate, and lacked transparency.
- •DWP argued that the ITT clearly stated that exceeding maximum prices would result in bid disqualification, and that rejecting Optima's non-compliant bid was necessary to maintain fairness and equal treatment among bidders.
- •One bidder, PAM, submitted a compliant bid.
Legal Principles
Principles of procurement: equal treatment, non-discrimination, transparency, and proportionality.
Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR), Regulation 18
Awarding contracts based on criteria laid down in the procurement documents; addressing incomplete or erroneous information.
PCR, Regulation 56
Equal treatment requires strict compliance with fundamental tender requirements; transparency ensures verifiable compliance.
Commission v Denmark, SIAC Construction Limited v County Council of the County of Mayo
The RWIND tenderer test: Award criteria must be clear enough for a reasonably well-informed and diligent tenderer to interpret uniformly.
SIAC Construction Ltd v County Council of the County of Mayo, Healthcare at Home Ltd v Common Services Agency
Duties of transparency and equal treatment; manifest error in evaluation.
Woods Building Services v Milton Keynes Council, Lion Apparel Systems v Firebuy Ltd
Ambiguous tenders and the duty to seek clarification; proportionality in exercising powers.
Antwerpse Bouwwerken NV v European Commission, Tideland Signal v Commission, R (on the application of Harrow Solicitors and Advocates) v The Legal Services Commission
Exercising discretion to disqualify a bidder; proportionality and waiver of requirements.
R (Lumsdon) v Legal Services Board, Stagecoach East Midlands Trains Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport, Leadbitter and Co Ltd v Devon County Council
Seeking clarification from a tenderer; avoiding changes to bids.
Adia Interim SA v Commission, Case T-195/08 Antwerpse Bouwwerken NV v Commission, Tideland Signal v Commission
Proof of reasons and reasoning for rejection of bids.
Healthcare at Home Limited v The Common Services Agency, Stagecoach
Outcomes
Optima's claim dismissed.
The ITT documentation clearly and transparently set out the consequences of exceeding the Framework Pricing Schedule. DWP acted lawfully in excluding Optima's non-compliant bid to maintain fairness and equal treatment among bidders, considering all relevant factors and exercising its discretion appropriately. There was no manifest error, irrationality, arbitrariness, unreasonableness, or disproportionality in DWP's actions.