How do you ensure award criteria are sufficiently transparent?
Regulation 4(3) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 — and its equivalent in Scotland — requires contacting authorities to treat economic operators equally and in a non-discriminatory way, and to act transparently and proportionately.
Recent years have seen a dramatic rise in the number of claims by suppliers alleging that award criteria were either not disclosed or were not sufficiently transparent. How then can contracting authorities ensure their award criteria and evaluation methodologies are sufficiently transparent? A recent Scottish case — Healthcare At Home Ltd v The Common Services Agency (2013) — provides some useful guidance.
The case concerned the award of a contract to supply the cancer drug Herceptin to patients in their own homes. The claimant, Healthcare at Home, had been the incumbent supplier but narrowly lost the contract to BUPA when it was retendered…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Mills & Reeve briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Mills & Reeve
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Mills & Reeve
It’s fair to say that Akenhead J’s recent decision in Parkwood Leisure Ltd v Laing O’Rourke Wales and West Ltd has caught the attention of construction lawyers.
Not many people shed a tear for the players when a club goes into administration. But the players involved in the majority of cases are at the lower level clubs.
Analysis from The Lawyer
The trend for unbundling legal work is advancing through the law firm ranks but there is still resistance in some quarters - namely in-house. We asked why