UK: Equal Treatment And Fairness In Procurement

  1. HHJ LLoyd QC in the case of Harmon CFEM Facades (UK) Limited v The Corporate Officer of the House of Commons [1999] EWHC TCC 199 observed that the principle of equal treatment of tenderers requires that all tenders comply with the tender conditions so as to ensure an objective comparison of the tenders submitted by the various tenderers.
  2. This concept of equal treatment has been explored in two cases, one from Scotland and the other from Northern Ireland.
  3. In the Harmon case, Harmon, a European-based firm, had tendered for the works at the new parliamentary building for the House of Commons. The contract was awarded to another tenderer. Harmon successfully brought an action claiming that the House of Commons had breached the UK's obligations under the Treaty of Rome not to discriminate on the ground of nationality and the principle of the equal treatment of tenderers. Harmon also successfully claimed damages for breaches of the Public Works Contracts Regulations 19911 (now superseded), on the basis that the criteria for selection (under Regulation 20 the contract was to be awarded to either the most economically advantageous or the lowest price tender) was not stated in any of the tender documents. Harmon was awarded for both the loss of profit and the wasted tender costs.

The Aquatron Case

  1. The most recent example of a successful damages claim as a result of failings in the operation of the procurement process is the Scottish decision in Aquatron Marine, t/a Aquatron Breathing Air Systems v Strathclyde Fire Brigade.2 This case is a useful guide to the principles regarding equal treatment of tenderers.
  2. In March 2004, the Defendants, who operate the Strathclyde Fire Brigade ("Strathclyde"), issued an invitation to tender for certain services associated with its breathing apparatus equipment, under the Public Services Contract Regulations 1993.3 As published in the Official Journal of the European Communities4, the description of the contract contained four main elements:
  3. "...the Service Maintenance and Repair of Breathing Apparatus Compressors. The Service Maintenance and Repair of...Oxygen Transfer Pumps. The Provision of Air Purity Testing to EN12021:1998. The Examination and Repair of Low Pressure Tyre Compressors."

  4. The Office Journal specified the criteria for the award of the tender as:
  5. "Economically most advantageous tender complying with technical specifications, i.e. price, delivery date, running costs, cost effectiveness, after sales service, compatibility, but not necessarily in that order."

  6. The quality of the service to be provided was not included, nor was the technical merit of the tender.
  7. Tenders were received from Aquatron and two others. Aquatron's tender was submitted on or about 30 April 2004 and specified an annual sum of £74,100, a total cost over the three year contract period of £222,300.00. The other two companies that tendered for the work were ComAir UK Ltd at £215,949.96 and MB Air Systems Ltd at £253,740.00.
  8. The tenderers were invited to attend a "clarification meeting". Attached to this invitation was a list of issues to be discussed. These included:
  9. a) Providing an outline of the tenderer's organisational structure;

    b) Providing details as to the training, experience, skills and competence of the engineers;

    c) Confirming the qualifications of the Health and Safety representative;

    d) Confirming the understanding of the requirement to carry out annual testing and recalibration of the breathing equipment;

    e) Confirming that the accreditation is ISO 9001:2000 applied to the servicing, maintenance and repair of breathing equipment and provide evidence of this accreditation; and

    f) Providing a copy of the quality system manual.

  10. As part of the evaluation process, Strathclyde prepared a "Tender Evaluation/Award Criteria Form" under which only three criteria were to be used in any comparative evaluation. These were price (50%), quality (25%) and technical merit (25%). However, as already noted, neither quality nor technical merit were included as criteria to determine the economically most advantageous tender in the Official Journal notice.
  11. Strathclyde excluded Aquatron's tender from the tendering process at the first stage. Aquatron challenged this decision.
  12. The first issue to be dealt with by the Court was to identify the legal tests that applied when a tenderer challenged a contracting authority's decision not to award him a contract.
  13. Regulation 32 made it clear that what is involved is a legal obligation to comply with the Regulations. Regulation 21 stated that a contracting authority could only award a contract on the basis of the "lowest price" or the "most economically advantageous" tender. This carried with it the implication that the considerations which govern the award will be economic ones. Regulations 8 and 16 made it clear that any technical specifications and any requirement to produce information must be stated in the contract documents. Therefore, a tenderer cannot be excluded by reason of some unspecified technical defect or because of the failure to provide information not expressly called for. At the evaluation stage, the criteria applied must be those published and not either hidden criteria or ones created later during the tendering process.5
  14. The European Court of Justice stated that compliance requires the equal treatment of tenderers. That must involve the process and the evaluation being transparent and objective.
  15. The Court held that Aquatron's tender was rejected on the following grounds:
  • a) Inadequate accreditation;

    b) Lack of qualified staff to carry out the contract; and

  • c) Lack of evidence proving Aquatron's quality standards.

  1. During the evaluation of tenderers, Strathclyde decided that it wanted the tenderers to be accredited by a government body and not a private company as Aquatron was. However, this was not what the specification provided for; it merely required accreditation to ISO 9001:2000 issued by a recognised accreditation centre.
  2. In relation to the lack of qualified staff to carry out the contract, Strathclyde incorrectly concluded that Aquatron lacked the requisite staff to carry out the contract due to Strathclyde's failure to ensure the relevant members of the evaluation team had a copy of Aquatron's tender covering letter.
  3. Aquatron was said not to have supplied evidence of quality standards achieved by their workforce. However, the specification simply asked for evidence of the quality standards of the tenderer's workforce to be supplied. It did not set any minimum requirement to be met in order to proceed to full evaluation.
  4. A contracting authority has a wide discretion in its evaluation of the commercial benefits or drawbacks of any tenders received, but it is not vested with any discretion to avoid compliance with the Regulations or to award a contract on the basis of considerations not mentioned in the documentation required by the Regulations.
  5. Lord Carloway held that the exclusion of Aquatron from the tendering process at the first stage of determining the specification amounted to a breach of the Regulations. The Evaluation Sub-Committee did not possess the requisite expertise to process the tenders from a technical viewpoint, did not have sufficient experience to carry out the task of evaluation and did not have adequate understanding of what was required of the defenders in terms of the Regulations.
  6. Having established that Strathclyde's treatment of Aquatron's tender involved several breaches of the Regulations, the next issue was to determine what, if any, losses flowed as a result of Aquatron's exclusion prior to the evaluation stage.
  7. The Court was satisfied that the other tender was legitimately excluded due to deficiencies in its certification. In determining what would have happened had the evaluation taken place in accordance with the Regulations, the Court concluded that Aquatron would have been awarded the contract.
  8. The financial effect on Aquatron not being awarded the contract was that while they did not suffer a downturn in annual profit, they would have made considerably more profit had they been awarded this contract.
  9. In assessing damages, the starting point was to assess the income generated by the contract, plus the extra work likely to be commissioned under it and then to consider the loss of profit. Aquatron was awarded £122,149.20 against their tender price of £222,300.00.

The Belfast Library Board case

  1. There had been a similar decision in Northern Ireland a few months previously.
  2. In the earlier case of Gerald Martin Scott & Others v Belfast Education and Library Board6 the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland was asked to determine whether the tender documents gave rise to an implied contract, the terms of which were that the Employer must act in good faith, and if so, do the implied terms require the absence of any material ambiguity in the tender documents that would significantly alter the tender?
  3. Gerald Martin Scott were tendering contractors for a contract to be placed by the Belfast Education and Library Board. Scott sought an interim injunction restraining the Belfast Board from proceeding from the tendering process due to mistakes and/or ambiguities in the tender documents which, Scott argued, meant that the tenderers could not tender on an equal basis.
  4. Mr Justice Weatherup held that an implied contract can arise from the submission of a tender. It may arise by inference from the scheme of the tendering process and the presumed intention of the parties. Furthermore, an implied contract may arise from a tendering process for a public works contract. The implied terms to such an implied contract extend to the implied term of fairness and good faith.
  5. Good faith was not an issue in this case; it was a question of fairness. It was held that fairness applied in a number of respects:
  • a) To the nature of the application of the specified procedures in a particular contract;
  • b) To the assessment of the tenders according to the stated criteria;

  • c) To the evaluation of the tenders in a uniform manner as intended by the tender documents.

  1. No unfairness would arise if there was a mistake in a tender submitted by a tenderer due to a misinterpretation of the tender documents or if there was simply a mistake by the tenderer. However, if the tenderer was mistaken because of an error in the tender documents, this could result in one or more tenderers adopting a different approach to the tender from that which must have been intended by the tender documents. This may affect the assessment of the tenders, the uniformity of the evaluation and the fairness of the process.


  1. An ambiguity in the tender documentation that impacts on the approach of tenderers may affect the assessment of the tenders and the uniformity of the evaluation. An undetected ambiguity may affect the fairness of the tendering process by impacting on procedures or assessment of tenders according to the criteria.
  2. Fairness requires the absence of ambiguity that is material, in that it caused the tenderer to proceed on a mistaken or different basis to the other tenderers. Furthermore, fairness requires that the material ambiguity has a significant effect on the tender. A significant effect is one that causes the tenderer to submit a tender which is more than negligibly different from the tender which he would have otherwise submitted.
  3. As discussed by Lord Carloway in the Aquatron case, tenderers must be in a position of equality, both when tenders are being formulated and when they are being assessed. The principle of equal treatment implies an obligation of transparency so as to allow all reasonably well-informed and normally diligent tenderers to interpret them in the same way. Furthermore, when the tenders are being assessed the award criteria must be applied objectively and uniformly.


1 Regulations 20 and 31(3)

2 [2007] CSOH 185

3 SI 1993/3228 – These Regulations have now been superseded

4 6/11

5 Aquatron Marine, t/a Aquatron Breathing Air Systems v Strathclyde Fire Brigade [2007] CSOH 185 para 87

6 [2007] NICh 4

To see further articles on matters relating to construction, engineering and energy projects, please visit

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.