UK: Challenging Procurement Procedures - What Is Your Likely Remedy If You Are Successful?

Last Updated: 21 November 2008
Article by Jeremy Glover

Following, two separate hearings, the courts decided that the procurement procedures followed in respect of a proposed framework agreement in Northern Ireland were flawed. Recently there has been a third hearing about the appropriate remedy. The case is McLaughlin and Harvey Limited v Department of Finance and Personnel.

In short, the selection of the economic operators for the framework agreement was to be carried out by a panel of the central procurement directorate of the Department. Various tender documents were prepared. All tenderers were directed to read the tender documents and it was stated that the responses would be evaluated against the criteria provided in Section 8.3 of these documents. However, there was to be additional material not in the documents given to the tenderers, which M & H said consisted of criteria or sub-criteria to be used for evaluation. The Judge found that the tenderers were judged by a number of different criteria but that the criteria were given weightings which varied from topic to topic. It did not seem that the weightings for each topic were predicted or even predictable by a reasonable bidder. They were subjective judgments formed by the tender panel collectively. What the Department should have done was to provide the weightings to the bidders in advance. This material could have affected the preparation of the tender documents. It was likely to have done so. A bidder would be bound to take it carefully into account in allocating their bid.

That said, there was no intention on the part of the Department to discriminate against M & H. Indeed, no other bidders were given the information. What had happened was that those preparing the evaluation guide prepared it before they looked at the tenders. The Judge thought that it would be preferable that any sub-criteria development for the tenders should be formulated and spelt out before the tenders are received so as to avoid the suspicion of some special treatment. The Judge did note that it was somewhat surprising that the Panel managed to do all their valuation work without making any notes at all. This was particularly the case when the scheme in relation to weightings and sub-weightings was very detailed and complex.

Therefore, the Judge found that there was a breach by the Department of a duty owed under Regulation 47 of the Public Contracts Regulation 2006.

Following that judgment, the parties were unable to agree on a remedy for M & H. Therefore the case found its way before Judge Deeny again at the end of October. He made it clear that the matters complained of were neither minimal nor tangential but entitled M & H to some substantive remedy. In particular the Judge recalled that even a modest improvement in the marking of M & H's tender could have materially affected the outcome. Further, some 30% of the marking overall was given under the criterion of price. M & H had the fourth lowest price of the economic operators and therefore was well placed to benefit from any slight improvement in the quality assessment of its tender. Finally the tender was for a place on a Framework containing some £800m worth of contracts over a period of four years.

A key issue was the extent of the court's powers to grant remedies. M & H's first preference was for the court, by way of declaration, mandatory injunction or otherwise, to order the Department to add it to the list of preferred economic operators under the Framework. Alternatively M & H asked that the court set aside the contract award leaving the Department either to rerun the competition or dispense with the Framework altogether. European Regulation 47(8) notes:

Subject to paragraph (9), but otherwise without prejudice to any other powers of the court, in proceedings brought under this Regulation the Court may ....

(b) If satisfied that a decision or action taken by a contracting authority was in breach of the duty owed in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2) –

(i) order the setting aside of that decision or action or order the contracting authority to amend any document;

(ii) award damages to an economic operator which has suffered loss or damage as a consequence of the breach; or

(iii) do both of those things.

However, paragraph (9) of the Regulations goes on to say that:

In proceedings under this Regulation the Court does not have power to order any remedy other than an award of damages in respect of a breach of the duty owed in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2) if the contract in relation to which the breach occurred has been entered into.

The Department said that this paragraph prevented the court from granting any remedy other than an award of damages in respect of the breach of duty. However the Judge rejected this argument. The reason for this was that in his view, the wording of the Regulations specifically referred to a breach in relation to "the contract" which has been entered into. By that was meant a public services, supply or works contract as defined in the Regulations. It would also extend to a specific contract under a Framework Agreement, but not the Framework Agreement itself. If a court is dealing with a public contract or a specific contract under the Framework Agreement (which is just another type of public contract) and the party bringing the proceedings has either not sought or been refused interim relief then the court is not at liberty to set aside that specific public contract. Damages are the only remedy.

In the view of the Judge, the purpose of the Regulations was clear. By definition the contract will have been given to a third party which, by the time the matter is before the court, may well be engaged in the very works of supply or construction under the contract. It would be entirely unfair on that third party and, indeed, on the public, to interfere in that contract which has been made. The economic operator under such a contract will have performed work for the Department and will have received or will have been promised remuneration as consideration in return. For the court to set aside a contract which may be partly or wholly performed would be contrary to principle and inappropriate. Therefore damages would be an appropriate remedy.

However, the position was completely different with regard to a Framework Agreement. The Framework consists of the pre-selection of certain economic operators who will be allowed to bid, without competition from parties outside the Framework, for specific contracts during the life time of the Framework. Therefore the Department had not made an promises to the economic operators under the Framework, and it had not yet, in fact, awarded any specific contracts.

The court considered but dismissed the suggestion that the Department would be at risk of significant litigation from the five successful economic operators if the tender had to be re-run. Whilst they may not succeed the second time, the fact was that the first procedure was conducted unlawfully. Therefore they had not lost anything to which they were lawfully entitled. If in fact they were the best economic operators under the Framework Agreement, it is likely that they would succeed on a re-run of the Framework Agreement procedure. If they did not it was because the second procedure was fairer and more transparent than the first.

The position was less clear-cut with regard to M & H's preferred remedy - adding it as a sixth economic operator to the Framework Agreement. In that event the work available to the other five economic operators would be diluted to the extent of having an additional competitor. An additional competitor was as it happened consistent with the strong aim of encouraging competition in community law. But the successful parties had entered into a procedure by which they were selected as one of only five economic contractors eligible for this substantial quantum of work over the next four years. Thus the likelihood of the successful tenderers being able to take action against the Department was not "beyond the bounds of possibility".

Judge Deeny said that the aim of the court was to achieve fairness and transparency according to law. The setting aside of the decision would, in all likelihood, lead to a rerun of the Framework Agreement competition. It would be rerun in the more transparent way indicated by the court. That would be in the public interest to secure the tenderers who would be most economically advantageous to the public. If M & H was right it may well improve its performance but if it does not, as above, the fairer new procedure should lead to the five best tenderers succeeding, whether or not they are in the present top five or six.

There was no legal precedent for the proposal that the Judge here should simply add M & H to the list of contractors. As we have seen, Silber J proposed it in the Newham case. However, ultimately the court here felt that to insert M & H into the Framework, whilst it could be done, it could only be done by a "somewhat strained" interpretation of the legislation. On the other hand the Judge was entirely satisfied that the court had the power to set aside the decision to enter into a Framework Agreement with five parties but excluding M & H.

The Department submitted that that the proper remedy here was one of damages. The issue before the Judge was which is the most appropriate remedy to grant? The assessment of the loss of profits might well have to wait for some time, perhaps years, to allow the court to make a reasonable estimate of the profits which the successful economic operators enjoyed from the Framework Agreement. This was in the view of the Judge clearly not ideal. The profits of the economic operators who were given contracts under the Framework Agreement (or who are not) would not necessarily be publicly available, particularly as they applied to each contract. Indeed as some of these contracts were likely to be of a very substantial nature it may take years for them to work out before one would know what profit, if any, the economic operator made out of a particular contract.

The Judge was faced with a difficult decision. accepted that the appropriate way to proceed on any assessment of those damages would be on the basis of the loss of chance principles. However, reliably fixing the value of that percentage loss of chance would take time, face difficulties and be costly. This lead the Judge to conclude that whilst the Department was entitled to maintain that damages could be an adequate remedy, in his view they were an inferior remedy here to that of setting aside the Framework Agreement. Judge Deeny concluded that:

I say that not only for the reasons set out above but for public policy reasons. At the present time there is a question mark over whether the best five economic operators were selected under this Framework Agreement. Given that some £800m of works are said by the Department to be at stake here it must be in the public interest to try and ensure that the best five, whether or not that includes the plaintiff, are in fact selected. Secondly it cannot be in the public interest for the public to pay for these new buildings and to pay the plaintiff again a percentage of the profits of the contractor who actually builds the new buildings. That is in the most literal sense of the word a waste of money. It may be that in some circumstances there is no alternative to such an award being made, but where, as here, there is a much better alternative I consider it preferable to opt for it.

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.

Jeremy Glover
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.