Local Government Lawyer Home Page


Sharpe Edge Webpage Banner

Welcome to Sharpe Edge, Sharpe Pritchard’s local government legal hub on Local Government Lawyer.

Sharpe Edge features news, views and analysis from our team of specialist local government lawyers working at the heart of the latest legal developments. Sharpe Edge platform is also the only place where local government lawyers can get e-access to two law books by our Head of Local Government Rob Hann: The Guide to Local Authority Charging and Trading Powers (‘LACAT’) and The Guide to Local Authority Companies and Partnerships (‘LACAP’).

 

                                                                                                  

Slide background

Automatic suspension and withdrawal of the decision to award

Colin Ricciardello examines a recent case where an authority sought to end an automatic contract making suspension by withdrawal of the decision to award the contract.

The coming together of these two elements in the procurement of public contracts under The Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (“PCR” ) was recently considered in Aquila Heywood Ltd v. Local Pensions Partnership Administration Ltd [2021] EWHC 114 (TCC). This decision is likely to remain relevant after the PCR rides into the sunset as the recently published Green Paper proposes to keep the automatic suspension [1].

This judgment provides definitive authority that where an award decision is challenged by proceedings (and the PCR Regulation 95 (1) automatic suspension applies), and that decision is then withdrawn, the automatic suspension also comes to an end.

Background

The Defendant, The Local Pensions Partnership Administration Ltd (“LPPA”), administers local authority pensions schemes and it undertook an IT call off procurement under a framework agreement. The Claimant (“Aquila”) submitted a tender and at the conclusion of the procurement in September 2020 LPPA informed Aquila that: it had been unsuccessful ; the successful tenderer was Civica – “the first award decision”.

Because the contract was awarded under a framework LPPA was exempt from sending a Regulation 86 award decision notice (PCR Regulation 86(5) (c)). That exempts the requirement to give a standstill statement under PCR Regulation 86(2) (d) and observing the standstill requirements under PCR Regulation 87. However, LPPA volunteered to observe the standstill period.

Aquila was dissatisfied with the first award decision and on 2 October 2020 issued proceedings whilst the standstill period was running. LPPA made a concession on 14 October 2020 that mistakes had been made in the evaluation and that proper records of the evaluation process had not been made by LPPA. It accordingly decided to withdraw the first award decision and rewind the procurement by re- evaluating the tenders. LPPA served and filed its defence on 6 November 2020 and pleaded that the first award decision had been withdrawn, was ineffectual and made the whole claim academic. [2]

The evaluation undertaken in the rewound procurement led to LPPA again awarding the contract to Civica. Notice of that of decision (“the second award decision”) was given on 8 December 2020 in which LPPA again agreed to observe a ten-day standstill period.

LPPA believed that the automatic contract making suspension (arising out of the proceedings commenced in respect of the first award decision) was still in force and sought Aquila’s agreement to end the suspension on 10 December 2020. Aquila’s Calderbank reply was to offer to discontinue its claim if LPPA paid its costs – on a discontinuance of the claim the suspension would have fallen away under Regulation 95(2)(b). The response did not address the ending of the suspension request, there was no agreement and so LPPA issued an application under PCR 96(1) (a) to end the Regulation 95(1) automatic contract making suspension. Aquila did not oppose LPPA’s application to end the suspension so the argument before the Judge was about costs and that in turn depended on: LPPA’s argument that its application was successful; and Aquila’s arguments that: the application to end the suspension was misconceived as the contract making suspension arising out of the claim in respect of the first award decision did not apply to the second award decision; there was no suspension in framework awards because of the exemption in Regulation 86 (1).

The Judgment

The automatic contract making suspension provision at PCR Regulation 95(1) is triggered when: (a) a claim form has been issued “…in respect of a contracting authority’s decision to award a contract”; (b) the contracting authority becomes aware that a claim form has been issued; (c) the contract has not been entered into.

The requirement to refrain from entering into the contract continues until any of the circumstances in PCR Regulation 95(2) occur, namely (a) the Court brings it to an end on an application to do so under 95(1) (a); (b) the claim is determined at first instance, discontinued or otherwise disposed and no order to extend the requirement to refrain has been made.

The Judge decided he must construe PCR Regulation  95 by reference to its underlying purpose and interpreting its actual words in a way which best gives effect that purpose [paragraph 15]. He held that the purpose of the suspension was to prevent the contracting authority from implementing the challenged decision by entering into a contract before any of the Regulation 95(2) circumstances have occurred – namely an application to end the suspension is heard or the claim is determined. As to the meaning of the wording the Judge said: “… the natural reading of Regulation 95(1)…is that it prevents the contracting authority from entering into the contract pursuant to the challenged decision”. [paragraph 22].

Accordingly, with this purpose and construction the Judge concluded that the suspension only prevented LPPA from entering into a contract with Civica based on the first award decision – “Once that decision had been withdrawn and the bids re-evaluated, its served no further purpose. Where, as here, no challenge was pleaded to the second decision to award the contract either by way of fresh claim form or amendment to the initial proceedings, the contracting authority was not required to refrain from entering into a contract pursuant to the second decision. This was therefore an unnecessary application pursuant to regulation 96(1) (a). [Paragraph 25].

He swiftly dismissed the proposition that PCR Regulation 95 suspension was not engaged where the PCR framework exemption in PCR Regulation 86(5) (c) applied because: there was nothing in Regulation 95(1) which excluded it from the categories exempted in Regulation 86(1); the automatic suspension arises where the three conditions in PCR Regulation 95(1) were met; a contracting authority could elect to give a notice under Regulation 86(1); there was no reason in principle or policy why Regulation 95(1) should be construed as importing an additional requirement before it could apply to the exempt cases [paragraph 19].

Having decided that the PCR Regulation 96(1)(a) application was unnecessary, Aquila was held to be the successful party in the application to end the suspension. However, when it could, Aquila failed to agree to end the suspension and confirm that LPPA was free to enter into a contract with Civica. It withheld its agreement in order to secure a settlement on its costs liability on a discontinuance of the claim. It was also inconsistent over whether the suspension applied. That conduct was taken into account when the Judge only awarded Aquila half of its costs against LPPA.

Discussion

This judgment helpfully illuminates the scope of the Regulation 95(1) contract making suspension and the application of the standstill requirements where an exemption in Regulation 86(5) applies. It also provides useful guidance as to how to handle the automatic contract making suspension in cases where a decision is challenged by the commencement of proceedings and that decision is withdrawn. In these circumstances it would be prudent to try and agree in correspondence that the suspension is no longer in force – especially when the suspension does not end in cases where the claim is not discontinued because of the continuance of an accrued claim for damages (see Amey at footnote 2).

Colin Ricciardiello is a Partner at Sharpe Pritchard.

[1] However, Chapter 7 of Green Paper “Transforming Procurement” published on 15 December 2020 proposes to amend the test for ending an automatic suspension so it is no longer based on the American Cyanamid test for the grant of an injunction.

[2] Amey Highways Ltd v. West Sussex County Council [2019] EWHC 1291 however decided that a withdrawal of an award decision might not in itself defeat a claim for damages which accrued before the withdrawal of the decision challenged in the claim.

For further insight and resources on local government legal issues from Sharpe Pritchard, please visit the SharpeEdge page by clicking on the banner below.

sharpe edge 600x100

This article is for general awareness only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. The law may have changed since this page was first published. If you would like further advice and assistance in relation to any issue raised in this article, please contact us by telephone or email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

LACAT BookFREE download!

A Guide to Local Authority Charging and Trading Powers

Written and edited by Sharpe Pritchard’s Head of Local Government, Rob Hann,

A Guide to Local Authority Charging and Trading Powers covers:

• Updated charging powers compendium          • Commercial trading options

• Teckal ‘public to public’                                    • Localism Act

FREE DOWNLOAD

LACAT BookAvailable to buy:

A Guide to Local Authority Companies and Partnerships

An invaluable, comprehensive toolkit for lawyers, law firms and others advising
on or participating in Local Authority Companies and Partnerships”

- Local Authority Chief Executive

BUY NOW

  More Articles

Icons House

Thurrock Council & Another v Adams & Ors [2022] EWHC 1324 (QB)

William Rose, Partner at Sharpe Pritchard LLP, has successfully acted for Thurrock Council and Essex County Council in obtaining a ‘first of its kind’ injunction against individuals connected with the protest group Just Stop Oil.
Icons Date

The Adjudication Part 3: The Response and Further Submissions 9 June 2022

David Owens and James Goldthorpe look at the responding party's response and further submissions during adjudication.
Icons House

A renewable future: focusing energy solutions at a local level

Natasha Barlow and Steve Gummer discuss the 'Energy Trilemma' and how it is playing out at a local level.
Icons Date

Procurement Bill – Initial impressions from the first draft

Juli Lau and Sophie Mcfie-Hyland outline their initial impressions from the first draft of the Procurement Bill.
Icons Hazard

Let’s paint the town green! Government plans for green homes

Laura Campbell discusses the change urgently needed in towns and cities to make the landscape greener.
Icons House

The Queen’s Speech in Brief

The number of Bills which affect public sector clients is greater than usual – and the government have got straight off the starting blocks by publishing some of them already.
Icons Hazard

Refurbishment and Retrofitting: In with the old, out with the new!

Sharpe Pritchard analyse the challenge of decarbonising the construction sector.
Icons House

NET ZERO – What obligations are there on the UK to achieve it?

Radhika Devesher takes a look at the legal duty to achieve net-zero placed upon the UK.
Icons House

Championing green goals through public buying

Juli Lau considers how public purchasing power can be used to champion Net Zero goals, and how public procurement might be used as another driver for change.
Icons Hazard

Top Tips for Local Authority Lawyers advising on Data Protection Matters

Charlotte Smith and Hannah Peto set out some of their top tips to consider when advising on data protection matters.
Icons Court

The Cost of Freedom of Information – The Council’s Failure to Advise

Charlotte Smith and Nadia Ahmed summarise the case and judgement of Moss v Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames and another (NJ/2018/007).
Rob Hann Photoshop

Ask the Author

These are frequently asked questions to Rob Hann from colleagues in Local Government via the Sharpe Pritchard ‘Ask-the-Author' facility concerning the subject matter of his books on local authority companies, partnerships, charging and trading.
Icons Court

A call to review public contracts with Russian suppliers

Juli Lau and Gonzalo Puertas discuss the first official document to consider public sector contracts with companies linked to the Russian and Belarusian state regimes, issued by the Cabinet Office.
Icons Date

A New NEC Option to tackle greenwashing in the construction industry

Allan Owen and Sophie Drysdale discuss 'greenwashing' in the construction industry and a new secondary option clause X29 for its NEC4 suite of contracts developed by NEC.
Icons House

The Pathway to the Future – The Road Map for Employment Tribunals

David Leach discusses and outlines the road map of the planned changes for modernising the Tribunals in 2022 and 2023 released by The Presidents of the Employment Tribunals.
Icons House

Farrar Out

Clare Mendelle and James Goldthorpe discuss how the insolvency of Farrar Construction leads to clarity from the Courts on dealing with an insolvent contractor under JCT.
Icons House

The UK government has this week introduced the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill

Peter Collins and Sophie Pilcher discuss the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill introduced by the UK Government this week.
Icons Hazard

A sweet truth for selectivity

Steve Gummer and Gonzalo Puertas discuss a case that concerns an application for judicial review seeking to challenge a decision to introduce a zero-duty autonomous tariff quota (“ATQ”) of 260,000 metric tonnes of raw cane sugar for refining.
Icons House

Adjudication 101: Introduction and Overview

Michael Comba traces the origins of adjudication and considers why the process was introduced, who it is aimed towards and how construction contracts must include certain provisions.
Icons Date

New Government Guidance on PFI Expiry

Rob Hann, Head of Local Government at Sharpe Pritchard, takes a look at new guidance on PFI expiry recently published by the IPA to help public bodies wrestle with the complexities of transition they will face as these contracts reach full term.
Icons Hazard

Three new Levels to ‘level up’ Local Government in England?

Rob Hann, Sharpe Pritchard’s Head of local government, takes a look at the new proposals under the Government’s Levelling Up White Paper to facilitate devolution to remaining regions of local government in England which are currently without a Mayoral Combined Authority.
Icons Hazard

Will employers still be able to use the practice of ‘fire and rehire’ in 2022?

Christian Grierson and Julie Bann discuss a recent case in which the High Court has granted an injunction preventing Tesco from using the controversial employment practice of ‘fire and rehire’.
Icons Hazard

Progress on Climate Change action plans in Local Government

Stephen Cirell discusses the progress on climate change and renewable energy action plans within Local Government.
<a href=

Witches’ hats, sexist comments, and a £2 million pay-out

Julie Bann and Christian Grierson discuss a case in which a finance specialist has won over £2 million in compensation, after claims of sex discrimination and unequal pay.
Icons Hazard

Stuck in traffic?

High Court rules “VIP Lanes” For PPE contracts breached fundamental procurement law principles, in latest Judicial Review victory for the Good Law Project.
<a href=

Local Authority Sports and Leisure provision – Challenges Post-Covid19

With the unique circumstances posed by the Covid 19 pandemic and temporary closures of Council-sponsored sports and leisure facilities, Rob Hann, Sharpe Pritchard’s Head of Local Government outlines some of the challenges the sector faces.
<a href=

Bucking the Trend on Specific Performance Buckinghamshire Council v FCC Buckinghamshire Limited

Clare Mendelle and James Hughes highlight the wide definition of Third-Party Income and the measures the courts are prepared to take to enforce the terms of longstanding contracts, by analysing the Buckinghamshire Council v FCC Buckinghamshire Limited case.
<a href=

The Government’s response to the Transforming Public Procurement consultation: what will change and what will not?

Juli Lau, Colin Ricciardiello, Beth Edwards and Natasha Barlow analyse the Government’s response to the Transforming Public Procurement consultation.
<a href=

Momentum for Heat Network Roll Out Gathers Pace

Steve Gummer discusses the increased momentum for a Heat Network Rollout.
Icons Hazard

Unconscious Bias, Discrimination and a Warning to Public Sector Employers

Christian Grierson and Julie Bann discuss two employment tribunal judgements, which provide a stark warning to public sector employers about unconscious bias and discrimination.
Icons Hazard

Levelling up – A new opportunity for further devolution in England?

Rob Hann explores the Government's 'levelling up' policy and looks at whether it is an opportunity for further devolution in England.
Slide background