Skip to main content
Get in touch
  • Get in touch or find your nearest office

  • Preston Office
    1a Chapel Street Winckley Square PR1 8BU
  • Clitheroe Office
    21 Church Street Clitheroe BB7 2DG
  • Lancaster Office
    21 Castle Hill Lancaster LA1 1YN
  • Kendal Office
    Bridge Mills, Stramongate Kendal LA9 4BD
  • Garstang Office
    Cherestanc Square, Rope Walk Garstang Preston PR3 1EF

Request a call back



Healthcare tender dispute shows need for greater transparency

Share

Chloe Harrison, of Harrison Drury’s Healthcare Sector team, looks at a recent case in which two NHS trusts contested a county council decision to award a nursing services contract to another provider.

A successful action brought by two NHS Foundation Trusts provides a stark reminder to local authorities to ensure decision-making in respect of public contracts remains consistent and transparent.

Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust and Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust were successful in their application to the High Court in November, under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, in setting aside the public health nursing services contract awarded to Virgin Care by Lancashire County Council.

What happened in this case?

On 29 September 2017, the council published an advertisement for the nursing services contract and bids for the contract were made by NHS Lancashire Care, Blackpool Teaching and Virgin Care.

The terms of the competition set out the evaluation criteria for the contract which was divided into two sections, and each contained several questions carrying different weights.

The bids were assessed by a panel of evaluators, on individual score sheets, and then were deliberated during a moderation meeting in which they discussed each question and decided a consensus score, agreed by all the evaluators.

Why was the decision contested?

The trusts argued that the council was unable to articulate any consensus reasons for the scores for four out of the 14 questions and could not establish a complete and accurate account of the consensus reasons for any question.

The judgment held that the reasons given by the local authority were insufficient in law as they failed to abide by the principle of providing a full, transparent and fair summary of their reasoning.

What are the lessons for organisations running a tendering process?

Whilst there is no obligation for councils to disclose the notes of the mediation, they were held as being relevant in this case as the council relied upon them for setting out the written reasons for the evaluator’s decisions.

This case highlights the importance of taking a consistent approach to evaluation and ensuring that bidders receive clear rationale as to why they were unsuccessful.

Additionally, where the reasons provided are inadequate and deliberation is poorly recorded, this may constitute a sufficient material breach to the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 which could result in a contracting authority’s decision being set aside.

Harrison Drury’s Healthcare sector team provides a wide range of legal services to organisations, businesses and individuals in the healthcare sector. This includes advice on regulatory and disciplinary matters, dispute resolution advice, corporate and commercial services, property advice and employment law advice. To speak to a member of our healthcare team contact Chloe or call 01772 258321.


Questions & Answers

Leave a Comment

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


x

Manage your privacy

How we handle your personal data

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) gives you more control over how companies like ours use your personal information and makes it quicker and easier for you to check and update the information we hold about you.

As part of our service to you, we will continue to collect, use, store and share your data safely and securely. This doesn’t require any action on your part.

For more detailed information view our Privacy Hub