Chloe Harrison, da equipe do setor de saúde de Harrison Drury, analisa um caso recente em que dois NHS confiam em uma decisão do Conselho do Condado de conceder um contrato de serviço de serviços de subsídios para outro fornecedor. Transparente.
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?
Em 29 de setembro de 2017, o Conselho publicou um anúncio para o contrato de serviços de enfermagem e as ofertas do contrato foram feitas pelo NHS Lancashire Care, Blackpool Ension e Virgin Care. Os avaliadores, em folhas de pontuação individuais, e depois foram deliberados durante uma reunião de moderação na qual discutiram cada pergunta e decidiram uma pontuação de consenso, acordada por todos os avaliadores. Pergunta. Como o conselho confiou a eles para estabelecer as razões escritas para as decisões do avaliador. o que pode resultar na decisão de uma autoridade contratante sendo anulada. Isso inclui conselhos sobre questões regulatórias e disciplinares, conselhos sobre resolução de disputas, serviços corporativos e comerciais, consultoria de propriedades e consultoria de direito de trabalho. Para falar com um membro do nosso contato com a equipe de saúde
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 ou ligue para 01772 258321.
