This case provides a reminder to contracting authorities that whilst the bar for an award of damages in procurement cases is high, following the Supreme Court ruling in Energy Solutions EU Ltd v Nuclear Decommissioning Authority [2017] 1 WLR 1373, it is not insurmountable when a contracting authority has acted with disregard to the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCRs). There is also further guidance as to the use of frameworks
The High Court has recently handed down its judgment in the case of Consultant Connect Limited v NHS Bath and North East Somerset, Swindon and Wiltshire Integrated Care Board, NHS Gloucestershire Integrated Care Board, NHS Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire Integrated Care Board v Monmedical Limited (t/a Cinapsis) [2022] EWHC 2037 (TCC) and it provides a reminder to contracting authorities that whilst the bar for an award of damages in procurement cases is high, following the Supreme Court ruling in Energy Solutions EU Ltd v Nuclear Decommissioning Authority [2017] 1 WLR 1373, it is not insurmountable when a contracting authority has acted with disregard to the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCRs).
Not only this, but it also raises some novel points in relation to standing and some further guidance as to the use of frameworks.
Consultant Connect (CC) is a provider of electronic communication services to NHS bodies. The defendants were NHS clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). They ran a joint procurement for a contract to provide “advice and guidance” services. Following a product demonstration event at which the CCGs scored CC’s and Cinapsis’ products against undisclosed criteria, the CCGs decided to award the contract using the “Clinical Communications Tools for NHS Trusts” Framework (the Framework), which CC was not a member of. The CCGs then conducted a mini-competition under the Framework but only invited a bid from Cinapsis, and no other parties, and also substantially negotiated particular terms of the contract (particularly with regard to pricing) away from what was set out in the Framework.
The key issues for determination by the Court were:
The Court ruled that, notwithstanding the fact that CC was not on the Framework, it still had standing to bring the challenge. The Court concluded that the structure of the PCRs did not rule out claims by a non-member of the relevant framework if the facts showed that the contract award breached a relevant duty owed to them and that the non-member risked suffering a loss.
The Court did clarify that normally a non-member of a framework will not be able to satisfy the causation of loss test in Regulation 91(1). If the entire exercise is carried out within the parameters of the relevant framework agreement, the parties most likely to be prejudiced and in a position to claim are disappointed framework members. Non-membership of the framework will often be a complete answer to a claim on the evidence, but it is not a legal bar creating a lack of "standing" to bring a claim.
In this particular case, the Court went on to conclude that there had been several breaches of duty by the CCGs which resulted in CC being able to satisfy the Regulation 91(1) causation of loss test, notwithstanding it not being a Framework member.
The Courts rationale is detailed and very fact focused in terms of evaluating the procedure used by the CCGs and determining specific issues relating to the procurement. However, the conclusion was that the use of the Framework did breach the PCRs. In essence, the Court held that Cinapsis was clearly favoured through the procurement process via the product demonstration day and the drafting of the specification, which was crafted so that Cinapsis could meet it. The Framework was then used by the CCGs “as a shield to justify the exclusion of CC and others”. The Court also looked at how the CCGs conducted the procurement process under the Framework as further evidence that it was being used as a mechanism in order to illegally directly award the contract to Cinapsis (see issue 3 below for more details).
Again, the Court concluded that the CCGs’ conduct in running the mini-competition under the Framework breached the PCRs; in particular, Regulation 33. Several reasons were pointed to, the main ones being:
The Court awarded a variety of different remedies due to the severity of the CCGs’ conduct. It awarded an order shortening the contract between the CCGs and Cinapsis to allow the CCGs to conduct a lawful procurement (this is the first time this remedy has been given in English courts). It also ordered the CCGs to pay civil penalties to the Minister for the Cabinet Office as a result of the breach. Finally, it also held that the breaches gave rise to a claim for damages on loss of chance principles and were sufficiently serious to justify an award of damages.
The Court did, however, stop short of issuing a declaration of ineffectiveness (instead imposing the contract shortening order and the financial penalties) due to the “overriding reasons relating to a general interest requiring that the effects of the contract should be maintained” (this is outlined in Regulation 100 of the PCRs, and states that if the Court believes this is satisfied, then it must not make a declaration of ineffectiveness). The reasoning for this was that stopping the A and G service being provided under the contract would adversely affect patient care and cause disruption to hospital admission decisions.
As well as providing useful guidance on standing to bring procurement challenges and being a novel case when it comes to the remedies applied by the Court, this case serves as a welcome reminder to contracting authorities that procuring under framework agreements does not give rise to a cast-iron defensible procurement position. It is still necessary to follow the PCRs and to abide by the terms of those frameworks in order to be protected. Where you wish to depart from the terms of a framework during a mini-competition process, you should have careful regard to the scope of the proposed changes to ensure they fall on the right side of the line and are seen as more precisely-formulated terms, rather than substantial modifications.
Associate
karl.edwards@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)3300452997
The BMA is advising all NHS / HSCNI consultants to ensure extra-contractual work is paid at the BMA minimum recommended rate and to decline offers of extra-contractual work that doesn't value them appropriately.
In ‘failure to remove’ claims, the claimant alleges abuse in the family home and asserts that the local authority should have known about the abuse and/or that they should have removed the claimant from the family home and into care earlier.
NHS England has published (October 2022) new guidance - Assuring and supporting complex change: Statutory transactions, including mergers and acquisitions.
NHS England has issued an updated (publication 11 October 2022) suite of Complex Change guidance about how it will assure and support proposals for complex change that are reportable to it. New and (where it is still in force) existing Complex Change guidance are as follows.
Created at the end of the Brexit transition period, Retained EU Law is a category of domestic law that consists of EU-derived legislation retained in our domestic legal framework by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This was never intended to be a permanent arrangement as parliament promised to deal with retained EU law through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (the “Bill”).
It is clear that the digital landscape, often termed cyberspace, is a man-made environment, in which human behaviour dominates and where technology both influences and aids our role in it — through the internet, telecoms and networked computer systems, which are often interdependent. The extent to which any organisation is potentially vulnerable to cyber-attack depends on how well these elements are aligned.
In Mogane v Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether it was fair to dismiss a nurse as redundant on the basis that that her fixed-term contract was due to expire before that of her colleague.
Three months on from the commencement of the new statutory Integrated Care Systems (ICS) Anja Beriro and Gerrard Hanratty reflect on the main themes and issues that have come from the new relationship between local government and health.
The majority of people do not feel the need to embellish their CV to get that coveted position and move on up the career ladder. Their worthiness and benefit to the hiring organisation are easily demonstrated through the recruitment process – application, psychometric testing, selection day or interview.
On Saturday 15 October a wave of light swept the internet when thousands of people flooded social media with pictures of candles to remember the babies that they have lost. This event signifies the end of Baby Loss Awareness Week which aims to break the silence that is associated with baby loss in pregnancy and infancy.
The Coronavirus Act 2020 allowed any registered medical practitioner to sign a medical certificate of cause of death (“MCCD”), even if the deceased was not attended to during his or her last illness and not seen after death, provided that the medical practitioner could state the cause of death to the best of their knowledge and belief.
