In James West Management LLP v Essex County Council, James Waste Management LLP alleged that the variation of the existing awarded contract was beyond the narrow boundaries permitted by the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR). The High Court found that the modification of the Integrated Waste Handling Contract (IWHC) with Veolia did not constitute a substantial modification and was therefore permitted.
Facts of the case
Essex County Council (the Council) has statutory responsibilities for disposing of waste in its area and had contracted Veolia via an IWHC for a duration of eight years and five months with an option to extend for a further seven years. Veolia’s responsibilities included running the recycling centres for household waste, the waste transfer stations and the haulage of waste to treatment and disposal points such as landfill sites. The waste transfer stations were in five specific locations.
In June 2021, the Council signed a modified contract with Veolia whereby the latter would provide a processing service at a newly established waste transfer station outside of the Council-owned ones. Veolia would process the waste and transport it to the relevant landfill sites. This arrangement was set up for a 5 month period. The new waste transfer system in the modified contract would be implemented by a subcontractor to Veolia, who would charge a gate fee for processing the waste and milage for its haulage service. James Waste Management LLP challenged this arrangement on the basis that such a change was not a permissible modification in accordance with Regulation 72 of the PCR.
Regulation 72 of the PCR (the Regulation) sets out permitted modifications to contracts in the form of “safe harbours” whereby if such a modification falls into one of them a new procurement procedure is not required. It also provides that variations that are not “substantial”, regardless of their value, can be made without the need to follow a fresh procurement procedure (Regulation 72(1)(e)). The nature of what is substantial is set out in regulation 72 (8) as follows:
(8) A modification of a contract or a framework agreement during its term shall be considered substantial for the purposes of paragraph (1)(e) where one or more of the following conditions is met:—
(a)the modification renders the contract or the framework agreement materially different in character from the one initially concluded;
(b)the modification introduces conditions which, had they been part of the initial procurement procedure, would have—
(i)allowed for the admission of other candidates than those initially selected,
(ii)allowed for the acceptance of a tender other than that originally accepted, or
(iii)attracted additional participants in the procurement procedure;
(c)the modification changes the economic balance of the contract or the framework agreement in favour of the contractor in a manner which was not provided for in the initial contract or framework agreement;
(d)the modification extends the scope of the contract or framework agreement considerably;
(e)a new contractor replaces the one to which the contracting authority had initially awarded the contract in cases other than those provided for in paragraph (1)(d)
The decision
Justice Waksman reviewed the different elements that render a modification a substantial one and considered whether they were applicable to this case.
1. Material different in character
It was not accepted that the running of the new waste transfer station, its fee structure nor its geographical location, although different to the other previously established sites, indicated a material difference in character. Additionally, it was found that these modifications were only for a short time period of 5 months, and were relative to the duration of the IWHC as a whole. Justice Waksman also considered the estimate cost of the modification and found that an increase in price of 0.81% of the total cost was insufficient to render the contract materially different in character.
2. Extended the scope considerably
Justice Waksman disagreed with James Waste Management LLP's argument that any extension which has a value of more than or not much more than the operative threshold in the PCR is enough to qualify a modification as extending the scope. He also used a common-sense approach to the term ‘considerably’ to find that, as the modification did not materially impact the character of the agreement, there were insufficient grounds to find that the modification considerably extended the scope of the contract.
3. A different tender
James Waste Management LLP would have needed to demonstrate that had the modification introduced conditions which were part of the initial procurement procedure, this would have allowed for the acceptance of a tender other than originally accepted, or attracted additional participants in the procurement procedure. It was found that on the balance of probabilities that this would not have been the case, especially given that the modification was insignificant in comparison with the contract as a whole.
4. Change of economic balance
For this argument to succeed, the modification would have needed to change the economic balance of the contract in favour of the contractor in a manner not provided for in the initial contract. Justice Waksman adopted a two stage approach:
- Was there a change to the economic balance of the contract in favour of the contractor?
- If there was, was it such a change that was or was not provided for in the initial contract?
It was found that no positive evidence was presented of uncompetitive in Veolia’s prices and it was not demonstrated that the economic balance of the IHWC had advanced towards Veolia.
Therefore, the modification did not amount to a substantial one and was not in breach of procurement law.
Why is this case important for contracting authorities?
This judgement gives contracting authorities further guidance on the application of Regulation 72 and when a modification to contracts is permissible without the need for a new procurement process. An emphasis was placed on the relatively minor scale of the modifications and contracting authorities should strive to keep changes to the minimum required and ensure they are reasonable and commercial.
You may be interested in...
Legal Update - Procurement Act
Procurement Bill: Competitive flexible procedure, how will this work in practice?
Legal Update - Procurement Act
Procurement Bill - Are they still playing ping-pong?
Legal Update
Wales Infrastructure Bill: Unified process for significant infrastructure projects?
Legal Update
PPN 08/23: using standard contracts
Published Article
Kick-starting the UK hydrogen economy
Legal Update
What are we to do about self reporting in PFI contracts?
Legal Update
Guidance on contract changes: James Waste Management LLP v Essex County Council
Article
Challenging procurement decisions by way of Judicial Review - the key principles
Published Article
Amendments to Procurement Bill: Navigating sanctions and supplier bans and impact on the construction sector
On-Demand
'Getting ready to reform – preparing for the new Procurement Bill' webinar
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advise London borough councils on key social infrastructure PFI deal for streetlighting in Croydon and Lewisham
Legal Update
Retirement housing: A solution to our care and housing crises?
Legal Update
Back in the (Investment) Zone… sort of
Legal Update
A new era of opportunity for high street regeneration?
Legal Update
HMRC change to VAT treatment of local authorities and leisure services
Guide
Devolution: a catalyst for long-term, positive change in local communities
Legal Update - Procurement Act
Procurement Bill debarment regime and ECHR issues
Published Article
Digital Twin Technologies: key legal contractual considerations
Guide - Procurement Act
Public procurement: key facts and compliance considerations
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s real estate specialists advise Chesterfield Borough Council on prestigious new development - One Waterside Place
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advise High Peak Borough Council on future high street funded acquisition as part of Buxton regeneration vision
Published Article
Reaching cloud nine? Public procurement for cloud-based services
Published Article
How the Environment Act affects existing contracts’
Legal Update
Updated Greening Government Commitments 2021 – 2025 published
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advises Bromley Council on the first social housing initiative of its kind to tackle homelessness
Opinion - Procurement Act
Procurement Bill - what’s new in 2022?
Published Article
The role of Legal Project Management in public sector projects
The concept of Legal Project Management (“LPM”) is increasingly relevant to the delivery of legal services, both in-house functions and private practice law. This is unsurprising, LPM is crucial if lawyers are to add value by controlling budgets, communicate pro-actively on risk mitigation and costs, and manage time by resourcing to deal with pinch points in the project.
Legal Update
Regeneration funding: Securing Compulsory Purchase Orders in the face of escalating building costs
The focus on the Levelling Up agenda and the availability of grant funding, means there are numerous important regeneration schemes actively being pursued across the country. With ever-escalating project and building costs, in many cases, applications that were made for grant funding were based on costs contingencies that have already been exceeded.
Published Article
Levelling up – the role of public and private partnerships
With aims to level up the UK, and ensure that everyone has the opportunity to flourish, public and private partnerships will be critical success factor. In this article, we look at the role that private finance can play in the performance of a local area and how it might link to regeneration. We also consider the role of central government and regional mayors.
Legal Update - Procurement Act
The Procurement Bill - selection, exclusion, conflict of interests and debarment
Legal Update
The Race to Net Zero: Commercial and Legal Considerations
This article covers, at a high level, some of the legal issues that arise in the lifecycle of the innovation and deployment of new technology within the energy sector. It is not intended to be a comprehensive account of all legal aspects.
Legal Update - Procurement Act
Public procurement: Plus ça change, plus c’est la même choses
Legal Update
Agile contracting in Government
The key benefits and pitfalls for agile software contracting, and recommendations for government bodies.
Legal Update
R (Good Law Project) v Minister for the Cabinet Office [2022] EWCA Civ 21
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s government & infrastructure lawyers advise on first South West based green hydrogen production project
Browne Jacobson’s specialist government and infrastructure team have advised Canford Renewable Energy Ltd on the delivery of its Dorset Green H2 facility.
Legal Update
Exclusion grounds under the new procurement regime
A range of questions were subject to consultation on the grounds for excluding bidders from a procurement process. We consider some of the key proposals which will be taken forward in the new regime.
Published Article
Post COP26 – where now for local government and net zero?
Laura Hughes sets out the key points for local authorities following the conclusion of COP26 in Glasgow.
Published Article
Transforming public procurement – the road to flexibility?
Legal Update
Waste is only waste if we waste it*
This article looks at the impact of Part 3 of the Environment Act 2021 on waste collection authorities, including measures to reduce packaging waste, to encourage re-use and recycling and changes to the way waste will be collected.
Legal Update
Long Read: Transforming Public Procurement: Government Response to Consultation
We review in detail the key highlights from the responses.