0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

security risk

9 January 2012

The risk of evaluating “irrelevant” information has been emphasised in the recent case of Resource v Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service (NICTS) [2011] a tender for security and other services. The unsuccessful bidder claimed that NICTS had evaluated the part of G4S’ proposal which was different from the criteria set out in the Statement of Requirements instead of disregarding it as “irrelevant”.

The court agreed with the applicant. Firstly, NICTS did not have good evidence recording their evaluation process which in general is very important. Secondly, it was clear that G4S’ alternative proposals were taken into account which meant G4S received preferential treatment. By giving weight to “irrelevant” information the panel had committed a serious and manifest error.

The court set the award procedure aside. This case highlights once again the importance of evaluation based solely on the information available to all potential bidders and to record clearly the manner in which the evaluation criteria were applied.

related opinions

IR35 changes - six months and counting...

In his 2018 Autumn Budget, the then Chancellor, Phillip Hammond, announced a significant change to the way liability for IR35 breaches will be dealt with for private sector companies from April 2020.

View blog

Marriott International: a look behind the ICO’s £99m fine and what this means for corporate acquisitions

Last month, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) announced notice of its intention to fine (NOI) Marriott International, Inc. £99m for infringements of the GDPR.

View blog

Supreme Court backs employers seeking to enforce restrictive covenants: Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd

The Supreme Court in Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd has determined that where post-termination restrictive covenants (i.e. “non-compete” clauses) in employment contracts go further than reasonably necessary to protect an employer’s business interests, it can apply the ‘blue pencil test,’ severing the offending words and leaving the remaining enforceable clause in place.

View blog

Watch this space on breach of contract, vicarious liability and assumption of responsibility

The concept of Assumption of Responsibility is on many stakeholders’ minds at the moment following the Supreme Court decision in CN & GN v Poole.

View blog

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up