Procurement Management @mhclawyers Wednesday, 11 November 2015

Welcome Catherine Allen Partner, Public & Administrative Law

Speakers and topics

Brian Murray Senior Counsel Topic – When procurement goes wrong Robert McDonagh Partner, Commercial Topic – Why procurement goes wrong

When procurement goes wrong Brian Murray Senior Counsel

• The provision of adequate reasons

• The importance of a complete debrief

5

Avoiding litigation

• Commercial Court

• Lifting the suspension

• Security for costs

• Raising the time bar

• Striking out part of the claim

6

The initiation of Court proceedings

• Preparing affidavits

• Instruction of technical experts

7

The formulation of the authority’s response

• Relevance of discovery to pleading the case

• Privilege

• Discovery of confidential information

8

Discovery

• Format

• Cross examination of deponents

9

The hearing

• Damages

• Injunctive relief

• Declaring contract ineffective

10

Remedies

Why procurement goes wrong

Robert McDonagh Partner, Commercial Mason Hayes & Curran

• No procurement / misclassification

• Procedural breach of legislation

• Unlawful requirements or evaluation criteria

• Failure to do what tender documents say

• Unlawful clarifications / amendments

• Breach of EU principles

• Merits

12

How to challenge a tender

• Time is normally on the contracting authority’s side

• strategic disclosures can be used to deal with thorny issues

• tight timelines can result in higher risk of challenge if don’t

take steps to calm things down

• But not always: Forum Connemara

13

Time is important

• Minimum pre-qual. pass / fail requirements

• proportionate (2 * contract value?)

• non-discriminatory

• clear and unambigous (e.g. timeline)

• Performance requirements / spec

• make clear what is and is not mandatory

• neutral / “or equivalent”

• non-discriminatory: local performance requirements: Grupo

Hospitalario (C-552/13)

14

Requirements

• Distinction between selection and award

• past vs future

• When looking at experience at award stage:

• limit to tender team?

• link to quality

• don’t evaluate at pre-qualification?

Ambisig C-601/13

15

Evaluation criteria: selection vs award

• Make sure:

• capable of one meaning only: Clinton

• no overlap between criteria

• Better to weight sub-criteria etc

• Use marking scheme for consistency

16

Evaluation criteria

• Don’t award marks for meeting:

• mandatory specification

• other minimum requirements

• Evaluate price in framework competition

• Disclose price formula

• how many decimals?

• exclude non-compliant tenders

17

Evaluation criteria

• Specific question for each specific criterion

• Don’t ask for irrelevant information

• Remember: misapplication may only become apparent at

debrief

18

Evaluation criteria

• Criteria not related to what you’re buying

• Discriminatory

• Not capable of verification – Public Interest Lawyers / EVN

• Unfettered choice

19

Evaluation: unlawful criteria

• No general duty to clarify: SAG

• Correction or amplification permitted:

• on a limited and specific basis - exceptional

• particularly if clear require mere clarification or to correct

obvious material errors

SAG (C-599/10)

• Particulars / information (e.g. published balance sheet) that

pre-date deadline: Manova C-336/12

20

Clarifications permitted

• Cannot be made until looked at all tenders

• Sent in equivalent manner to all tenderers in same situation

• Cover all sections which require clarification

• Must not lead to what is in reality a new tender

21

Clarifications

• Prohibited if :

• tender is imprecise or doesn’t meet tech. requirements

• tender provides omission will result in exclusion

• tender contains deliberate qualification?

SAG / CEM Ambiente (C-42/13) / Manova C-336/12 / Turning Point / Clinton

• Cannot disregard mandatory requirements even in

negotiated procedure: Nordecon C-561/12

22

Clarifications prohibited

• Duty to clarify if:

• error is clear

• error known to contracting authority

• correct content clear from tender

• error does not affect merits

Tideland (T-211/02) / Jones / Harrow I Adia Interim

• Possibly also where error due to contracting authority’s fault

• May arise in other cases

23

Clarifications required

• Difficult to apply in practice

• Be careful

• Generally safer not to clarify, but:

• not really practical

• not always!

• Draft broad right of clarification

• Act consistently

24

Clarifications

• Award marks based on:

• criteria

• tender submitted

• Record reasons contemporaneously

• Assume all records may be discovered

• Get no conflicts declaration: eVigilo (C-538/13)

• Do not introduce new weightings, sub-criteria etc

25

Evaluation – the evaluation

• Common cause of challenges

• Use comments from evaluation record

• Match comments to evaluation criteria (including sub-

criteria) and requirements

• Provide scores, narrative, winner’s name and standstill

• Price? Veloss T-667/11

• Double check before you send

• Written debrief preferable

26

Debrief

• Happens all the time, but no one knows!

• Future proof the contract

• right to extend

• options

• clear and precise change clause

• Strategic disclosure, VEAT or say nothing?

• Fastweb Case C-19/13

• Indemnity / right to terminate?

27

Contract changes

• Check tender terms

• Normally safer to reject, unless delay’s your fault

• Leadbitter / Azam

• Evropaïki Dynamiki (T-70/05 )

• BAM?

• Include clear instructions for submission

• e-tenders

• directions

28

Late tenders

• Handle with care!

29

Abnormally low tenders

• Think before you speak

• Get advice

• Act quickly but prudently

• Consider options, e.g.:

• better debrief / engagement

• terminate and re-run process / stage

• independent review

• Don’t sign contract without thinking first (right to terminate)

30

When things go wrong

31

Questions Questions

Robert McDonagh Partner Mason Hayes & Curran t: +353 1 614 5077 m: + 353 86 608 4964 e: rmcdonagh@mhc.ie

@mhclawyers

32

Thank you For any queries on upcoming events, please contact events@mhc.ie @mhclawyers