Bid for tenders online dating
The claimant, who was also the incumbent provider, emerged from the evaluation as the most economically advantageous tender, according to the stated award criteria.
In rejecting its tender, the Mo D acted unlawfully in breach of its obligations of transparency and equal treatment.The claimant commenced the claim prior to the award of the contract to the second-placed bidder, which suspended the award process pending legal proceedings.The claimant argued (amongst other things) that the ITT did not state, or at least was ambiguous as to, the consequence of a "fail" score in respect of Question 6.3.Or, on the other hand, as Mo D argued, was it a reasonable expectation that tenderers looking at the ITT should have “put two and two together” and realised that exclusion would be logical consequence of a failure on question 6.3?
The judge considered some of the leading cases in this area, in particular the cases.
The case highlights to contracting authorities the risks of ambiguity in the evaluation methodology and need for the evaluation criteria to make it absolutely and explicitly clear where a “fail” result will lead to rejection of the bid.