procurement management - mason hayes & curran...procurement management @mhclawyers wednesday, 11...
TRANSCRIPT
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: [email protected]
@mhclawyers
32
Thank you For any queries on upcoming events, please contact [email protected] @mhclawyers