The government has announced that the second of two frameworks recently set aside by the courts will not be retendered (for our Law-Now on the judgment click here). Instead, the £650m of schools modernisation work will be procured by individual contracts to try to make up for the two years lost in setting up the failed framework. Where does this leave matters?
- The public procurement rules must still be satisfied for the individual contracts. The government considers their procurement will be faster than a framework (although overall this approach may cost more).
- It is too early to say whether this represents a governmental shift against publicly procured frameworks given the relative ease with which, when incorrectly procured, they may be set aside even once executed (in contrast with other incorrectly procured, but executed, contracts for works).
- The five call-off contracts already awarded under the framework (which unlike the framework itself could not be - and were not - set aside) will continue.
- The aggrieved bidder that successfully challenged the framework is understood to be seeking damages from the government. In addition, the bidders who were originally awarded places on the framework may obtain damages, including for their lost opportunity to profit from future call-off contracts. The speculative nature of that claim (given that no call-offs are promised to any particular framework member) might be reduced if they pursue a group action.
It remains to be seen if the government will abandon the other framework set aside by the courts late last year (for our Law-Now on the judgment click here).
This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to www.law-now.com/law-now/mondaq
Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.
The original publication date for this article was 27/01/2009.