Search

How can we help?

Icon

Does failing a pass/fail question = disqualification?

Shortly before Christmas the judgment in the case of MLS (Overseas) Ltd v The Secretary of State for Defence [2017] EWHC 3389 TCC was released, containing important lessons for bidders and contracting authorities involved in public procurement.

The Ministry of Defence tendered a contract worth around £385m for the provision of port, maritime and logistical support services to the Royal Navy. The tender was subject to the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011, which impose duties on contracting authorities to treat bidders equally, and to act transparently and proportionately. Identical duties are also contained in the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, which govern the procurement of many other contracts outside of the defence sector.

MLS was the incumbent provider of the services and submitted a tender. The contract award notice sent to MLS noted that its bid had scored the highest mark for the technical/quality section of the tender, and that MLS had also offered the lowest price. It would therefore have won the tender, had its bid not been disqualified because it had not passed a pass/fail question on providing evidence of safety in its supply chain. As a result of MLS’s disqualification, the MoD therefore intended to award the contract to the next highest bidder.

MLS challenged the decision on a number of grounds, including on the basis that the Invitation to Tender (ITT) issued by the MoD had not made it clear that a fail on the supply chain safety question would result in disqualification.

This case should act as a warning to contracting authorities that tender documents must be absolutely clear and unambiguous to avoid the risk of challenge by a bidder.

The Court agreed with MLS, and noted that in relation to other pass/fail questions, the ITT explicitly stated (in bold type) that failing to meet the requirement would result in disqualification. A drafting error by the MoD meant that this warning was not included on the section of the ITT which included the supply chain safety question. The Court concluded that it was not possible for a reasonable tenderer to determine from the ITT that failing the supply chain safety question would (or may) lead to disqualification, and as such the MoD was in breach of its duties of equal treatment and transparency, and its decision to disqualify MLS and award the contract to the next highest bidder was unlawful.

This case should act as a warning to contracting authorities that tender documents must be absolutely clear and unambiguous to avoid the risk of challenge by a bidder. In all cases where failure to meet a mandatory requirement will or may lead to disqualification, this should be flagged up to bidders in the ITT.

About this article

Disclaimer
This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

Pub
  • 07 February 2025
  • Corporate and M&A

Talk & Golf : Thinking of Exiting your Business?

Join Stuart Mullins, Partner at Clarkslegal, and Nicky Goringe Larkin, Managing Director at Succession Planning, for a morning breakfast talk on preparing your business for exit, followed by a round of golf at the Eyston Course at Caversham Golf Club.

art
  • 06 February 2025
  • Privacy and Data Protection

Cookies and Consent: the ICO’s Cookie Review

In the digital age, cookies play a crucial role in how websites operate and interact with users.

art
  • 05 February 2025
  • Corporate and M&A

Growing Pains for Businesses

This thought piece considers some of the key issues and pain points facing a business planning to scale up

art
  • 03 February 2025
  • Employment

Indirect discrimination: How mandated office returns could discriminate against working mothers

In this article though, we will focus on one of the biggest potential hurdles, and the one that is garnering the most media attention and the most criticism. Is a return to work policy discriminatory on grounds of sex?

art
  • 24 January 2025
  • Privacy and Data Protection

UK Data Protection: A look back at 2024 and what to expect in 2025

On 15 January 2025, Louise Keenan and Shauna Jones hosted our webinar “UK Data Protection: what happened in 2024 and what’s in store for 2025.” Our webinar is available for you to watch, but in this article, we will provide a brief summary of what was discussed.

art
  • 22 January 2025
  • Corporate and M&A

Deal Announcement: Clarkslegal’s Corporate team advise founder on exit from Bristol based hospitality business

Clarkslegal is pleased to have advised the exiting shareholder and director of a hospitality business in the South West on the sale of their shareholding and termination of their employment.