Gloves, Gowns and Masks – the PPE Judicial Reviews Procurement during a pandemic PresentedbyLauraBrealey

Partner,BevanBrittanLLP

26November2020

Introduction • BackgroundtothePPEJudicialReviews•  Thekeylegalissues• Howthoseissueshavebeendecidedatthepermissionstage

• Practicaltipstoreflectonwhenprocuringinurgentsituations

Background • March2020–thepandemic• Government“CoronavirusSupportfromBusinessScheme”• Pestfix,Clyndeborne,Ayandacontracts•  Thejudicialreviews–claimantsseekingadeclarationthattheawardofthecontractswasunlawfuland/oraquashingorder

• Permissiondecision–17November2020(Pestfix)

The legal issues in the case Issue Permissiongranted?

Standing Y

Limitation Y

Ground1–applicationofRegulation32(2)(c)PCR N

Ground2–applicationoftransparency,proportionalityprinciplesandwhethertheywerebreached

Y

Ground3–whethersufficientreasonsweregiven Y

Ground4–durationofthecontractandwhetheritwasproportionate

N

Ground5–whethertheawardwasirrational N

Procedural issues •  Standing:

•  Claimants:TheGoodLawProjectandEverydoctor•  JeffordJ:“ItisarguablethatbothClaimantshavestandingtobringtheseclaims”

•  Limitation•  27March–launchof“CoronavirusSupportfromBusiness”Scheme•  13April–Pestfixcontractenteredinto•  18May–ContractAwardNoticepublished•  4June–referredtoinreportbytheTussellConsultancyandanarticleinTheTimes.

•  15June–Claimissued.•  JeffordJ:“Itiswellarguablethattheclaimisintime”

Ground 1: Alleged no basis for making a direct award under Regulation 32(2)(c) •  Reg32(2)(c)PCR2015:

Thenegotiatedprocedurewithoutpriorpublicationmaybeused“insofarasisstrictlynecessarywhereforreasonsofextremeurgencybroughtaboutbyeventsunforeseeablebythecontractingauthority,thetimelimitsfortheopenorrestrictedproceduresorcompetitiveprocedureswithnegotiationcannotbecompliedwith”.•  Reg32(4)PCR2015:

“Forthepurposesofparagraph2(c),thecircumstancesinvokedtojustifyextremeurgencymustnotinanyeventbeattributabletothecontractingauthority”.

Procurement Policy Note (PPN) 01/20 Genuinereasonsforextremeurgency

• Publichealthrisk,lossofexistingsupply/service,reactingtogenuineemergency

Eventsthatledtoneedforextremeurgencywereunforeseeable

• NoveltyofCOVID-19situation-notpredictable

ImpossibletocomplywithusualtimescalesinPCRs

• Acceleratedprocurement,Frameworks,DPS

Situationnotattributabletothecontractingauthority

• CAdidnotcause/contribute

PPN 01/20 (cont) •  Extremeurgencytestnotsatisfiedwherecontractingauthoritydelaysorfailstodosomethingintime.Thisisbecause:•  CAisexpectedtoplanefficiently•  Competitivealternativescanbecompletedquickly•  Knowingsomethingneedstobedonemeansitisforeseeable•  Acontractingauthority’sdelayorfailuretodosomethingislikelyto

meanthatthesituationisattributabletothecontractingauthority.

Ground 1 (cont) •  JeffordJ:

“Itis,inmyview,notarguablethattheDefendantwasnotentitledtorelyonRegulation32(2)(c)……TheClaimants’case,insummary,isthattheneedforPPEwasforeseeablefromFebruary2020and,therefore,couldnothavebeenunforeseeablewhenthiscontractwasplaced.TheClaimants’caseidentifiesafactualbasisonwhichtheneedforPPEwasforeseeableinFebruarybutnottheextenttowhichthatneedincreasedandmarketconditionsradicallychangedand/oranybasisonwhichafullycompetitivetenderprocessoughttohavebeencommencedatthattimeorthereafterandbecompletedsoastomeettheneedforPPE.Forthesamereasons,theClaimants’casethatthecircumstancesgivingrisetoextremeurgencywereattributabletotheDefendantisnotarguable”.

Ground 2: alleged that the direct award violated Treaty principles of equal treatment and transparency •  JeffordJ:

“ItisarguablethattheprinciplesoftransparencyandproportionalityatleastapplyevenwherethereisanegotiatedprocedureunderRegulation32.Secondlyitisarguablethattheprocedurewasnottransparent”….“…thebackgroundtothenegotiatedprocedurewastheopeninvitationtobusinessestooffertosupplyPPEbeforeindividualentitieswereapproachedtotender.Inthosecircumstances,itseemstomearguablethattheRegulationsandgeneralprinciplesreliedonbytheClaimantsrequireadegreeoftransparencyastothecriteriabywhichofferswouldbeassessedandpotentialtenderersselectedandthattheprocedureadoptedwasnotsufficientlytransparent”.

Ground 3 – alleged insufficient reasons •  JeffordJ:“…iftheClaimants’caseastotransparencysucceeds,itmaywellfollowthattheDefendanthasgiveninsufficientreasonsfortheplacingofthiscontractwith[Pestfix]”.

Grounds 4 and 5 • Ground4:allegeddurationofthecontractwasdisproportionate

•  Permissionrefused–claimantsreliedonfactsthatpostdatedthecontractaward

• Ground5:allegedirrationality•  Permissionrefused–notirrationaltoplaceacontractwithacompanyofferingtosourcePPEandwithsuchexperiencesimplybecauseithadnomanufacturingcapability.

Commissioning tips PPN01/20-Appliestoallcontractingauthorities

Identifiesvariousroutes,allfoundinthePublicContractsRegulations2015(PCR),forprocuringswiftly:

•  Directawardduetoextremeurgency•  Directawardduetoabsenceofcompetition•  Callofffromaframeworkordynamicpurchasingsystem•  Callforcompetitionusingastandardprocedurewithacceleratedtimescales•  Extendingormodifyingacontractduringitsterm.

Summary – and top tips • No“new”exemptionsinPPN01/20• Directawardconditionsinterpretedrestrictively• Considereachsituationonacase-by-casebasis• Alwaysconsider-whatareyouralternatives?• Audittrailandwrittenjustificationarekey• Rememberrequirementtopublishcontractawardnotice• Planahead