The High Court has refused Word Perfect Translation Services Ltd’s challenge to the award of an interpretation services contract to Forbidden City Ltd, trading as translation.ie. Mr Justice Max Barrett found no error in the procurement matters Word Perfect asked the court to review and refused all the relief sought.
The case concerned a 2017 competition for services to the Immigration Service and the Legal Aid Board under a government framework agreement. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform notified Word Perfect in April 2017 that translation.ie had won the contract. Word Perfect sought orders setting aside the award, requiring a new competition or directing that the contract be awarded to it, among other relief.
Word Perfect alleged that the evaluation of its service delivery plan overlooked material about interpreter training and skills retention. The judge examined the cited passages in its tender and concluded they did not set out the methods required by the tender documents. He also rejected Word Perfect’s argument that the stated reasons showed translation.ie received full marks merely because its response was clearer. The reasons letter said Word Perfect had not proposed methods for keeping interpreters’ language skills and fluency up to date.
The court also rejected challenges to translation.ie’s scores for its service delivery plan and quality assurance plan. Word Perfect questioned increases in some of translation.ie’s marks and alleged that required narrative summaries were missing from its management reports. The judge found that the evaluators could reach their final scores after discussion, and that translation.ie’s charts, data and written commentary together constituted narratives that met the tender requirements. He also concluded that the Minister was not required to explain why translation.ie received its particular quality assurance score.
On management resources, Word Perfect argued that the explanation for its lower score was wrong. The judge concluded its tender referred to a nominated contact point but did not establish that the key account manager or deputy would be available to clients around the clock, as the tender required. A further complaint, raised at the hearing about evaluators’ knowledge of financial scores, was dismissed because it had not been included in Word Perfect’s statement of grounds.
The judgment concerns the pleaded challenges to the procurement decision. The court refused all relief sought; it did not order a new competition or award the contract to Word Perfect.