The High Court has allowed Forum Connemara Limited to pursue a late challenge to a decision that one provider should distribute SICAP funds across County Galway. It extended the time for that challenge and permitted the proceedings to be reconstituted under the rules governing public procurement cases. The judgment did not decide whether the challenged decisions were lawful.
The dispute concerns a Galway County Local Community Development Committee (LCDC) decision made on 30 September 2014 to treat all of County Galway as a single lot for the tender. Forum Connemara, which had historically distributed funds in Connemara, objected to the approach. It later bid unsuccessfully to become the countywide provider. The tender was awarded to Galway Rural Development Company Limited.
Forum Connemara alleged that the decision was made improperly. Its case included claims that a conflicts policy resulted in eight committee members leaving the meeting, leaving five to decide the issue, and that the process was engineered to produce a single countywide provider. It also relied on an alleged assurance at a 10 September meeting that funds would not be distributed on an all-county basis. These were allegations and submissions, not findings by the court.
Justice Max Barrett said the challenge to the September decision was brought well outside the usual 30-day period for procurement challenges. He accepted that the case presented “good reason” to extend time, citing the circumstances around the committee decision, public and political concern, Forum Connemara’s pursuit of a political remedy and its concern about legal costs. He stressed that the combination of circumstances made the case unusual.
The court held that the September decision was part of a public contract award procedure and that Order 84A was the required route for challenging it. Forum Connemara had originally brought the proceedings under Order 84. The judge declined to strike them out and allowed them to be amended and reconstituted under Order 84A.
The proceedings also challenge the contract award decision communicated to unsuccessful tenderers by letter dated 2 March 2015, on the ground that reasons for the award were inadequate. The court said that challenge was brought within the applicable time limit, so no extension was needed for it.
The orders resolved procedural questions about the route and timing of the case. They did not quash either decision, determine whether the tender process was unfair, or decide the challenge to the award on its merits.