The High Court has rejected Word Perfect Translation Services Limited’s challenge to a State tender for interpretation services, ruling that its division into four lots and limit of one lot per successful tenderer were not unlawful.
Mr Justice Twomey delivered judgment on 24 February 2022 in judicial review proceedings against the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. The tender, issued by the Office of Government Procurement (OGP), covered services for public bodies including the Courts Service, An Garda Síochána and the HSE. The proceedings had stalled the tender process.
Word Perfect argued that the four-lot structure breached EU procurement rules because the directive referred to dividing “a contract” into lots, while the tender was titled “Four Single Supplier Framework Contracts”. The court held that the tender was still at the preparatory stage when its lots were designed and that no binding contracts then existed to be divided. It also rejected Word Perfect’s claim that government procurement guidelines had created a legitimate expectation against the arrangement.
The tender allowed suppliers to bid for any or all of the four lots, each worth up to €5 million, but limited each successful tenderer to one award. Word Perfect argued that the rule would restrict competition, disadvantage larger suppliers and prevent the most economically advantageous tender from winning every lot for which it ranked first. It also alleged unequal treatment, disproportionality and bias against the company because of its history of litigation over State tenders.
The court found that the procurement directive expressly allows authorities to limit the number of lots awarded to a tenderer. It accepted the State’s stated objectives of encouraging wider participation by small and medium-sized businesses, maintaining more suppliers in the market and improving service quality through longer contracts and supplier relationships. It was not persuaded that Word Perfect’s evidence established that the rule unlawfully distorted competition or was disproportionate. The court also rejected the claims of unequal treatment, bias and a breach of the freedom to provide services.
The judgment noted that under the previous framework, only 23.8 per cent of public-sector interpretation services were bought through that framework; the rest were procured outside it. The 2020 framework was also non-exclusive, so public bodies could continue to seek services outside it.
The court rejected both the challenge to the division into lots and the challenge to the one-lot rule. It directed the parties to discuss whether they could agree on outstanding matters without further court time. The case was provisionally listed for mention one week after judgment, at 10.45am, if further orders were needed. The judgment does not record a final order disposing of all outstanding matters.