The Supreme Court has dismissed the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform’s appeal in a dispute over a public contract for interpretation services, leaving in place the decision to set aside the tender result because of a manifest error in scoring the successful bidder’s quality assurance plan.
The dispute arose from a competition for a one-year contract, estimated at €300,000 to €600,000, to provide interpretation services to immigration services and the Legal Aid Board. Word Perfect Translation Services Limited challenged the selection of Forbidden City Limited, trading as Translation.ie. The final scores were 885 out of 1,000 for Translation.ie and 870 for Word Perfect.
The Supreme Court considered two grounds concerning the evaluation. On the Service Delivery Plan, the Court rejected Word Perfect’s challenge to Translation.ie’s full score. It said the available material did not establish manifest error. The Court noted that it did not have Translation.ie’s full tender, and said that the earlier provisional marks and changes during evaluation did not themselves show that the final decision was wrong. It set aside the Court of Appeal’s conclusion on this issue.
The Court reached a different conclusion on the Quality Assurance Plan. The tender required sample management reports to include a narrative summarising the information. The Court held that, read in context, “narrative” meant a written summary, distinct from the charts and tables also required. Translation.ie’s reports contained introductory text but did not summarise the information, according to the judgment.
Under the scoring scheme, marks from 80 to 100 per cent were for an excellent response that fully met or exceeded requirements. Translation.ie received 170 of 200 marks, or 85 per cent, despite not providing the required narrative summary. The Court held that awarding marks in that band was a manifest error under the scheme’s wording. It said the tender result had to be set aside, although the error did not make it inevitable that Translation.ie would otherwise have lost the competition.
The Supreme Court applied the manifest error test for reviewing public procurement decisions and dismissed the Minister’s appeal. Its decision did not itself select a replacement provider or award a new contract. The judgment noted that the intended one-year contract period had already elapsed by the time of the litigation.