The High Court declared a government circular invalid insofar as it required public bodies to use a managed print services framework, finding that the requirement was incompatible with EU procurement law. The court separately dismissed suppliers’ challenge to the framework award because they had not tendered and lacked standing to contest it.
The case concerned a framework established by the Office of Public Works (OPW) after a 2011 tender. Seven suppliers were selected to compete in later mini-competitions for managed print services across public bodies. The tender said those bodies were not obliged to use the framework.
In July 2012, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform issued Circular 60/12. It made specified central procurement arrangements mandatory from 1 September 2012, including the managed print framework. The applicants—11 companies, 10 of which supplied print services and one of which supplied consumables—said the change affected their ability to serve public-sector customers.
The companies had not submitted tenders, despite knowing of the competition, and had not challenged its criteria before the award. The judge held that they were not eligible to challenge the award under the procurement review rules. He also found that alleged omissions in the award notice could not have prejudiced them. Their challenge to the award therefore failed.
The court treated the challenge to the circular separately. It found that making the framework mandatory materially changed the practical terms and economic effect of the tender, which had presented use of the framework as optional. Although the circular could not formally amend the contract, the judge said it effectively directed public bodies to treat the framework as mandatory. He concluded that, in the particular circumstances, this indirectly altered the tender in a way incompatible with EU procurement law.
The court held that the applicants had standing to challenge the circular and were not out of time. It declared the circular “invalid and ineffective” only insofar as it made use of the managed print services framework mandatory throughout the public sector. The ruling did not set aside the framework award. The judgment recorded that a competition-law ground had been held over pending the outcome of the judgment; the supplied text does not state its later disposition.