Working on Wellbeing Ltd (t/a Optima Health) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Ors [2024] EWHC 766 (TCC) (05 April 2024)

Working on Wellbeing Ltd (t/a Optima Health) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Ors [2024] EWHC 766 (TCC) (05 April 2024)

The tender documentation, when interpreted objectively by a reasonably well-informed and normally diligent tenderer, was sufficiently clear that exceeding Framework Maximum Prices would result in exclusion. The Defendants acted lawfully, proportionately, and in accordance with principles of equal treatment and transparency by excluding Optima's non-compliant bid, especially given the existence of a compliant bid. There was no manifest error, ambiguity, or irrationality in the decision.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 766 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Working on Wellbeing Ltd trading as Optima Health; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Second Defendant: Department for Work and Pensions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Public Procurement Decision / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Exclusion of Bids, Transparency, Equal Treatment, Discretion in Procurement, Clarification of Tenders, Manifest Error, Proportionality
Public Procurement Administrative Law Contract Law Exclusion of Bids Transparency Equal Treatment Discretion in Procurement Clarification of Tenders +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Working on Wellbeing Ltd trading as Optima Health

Claimant

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

First Defendant

Department for Work and Pensions

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Public Procurement Decision / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tender documentation clearly and transparently set out the consequences of exceeding the Framework Pricing Schedule
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants acted unlawfully by excluding Optima for non-compliance
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants acted irrationally, arbitrarily, disproportionately or unreasonably in rejecting Optima's bid

Ratio Decidendi

The tender documentation, when interpreted objectively by a reasonably well-informed and normally diligent tenderer, was sufficiently clear that exceeding Framework Maximum Prices would result in exclusion. The Defendants acted lawfully, proportionately, and in accordance with principles of equal treatment and transparency by excluding Optima's non-compliant bid, especially given the existence of a compliant bid. There was no manifest error, ambiguity, or irrationality in the decision.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Optima's claim is dismissed
  • Defendants' exclusion of Optima's bid is upheld