Working on Wellbeing Ltd trading as Optima Health v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Ors

Working on Wellbeing Ltd trading as Optima Health v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Ors

The tender documentation, when read as a whole, was sufficiently clear and transparent to a reasonably well-informed and diligent tenderer that exceeding the Framework Maximum Prices could result in exclusion. The Defendants exercised their discretion to exclude Optima's non-compliant bid in a manner consistent with the principles of transparency, equal treatment, and proportionality. The error in Optima's bid was not obvious or easily correctable, and seeking clarification or permitting amendment would have risked unequal treatment. The Defendants' decision was neither irrational, arbitrary, nor disproportionate.

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
22 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Judgment / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Public Contracts Regulations 2015, Tender Disqualification, Transparency and Equal Treatment, Discretion in Procurement, Clarification of Bids, Manifest Error, Remedies in Procurement
Public Procurement Administrative Law Public Contracts Regulations 2015 Tender Disqualification Transparency and Equal Treatment Discretion in Procurement Clarification of Bids Manifest Error +1 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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
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

Judgment / Final Judgment After Trial

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 rather than taking alternative action such as reducing the prices or seeking clarification
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants acted irrationally, arbitrarily, disproportionately or unreasonably in rejecting Optima's bid

Ratio Decidendi

The tender documentation, when read as a whole, was sufficiently clear and transparent to a reasonably well-informed and diligent tenderer that exceeding the Framework Maximum Prices could result in exclusion. The Defendants exercised their discretion to exclude Optima's non-compliant bid in a manner consistent with the principles of transparency, equal treatment, and proportionality. The error in Optima's bid was not obvious or easily correctable, and seeking clarification or permitting amendment would have risked unequal treatment. The Defendants' decision was neither irrational, arbitrary, nor disproportionate.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed