OLM SYSTEMS LTD AGAINST FIFE COUNCIL [2020] ScotCS CSOH_95 (24 November 2020)

OLM SYSTEMS LTD AGAINST FIFE COUNCIL [2020] ScotCS CSOH_95 (24 November 2020)

The £200,000 cap applied only to the initial 7-year period of the contract, as clarified by the Council during the tender process. The Council's consensus scoring process was conducted fairly and objectively, within its margin of appreciation, and the absence of a published policy did not breach procurement obligations. The inadequate reasons challenge was incompetent due to lack of proper notice under regulation 88(3).

Citation
[2020] ScotCS CSOH_95
Parties
Pursuer: OLM Systems Limited; Defender: Fife Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action (procurement Challenge) / Preliminary Proof on Merits
Outcome
All grounds of challenge dismissed; action fails.
Legal Topics
Disqualification Criteria, Consensus Scoring Methodology, Transparency Obligations, Equal Treatment, Adequate Reasons
Public Procurement Administrative Law Contract Law Disqualification Criteria Consensus Scoring Methodology Transparency Obligations Equal Treatment Adequate Reasons

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

OLM Systems Limited

Pursuer

Fife Council

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action (procurement Challenge) / Preliminary Proof on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Fife Council failed to disqualify the successful bidder for exceeding mandatory support and maintenance budget
  2. 2 Whether the Council's use of consensus scoring breached obligations of equal treatment, non-discrimination, and transparency
  3. 3 Whether the Council failed to provide adequate reasons for consensus scores

Ratio Decidendi

The £200,000 cap applied only to the initial 7-year period of the contract, as clarified by the Council during the tender process. The Council's consensus scoring process was conducted fairly and objectively, within its margin of appreciation, and the absence of a published policy did not breach procurement obligations. The inadequate reasons challenge was incompetent due to lack of proper notice under regulation 88(3).

Court Disposition

All grounds of challenge dismissed; action fails.

Orders

  • No reduction of award; no damages ordered; pursuer's claims rejected.