Overview

In this case, Traffic Signs and Equipment Ltd (TSE) challenged on the basis that an allocation of a 40% weighting for the qualitative assessment in this tender represented a lack of objectivity. The predominant basis of TSE’s argument was that as TSE bidders were required to obtain a Sector 9A accreditation (the recognition of an international standard for road traffic signs) as a base quality standard, a lower weighting should have been attributed to the quality evaluation criteria. They argued that the requirement for all bidders to hold the Section 9A standard meant that quality should have been a less decisive factor in the tender process and that it would be difficult for the Department for Regional Development (DRD) to justify a weighting of 40%.

In addition TSE complained that the 60% (price) and 40% (quality) spilt was used by DRD as a mechanism to favour another bidder, PWS. E-mail exchanges within DRD (prior to the finalisation of the weightings in April 2010), confirmed that DRD initially did consider a spilt of 80% (price) and 20% (quality) and that it eventually evolved into the 60%/40% split.

To continue reading Eversheds’ review of the case and its consequences for contracting authorities, click View Briefing.