A Court has rejected a contractor's claim against a council for £2.1 million for an alleged breach of procurement rules. The tender was submitted by a well-known contractor company, however, it subsequently transpired that the company was dormant and the work was actually going to be carried out by their parent company. The contractor could therefore not claim for lost profit as it would not actually have itself carried out the work. The council had been unaware that the tender had been submitted in the name of a dormant company.
Background
Farrans Construction Limited (“Farrans”) tendered for flood prevention works in Glasgow – or did they?
In 2007 they filled in the pre-qualifying questionnaire stating they had hundreds of employees, professional memberships, a long track record of successful civil projects in Scotland, and the assets to carry out the job which was a complex multi million pound project. They sent it to Glasgow City Council (“GCC”), and on the strength of that were invited to tender. Following what Farrans claimed was a flawed evaluation, the tender works were awarded to a competitor, and Farrans raised an action against GCC under the Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2006, claiming £2.1 million lost profit.
A Court hearing on all issues was well under way when a managing director mentioned in his evidence that Farrans was a dormant company. Confusion ensued, the Hearing was adjourned, and a separate hearing was fixed on the sole issue of whether Farrans had title to sue.
Farrans lost their case. They agreed they were a dormant company within the meaning of the Companies Acts, but claimed to be acting on behalf of Northstone (NI) Limited, their parent company, being the company which actually had the necessary resources. Unfortunately, they had not told GCC (although there was a poorly expressed statement inserted in the accounts section of the PQQ which was held not to amount to fair notice). The Sheriff held that they could not be an “economic operator” because they were not a “contractor” which “offered to carry out works”- they had no means of operating. They could have no profit and no loss, as Northstone- not Farrans- would receive any payments. In addition, the 2006 Regulations require the economic operator to “suffer” loss, which appears to rule out a derivative claim based on the law of agency, even if otherwise competent.
Comment
To read the full judgement, click here.
Social Media cookies collect information about you sharing information from our website via social media tools, or analytics to understand your browsing between social media tools or our Social Media campaigns and our own websites. We do this to optimise the mix of channels to provide you with our content. Details concerning the tools in use are in our privacy policy.