Judgment Title: Danninger v Bus Atha Cliath Composition of Court: Charleton J. Judgment by: Charleton J. Status of Judgment: Approved |
Neutral Citation Number: [2007] IEHC 29 THE HIGH COURT JUDICIAL REVIEW [2006 No. 589JR] BETWEENDANNINGER APPLICANT and BUS ÁTHA CLIATH RESPONDENT and DEEPDRILL DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED TRADING AS O’DWYER LEISURE GROUP AND BENNETT (CONSTRUCTION) LIMITED NOTICE PARTY JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Charleton delivered on the 23rd day of February, 2007Introduction 1. The applicant and the notice party are both entities that engage in property development. Bus Átha Cliath provides bus services for the Dublin city area and is an entity of Córas Iompair Éireann, being wholly owned by it. Prior to the Luas line being put in from Sandyford through to Connolly Station, one could catch a bus on Upper Abbey Street. This has been rendered impossible by the Luas line that runs there. The respondent made a decision to develop a site which it owns in that area so that it would become, on development, a bus station with a valuable commercial property above, below and to the sides of it. 2. At the time this project was advertised, it was subject to Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14th June, 1993, concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts. This directive was one of a long line setting out the law in this area. In applying review procedures in this area, I am bound by Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21st December, 1989, on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts. These directives were signed into Irish law in simple form by way of, inter alia, the European Communities (Public Works) (Amendment) Regulations, 1994, S.I. 293/1994 and the European Communities (Review Procedures for the Award of Public Supply, Public Works and Public Services Contracts) (No. 2) Regulations, 1994, S.I. 309/1994. In turn, O. 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, which deals with the generality of judicial review applications, was amended through the introduction of a special rule in respect of these cases in S.I. 374/1998, the Rules of the Superior Courts (No. 4) (Review of the Award of Public Contracts) Rules, 1998. 3. The notice party won the contract to develop this site and the applicant lost. The applicant complains that Council Directive 93/37/EEC was not complied with in the award of the contract and therefore seeks an order of this court overturning it. The respondent and the notice party claim that the award was made validly and in accordance with European law. They further say that if it was not, such invalidity as the court might find does not entitle the applicant to judicial review, by reason of its delay in bringing these proceedings and by reason of its acquiescence in the procedure it now complains of. 4. My decision in this case revolves around the answer to three issues. Firstly, whether the project which the respondent wished to have developed for it was a public works contract or a public works concession contract under the relevant Directive. If it is the latter, much less strict rules apply to the tendering process which is concerned with the advertising of the tender opportunity only. If it is a public works contract, on the other hand, it is argued that an open or restricted procedure for the tender must apply: in addition the principles of non-discrimination, transparency and openness also require that a tender process end with an assessment of the bids when they are opened and there can be no room for a request being made for any further offer or, as the term of art puts it, “a best and final offer”. The second issue is therefore whether a public works contract outlaws that form of double round tender procedure. The third issue is as to whether the applicant is disentitled to relief, the court exercising its fundamental discretion as to whether it should make an order in judicial review proceedings, by reason of the manner in which the applicant participated in the procedure, it is claimed with full knowledge of that flaw, if it be a flaw, and by reason of its delay in bringing proceedings. As a matter of fact, as human nature might dictate, the applicant only brought proceedings seeking to overturn the tender award when it discovered that it had lost. Facts 5. The works in question here are to be built on a site that is just under 0.9 of an acre in area and which fronts onto Great Strand Street and Upper Abbey Street, a short walk from O’Connell Street. The respondent currently uses that land as a bus parking area. The lands are owned by Córas Iompair Éireann, as opposed to the respondent, and are a part of what may remain after a long standing plan, which never came to fruition, to build a large bus station in the centre city area in the vicinity of the Halfpenny Bridge. 6. On 14th September, 2005, a notice detailing certain building construction work, what was described as a public works concession, appeared in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This invited submissions to apply for tender documents from interested parties that:-
8. These documents clarify what was envisaged by the respondent. A short specification is given for the bus interchange facility. Basically, there are to be eight ‘drive through’ bus bays allowing buses to turn into the facility from Upper Abbey Street and exit, going in a westerly direction towards the Four Courts, onto Great Strand Street. There are to be passenger facilities and a retail unit, together with staff offices and facilities for the respondent, and the area under their control is to be capable of being fully secured outside whatever hours are worked. The outline plans call for an imaginative use of what is now a virtually empty space. The drawings indicate that a large building will be constructed on the site but that, at street level, buses will be driving in, parking, picking up or discharging passengers and exiting. Above and to the sides of the area required for this activity will be a development, perhaps of up to eight storeys, consisting of mixed retail, residential or hotel use. The applicants proposed a mixed retail and residential development while Deep Drill, the notice party, plan the development of a large hotel. 9. This land is very valuable. In consequence, the respondent could expect to get their bus interchange built by the developer and to receive, over and above the cost of that, a substantial sum. The tender provides that the developer is to purchase the long lease to the site for a price that is the subject of the competition for the work, laying down a 10% capital payment in submitting the tender. 10. Paragraph 4.14 of the tender conditions is headed “Price Basis”, and reads as follows:-
12. The applicants prepared a tender and submitted it together with 10% of the capital sum on 28th February, 2006. They offered the sum of €19 million to participate in the project. The notice party also submitted a tender on 28th February and their capital payment was priced at €17,131,672.50. There was also another lower tender bid, but that party does not need to be considered further. There was subsequent correspondence with both the applicant and the notice party in accordance with clause 9.7 of the tender conditions. Certain matters were queried through letters, one to the applicant and the other to the notice party, of 3rd March, 2006. The query to the notice party was about liability for VAT and about the height of the development. That to the applicant also makes a VAT query but goes on to ask for a description of the proposed development, which had not been given in the tender it submitted, and certain cost headings. 13. On 10th March, those who had tendered went to a meeting with the respondent. There was no suggestion that any issue as to the price expected was discussed at that meeting. Instead, issues were raised as to such things as ramp heights and ventilation for the bus interchange, among other matters. 14. On 13th March, 2006, the following letter was received by the three interested parties who had tendered:-
19. On 7th April the full board of CIÉ met and approved the tender which their sub-committee had already evaluated as the winner. By a letter of the same date, the respondent indicated to the applicant that the tender evaluation process had been completed and that, on the basis of the published award criteria, its tender had not been selected for contract award. On the other hand, the notice party received a letter telling them they had been selected. 20. I have detailed these facts with some particularity because it is the case made by the respondent and the notice party that even if the procedure adopted by the respondent was contrary to national and European law, the delay in commencing proceedings by the applicant, and their apparent acquiescence in that procedure, disentitle them to relief. Leave was sought to commence judicial review proceedings on 23rd May, 2006, approximately six weeks after the formal notification of the of the award of the contract to the notice party. Since an issue as to delay and acquiescence depends, in part, on the respective knowledge of the parties and on the strength of their cases, (both the extension of time for judicial review, and the remedy itself, being discretionary) I must first deal with that. 21. The notice party have pleaded that they are now engaged in performing the contract in accordance with the timeframes enshrined in it. In accordance with the tender, the consideration of €20,050,000 had already been paid by them to the respondent then on 8th May, 2006, the date on which the contract was completed. This currently attracts interest at approximately €100,000 per month. If their affidavit remains correct, they will by this stage have lodged an application for planning permission and, as they say, discussions with architects, engineers, project managers, town planners, surveyors, mechanical and electrical consultants will now be at an advanced stage. This will involve an estimated outlay of approximately €1 million in addition to the monthly cost of the borrowing which continues to accrue. Public Works Contracts 22. The award of public works contracts are governed by Counsel Directive 93/37/EEC of 14th June, 1993. There has been since been an amending and consolidating Directive which introduces a new element into the tendering process but which does not appear to effect public works concessions contracts; this is Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and Council of 31st March, 2004, on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts. Water, energy, transport and telecommunications sector contracts were covered by Directive 6/90/931/EEC. The consolidating legislation for most purposes is now the European Communities (Award of Public Authorities’ Contracts) Regulation 2006, S.I. 329 of 2006. Article 1 of Council Directive 93/37 defines a public works contract as one:-
24. The definition which causes the most difficulty is that related to a “public works concession contract”. Article 1(d) defines it as the contract which is of the same type as a public works contract “except for the fact that the consideration for the work to be carried out consists either solely in the right to exploit the construction or in this right together with payment.” 25. If one were to take a simple example of a public works contract, it might be the building of a bridge for the public roads network or the installation of a telephone system for public hospitals or the use of satellite time for public communication. Straightforward examples, for the purpose of contrast, of public works concession contracts might involve the building of a toll bridge which is then paid for through the collection of tolls from the public or the making of a computer network for the civil service, the control of which is sited in a public building, and which is used by the customers of the State on a pay on use basis calculation, rather than being paid for on construction. The essence of the difference is the mode of payment: in the concession contract the work is made to make a return as it is being used and in the public works contract it is paid for on construction and due to the fact of its construction. 26. A third possibility emerges, and that is that the situation that I have detailed in those facts is, as has been argued, a mere sale of land. I wish to dismiss this straight away. If the applicant and the notice party were simply to purchase a portion of this land and to leave Bus Átha Cliath with the remaining portion of bare earth on which they could themselves construct their bus interchange, that would indeed by a sale of land. The contract particulars indicate clearly, however, that the contractor, be it the applicant or the notice party, is required to build a bus interchange on the street level and to construct parking and passenger bays, staff facilities and passenger related facilities. That is clearly a contract for public works but is it also a concession contract? 27. The recitals to Council Directive 93/37 do not assist in differentiating a public works contract from a public works concession contract. However, they make it clear that the negotiated procedure for awarding public contracts must be considered as exceptional. It is therefore allowed in only certain limited cases of public works contracts; Article 7.4. The open or restricted procedure for tendering is applicable in all other cases, including it is argued here, save where the tenders are irregular, where the works involved are carried out for the purposes of research or where the nature of the works make it impossible to give a prior overall price; Article 7.2 28. Under Article 11 the common advertising rules apply to public works concession contracts and the Directive specifies the form of the relevant notices and gives models as binding precedents. 29. In an attempt to differentiate the meaning of a public works contract from a public works concession contract I had cited to me the “Guide to the Community Rules on Public Works Contracts” published by the European Commission. The guide has no legal effect and announces itself as not necessarily representing “the official position of the Commission”. Nonetheless, it is a considered document, the views in which are as valuable as those of the author of a textbook. It unexceptionally indicates that in the case of public works concession contracts the authority granting the concession is free to choose its procedure for the award, including negotiation. Apart from complying with the advertising rules the awarding authority must observe the principles of non-discrimination and transparency. Once criteria have been set through publication, the authority must apply them. Dealing with the issue of a public works concession contract the Commission indicates that it is the same as a public works contract except that the consideration is usually in the form of the right to exploit the works in question but it may sometimes be pecuniary also. At 7.1 the document offers these views:-
31. In case C-324/98 Telaustria Verlags Gmbh and Telefonadress Gmbh v. Telekom Austria AG [2000] ECR I-10745 the issue which arose before the European Court was whether public service concession contracts were excluded from the scope of Council Directive 25/50/EEC of 18th June, 1992 and Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14th June, 1993. The court did not discuss how a public works concession contract may be differentiated from a public works contract. However, the opinion of Advocate General Fennelly offers valuable guidance on that issue. The parties and interveners had submitted to the court that a concession contract was indicated (a) through the beneficiary of the service being third parties (which I understand to be the public); (b) through the service involved being in the public interest; and (c) through the concessionaire assuming the economic risk related to the performance of the service. In case C-360/96 Gemeente Arnhem and Gemeente Rheden v. BFI Holding BV [1998] E.C.R. I-06821 Advocate General La Pergola had expressed the following approach at para. 25 of his opinion that:-
To my mind, the single most important indication of whether economic risk is to be borne by the concessionaire will emerge from examining the nature of the exploitation in which the supposed concession requires it to engage. Arnhem and Rheden provides a strong indication that the court views the requirement to exploit the right ceded in order to obtain remuneration as the core of what constitutes a genuine concession. In response to an argument raised by France in its observations that the contracts at issue in that case (which concerned a joint venture between two Dutch municipalities to provide municipal refuse collection and road cleaning services through ARA, (a company set up expressly for that purpose)) could be regarded as a public service concession, the court declared, without finding it necessary to interpret that term, that it was clear from the underlying agreement ‘that the remuneration paid to ARA comprises only a price and not the right to operate a service’.” 33. In case C-272/91, Commission v. Italy [1994] E.C.R. I-01400, the complaint before the European Court was that the Italian Finance Ministry had failed to advertise its intention to award a contract in respect of the computerisation of the lottery in the Official Journal. The Italian Government defended the case by claiming that the proposed contract amounted to a concession by which the Finance Ministry would entrust a third party to carry out an activity relating to official authority. The court found a breach of Council Directive 77/62/EEC of 21st December, 1976, coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, as amended by Council Directive 88/295/EEC of 22nd March, 1988. If the supply of the computer service was, as a matter of fact, a transfer by the Administration to a third party of an activity which formed part of the exercise of public authority, the relevant directives would not have applied as that would have indicated a concession contract. The court rejected that this had happened at para. 24 stating:-
35. I have been drawn back to the interdependence of the two parts of the definition. To be a public works concession the contractor must not only construct something, the contractor must also operate it for the public benefit in a manner that corresponds with the needs that are being met in favour of the public through the concession, and which otherwise would have had to have been met through a public service operated by the public authority itself. A public works concession contract must have the effect of drawing an economic benefit to itself, in whole or in substantial part, through payment for the service it thereby provides. I agree with Advocate General Fennelly that it is the economic risk attaching to the performance of the service that is borne by the contractor. This differentiates a public service concession contract from a public service contract. There the risk is different: it is the ordinary risk of the developer making a profit from having done the work. 36. That description cannot apply in this instance. In essence, Danninger are purchasing the right to construct a large hotel above and below a bus interchange which, as part of the building works, they will construct for Bus Átha Cliath. They will never assume the risk of the commercial operation of either the buses or the interchange of buses at that site. That is the service from which the public will benefit in the Dublin centre city area. Instead, having constructed the relevant bays, staff and passenger areas and the necessary public and staff facilities for the applicant, they will make no decision as to what service runs when, or how and, crucially, they will receive no payment for the operation of a bus service in the part of the building that is to be reserved to the respondent. Furthermore, in terms of the niceties of conveyancing, that reserved section incorporating the bus interchange, though constructed by the third party or applicant, will never pass into their ownership. The money to be paid to the respondent is a cost base figure and not one designed to yield a profit. 37. An estimate is provided in some of the documents relating to the maintenance of the reserved section of the building for such matters as general maintenance and the operation of the fans that will be necessary while these buses are moving in and out on an almost constant operation. I note that the applicant supplied an estimate in terms of the operating costs, in that regard, of a figure somewhere over €300,000. That is a cost figure. It is not the exploitation of the bus interchange. 38. I would therefore hold that this contract is a public works contract within the meaning of the relevant legislation. Best and Final Offer 39. The text of Council Directive 93/37/EEC makes it clear that the negotiated procedure could not have been applied in this case. Article 7.4 provides that the contracting authorities are limited to the open procedure or the restricted procedure in awarding public works contracts. The text of the Directive does not mention a best and final offer system in setting out the procedures which are to be followed. It out-rules negotiation at any stage of the procedure; unless that procedure has been validly adopted from the start. It does not specifically indicate that a second round of tenders is an unlawful procedure. What is certain, however, is that any round of tenders must be subject to the rules set out in the Directive. 40. Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts introduces, among other things, a new form of procedure which, according to recital 31, applies to “particularly complex projects” where it is “objectively impossible to define the means of satisfying” the needs of contracting authorities or “of assessing what the market can offer in the way of technical solutions and/or financial/legal solutions”. This procedure is described in Article 29 as taking the form of competitive dialogue. Its purpose is, as Article 29.3 states, “to identify and define the best means suited to satisfying the need of a contracting authority”. That procedure may take place “in successive stages in order to reduce the number of solutions to be discussed during the dialogue stage by applying the award criteria in the contract notice or the descriptive document”; Article 29.4. That dialogue can continue until an apparent solution is found. The dialogue is then concluded and final tenders must then be sought on that basis. The tenders may then be further “clarified, specified and fine tuned at the request of the contracting authority”, without changing the basic features “of the tender or the call for tender” where such alterations are likely to distort competition or have a discriminatory effect. The contracting authorities then assess the tenders received on the basis of the award criteria laid down in the contract notice or descriptive document and are obliged to choose the most economically advantageous; Article 29.7, Article 53. 41. It seems to this court that the ongoing dialogue procedure therein described is different to a tender procedure which involves two rounds of tenders which end with a best and final offer. In effect, in a competitive dialogue the parties are negotiating face to face as to their requirements, including the costs involved in each element, while simultaneously assessing economic advantage and performance. That is negotiation, something specifically allowed only in very defined circumstances under Council Directive 93/37. 42. In emphasis of this, I note a Statement of the Council and the Commission which concerns Article 5(4) of Directive 71/305 EEC, a predecessor of the Directive concerned in this case, made in the Official Journal of the European Communities 21.7.89 No. L210/22. This reads:-
44. There has been no ruling by any court, that I am aware of, either approving or out-ruling the best and final offer system in the context of an open or restricted procedure for the award of a public works contract. In Resource Management Services v. Westminster City Council [1999] 2 C.M.L.R. 849 the issue was mentioned in passing by Smedley J. of the English High Court. There, inviting revised tenders, the defendant advised one party that a certain element of the tender should be deleted. The procedure of having a second round was not condemned in the context of Directive 92/50, an analogous piece of legislation. In answer to an argument that before a second round could be held the matter had to be re-advertised in the official journal, Smedley J. stated at p. 860:-
47. Resource Management v. Westminster County Council makes it clear that the principles of equal treatment and transparency rule out any variation that is applied only to one party. Both principles would apply both after the tenders have been received and in relation to any second round that might be permitted. The principles would be infringed where one tenderer had specialist knowledge, especially as to price. If a second round procedure by way of best and final offer is to be allowed, equal treatment must clearly be applied to all parties; Case C-87/94, Commission v. Belgium (1996) ECR I-2043. Favouring one party with inside information as to requirements or as to price would infringe the principles of equal treatment and transparency and make the award of any subsequent contract, through a best and final offer system, unlawful. That would also apply, however, to the first round. The difference is that if there is to be a best and final offer round after the first round of tenders has been opened, the information as to the preliminary price already offered may be corruptly shared. That does not necessarily decide the issue, however. Corruption may be easier with a second round but a first round does not necessarily exclude it either. 48. In the 2005 edition of her work, Professor Arrowsmith notes, at p. 545, that the regulations/directives do not deal expressly with whether a best and final offer system, conducted in accordance with equality and transparency is allowed. She offers this view:-
50. By disallowing a best and final offer system, it would mean that technical defects in what otherwise would be good tenders could not be cured. That approach might mean that the more competitive bid would fail without good reason. Proper tenders would, however, be encouraged. The most obvious difficulty with the system is that of leaks of information. No matter how carefully the tender documents are opened, they will need to be copied within the contracting authority and the ensuing discussion is likely to lead to wider knowledge thereby giving rise to the temptation, on someone’s part, to share information with a favoured party. Even without sharing information, a second round might, to a lesser extent, be regarded as anti-competitive since the favoured party might increase its bid; but so might the other tenderers. As Professor Arrowsmith suggests in the first edition of her book, the constant squeezing of bidders might ultimately lead to collapse in the provision of the work needed, which would not be in the public benefit, because of over keen pricing. 51. The advantages of the second round of tendering system would be as follows. The contracting authority would not have to go back to the first step, supposing it did not meet the legislative criteria for invoking the negotiated procedure. Complex tenders which were deficient as to detail might be rectified; thereby allowing a positive advantage in terms of competition. Competition might also be served through a better price emerging in the second round. In this regard, it might reasonably be supposed that more commercial knowledge is held by tenderers than by public and local authorities where the subject matter of the works are of a specialist nature. In competition terms, this allows the rebalancing of expertise in favour of the public whereby a second round will favour the public service through the authority being granted a keener price. In making a first offer, and thereby coming within the parameters of those tenderers who might be considered for a final round, those with commercial knowledge as to the works proposed will not tend to overstretch themselves knowing that if a re-tender is sought there has to be at least another competitive bid. 52. The safeguards in relation to this system have to be emphasised. If a re-tender is sought it should be flagged in the tender document circulated to the qualifying parties. Equality of opportunity, once a reasonably competitive price is offered, requires that those tenderers who are asked to resubmit should have an equal opportunity in terms of putting forward their best and final offer in the second round. Since that is what happened here, I could not hold that this process is unlawful. Delay and Acquiescence 53. Out of respect to the parties the issues as to delay and acquiescence will also be dealt with, notwithstanding that the applicant has failed to obtain an order from the court that the process of tendering by the respondent was unlawful. 54. Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21st December, 1989, on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts emphasises the urgency that is necessary both in making available a remedy for review and moving to exercise that remedy. This regulation was brought into force by S.I. 309 of 1994, the European Communities (Review Procedures for the Award of Public Supply, Public Works and Public Services Contracts) (No. 2) Regulations, 1994, which designates the High Court as the reviewing body. The recitals to the Directive include the following:-
5. The notice of motion, statement grounding the application and verifying affidavit must be served on the contracting authority which has decided to award or has awarded the contract and on all other persons directly affected by the review proceedings and it shall be returnable for the first available motion day after the expiry of ten days from the date of service thereof unless the court otherwise directs;… 56. In SIAC Construction Limited v. National Roads Authority [2004] IEHC 262, Kelly J. delivered a definitive analysis of the role of O. 84A and of the previous case law as to the application of delay in this kind of case. An argument was made to him that time only begins to run from the decision to award the contract. He rejected that argument and stated as follows:-
Such being so, it follows that complaints of the type which are sought to be advanced here concerning the procedures followed must be brought at the earliest opportunity and, in any event, within three months from the date when grounds for the complaint first arose. Proceedings cannot, and ought not to be, postponed until the decision to award, or the award of, the public contract has been made. If that were so the complaint concerning, for example, the negotiated procedure where grounds first arose in August, 2001 would not be the subject of proceedings until 2004. Such a result in the light of the authorities cited would be absurd … I think it appropriate to summarise what I perceive to be the logical consequences of the arguments made by the applicant to the effect that it is entitled to delay commencing its present claim until after a decision to award or the award of the public contract has been made. Such an approach means that procurement challenges in this State are limited to the decision to award a contract or the award of a contract. That would mean that a prospective tenderer who considers that the tender procedure has been breached in an unlawful manner is precluded from challenging that decision and has to wait until the ultimate award of the contract or the decision to do so. That interpretation would mean that this State had failed in its obligations under European Law. It would undermine completely the requirement of rapidity laid down not merely by the Remedies Directive, but also by the decisions of the European Court of Justice and, indeed, by the Supreme Court. I am, therefore, satisfied that whether O. 84A or O. 84 is applicable, the obligation on the applicant in the present proceedings was to bring the proceedings at the earliest opportunity or promptly and, in any event, within three months from the date when the grounds for the application first arose.” 58. In South Midlands Construction Limited and CLG Developments Limited, trading as the Veolia Water Consortium v. Fingal County Council [2006] IEHC 137, Clarke J. dealt with a preliminary issue as to whether an application to overturn the award of a public services contract was out of time. Often, the issue in these cases is as to when the applicant for judicial review could reasonably be said to have known of the defect in the tendering process. That can happen when the contract is unlawfully awarded, or it can happen on enquiry being made, perhaps inspired by information leaking out, after the award of the contract or it can occur at an earlier time. The court is therefore obliged to try to determine when the knowledge of the defect in the procedures came to the attention of the applicant; to consider what responsibility there is for delay thereafter; and to ask whether a reasonable excuse has been offered to the court in that respect. The matter is therefore a balancing process as the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dekra Éireann Teoranta v. Minister for Environment and Local Government [2003] 2 IR 270 makes clear. After analysing that, and other authorities in his judgment in the Veolia case, Clarke J. continued:
5.2 Secondly reliance is placed by Fingal on the jurisprudence of the English courts. In Keymed (Medical and Industrial Equipment) Ltd v. Forest Health Care (NHS Trust) [1998] E.U.LR. 71 the court had to consider the similar (but not identical) provisions governing the United Kingdom time limit. Langley J. held that the wording of the relevant time limit provision did not permit the importation of a requirement for knowledge of a breach before time begins to run. It was held that “grounds”:-
Nor do I see anything so inherently surprising or unacceptable in provisions which require a plaintiff to act promptly where he does know of a breach, but which also is a strict time (subject to extension) for proceeding when he does not, as to justify straining to give the words used a meaning which I do not think they can naturally bear.” 5.3 There can be little doubt but that, as the courts in England have held, the use of the phrase “when grounds… first arose” seems to clearly imply that time begins to run when the complained of act on the part of the awarding authority actually occurs irrespective of knowledge. It does not seem to me that the reference in the English Regulation to “grounds for the bringing of the proceedings” differentiates that rule from the Irish requirement which refers to “grounds for the application”. On what basis might it then be said that time does not begin to run until the applicant had knowledge. In this regard a number of arguments are put forward on behalf of Veolia. I propose addressing them in turn. 5.4 Firstly it is contended that within the legal order of the European Union, time begins to run against persons seeking to challenge administrative decisions from the time that the relevant decision is communicated to the person concerned provided that the potential challenger is furnished with an appropriate account of the contents of the measure notified and other materials necessary to consider a challenge. See for example C-6/72 Europemballage & Continental Can v. Commission [1973] ECR 215; Olbrechts v. Commission [1989] E.C.R. 2643 and Commission v. Socurte [1997] E.C.R. 1. However I did not understand counsel for Fingal to argue to the contrary. It may well, therefore, be the case that within the legal order of the European Union questions of absence of reasonable knowledge are dealt with by determining that time limits do not begin to run until the potential challenger to the matter concerned has appropriate knowledge.” Equality of Treatment 60. Finally, I am also influenced by the fact that no actual prejudice has been suffered by the applicant in this case. There is no suggestion of corruption by the respondent or the notice party. All the parties to this second round of tendering had an equal opportunity. The applicant was in as good a position as the notice party and was satisfied to follow the best and final offer procedure. It so happened that the applicant did not win. Insofar as there is a suggestion that some information leaked out from the respondent, on the facts before me this did not happen while any of the contractors were considering what to put as their best and final offer. It happened after the deadline for receipt of those offers and when the envelopes had been opened and evaluated. Further, it seems that whatever the applicant heard it was merely an indication as opposed to more definite information. At that stage, the circulation of that limited information did not make any difference to the process. Result 61. In the result, the contract described in this case is a public works contract within the meaning of Council Directive 93/37. The State body considering the award of a contract within the scope of the Directive was obliged, in this case, to use the open or restricted procedure. There is no principle of National or European law which forbids a State body from requesting a best and final offer from qualified tenderers once the chosen procedure has been followed. The requirements of equal treatment and transparency, however, require that by the tender documents, notice should be given to prospective tenderers that a best and final offer may be sought following on the receipt and preliminary evaluation of tenders. 62. National and European law requires that parties who are given knowledge of a potential defect in tender procedures should move to seek the relief of the High Court at the earliest opportunity. Where the tender documents themselves display a defect in procedure, parties should not wait until the matter is decided by the award of the tender but proceed at the earliest opportunity to seek interlocutory relief. 63. There is nothing on the facts of this case that suggest that the procedure adopted by Bus Átha Cliath did not give all the parties contending for this contract an equal chance to meet the published specifications and offer the highest price. While the procedure questioned in these proceedings was lawful, it also had the merit of being circulated to all the parties for their information and of having been applied to them equally. The residual argument that there was a lack of transparency and an appearance of discrimination is therefore dismissed. |