Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of MRW, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Judge: 'Something wrong' in MRWA's tender process

Something went “very wrong” in the Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority (MRWA)’s massive waste contract tender process, a judge has said.

An injunction has been imposed by the High Court preventing MRWA from entering in a long-term waste contract with Sita UK after Covanta, the other bidder for a 30-year £1.18bn contract, claimed that the procurement process had been legally flawed.

As a result of the injunction MRWA will not be able to enter the contract with Sita until the full hearing, which is due in April or May 2014.

In a written judgment, judge Mr Justice Coulson said that he agreed with the need for a interim injunction because there was a serious issue to be tried.

He described it as “a curious result” that six years of procurement process, including two-and-a-half years of intensive dialogue between authority and tenderer, could lead to the authority’s rejection of important aspects of Covanta’s tender “in so firm a manner”.

“That suggests that something, somewhere, went very wrong with the tender process,” Judge Coulson said, “Of course, the issue as to what that was, and the nature of any and all warnings given by MWDA during the process, about the matters to which they ultimately objected, can only be resolved at the trial.

Covanta claimed its bid scored 0% under ‘legal and contractual’ and the ‘overall integrity’ criteria but MRWA never informed Covanta that important aspects of its tender were “fundamentally unacceptable”.

Another factor Judge Coulson considered to be in favour of the injunction was that if Covanta won the case and was compensated, taxpayers would be paying for the waste contract twice: once to SITA to perform the service and once to Covanta for being denied the opportunity.

He also said it was in the public interest that authorities, such as MRWA, comply with procurement legislation as that was in line with EU law.

MRWA reiterated it regretted Covanta had decide to pursue litigation and that it would be “vigorously defending” the claim brought against it.

Sita declined to comment.

 

Readers' comments (1)

  • Hypothetically, if Covanta win the case do they get the contract or is it out for tender again?

    they may win this battle, but they will loose the war for no other council will engage discussions with the risk of a legal battle following on.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.