A private provider has accused three acute trusts of breaking procurement rules over how they handled bids for a managed pathology services contract worth up to £475m in a case heard by the High Court last week.
Diagnostics firm Abbott Laboratories said in its legal claim that the three trusts had “unlawfully invited and permitted” a competing bidder, Siemens, to “significantly change” the price it had included during a competitive tender exercise run for the valuable contract.
The three trusts, which reject the claim, are Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust, Calderdale and Huddersfield Foundation Trust and Mid Yorkshire Hospitals Trust. The High Court’s latest hearing of the case took place on 15 June. It is not yet clear when the case will be concluded.
The original tender had been for a 14-year pathology managed service contract up to March 2037. The winning bidder would supply services across the three trusts, including expanding “point of care testing in hospitals and primary care, and self-testing at home”.
Abbott’s claim, filed in April, states its bid for the contract received “higher scores for the technical and legal award criteria” but that Siemens had scored more overall “due to its pricing submission”.
Abbott said the trusts, referred to as the Collaborative, had awarded the contract to Siemens in February, but then reversed the decision in March, and announced it was running a new evaluation of the competing bids. The Collaborative had sought clarification from both Abbott and Siemens on the prices included in their submissions, giving the latter an opportunity to significantly change its pricing, according to Abbott.
In April it again awarded Siemens the contract. But this came after Abbott had written to the Collaborative saying it was “seriously and legitimately concerned” the price in Siemens’ bid, which was more than a third lower than its own, was “non-compliant, subject to material omissions and/or abnormally low”, its legal claim states.
It said the Collaborative had responded that “they understood why Siemens price was radically lower than that of the other bidders and that no issues arose”.
However, Abbott said it believed the Collaborative had “pursued, or have had regard to, a strategy of seeking to justify or excuse inviting and permitting Siemens significantly to change the pricing submissions”. Abbott alleged the Collaborative had also breached its “duty of transparency and duty to provide lawful reasons” by not providing an explanation of “their decision and conduct in apparently inviting and permitting Siemens to make significant chances to the pricing submission”. It said it was also in breach for not providing details of its evaluation of whether the Siemens’ price was too low, or details of “the communications with Siemens”.
Abbott wants the court to set aside the Collaborative’s contract award decision, a declaration they acted unlawfully, an order that the evaluation or procurement should be run again, “such further relief as many be just and appropriate”, and costs.
The Collaborative rejected the claim that it had breached procurement rules. It denied it “had invited and permitted Siemens to make significant changes to the pricing submission”.
Read full article
Source: HSJ
Date: 21 June