Local authority did not act improperly in eliminating applicant from tendering process

High Court - Order 84A - Rules of the Superior Courts - European Communities (Public Authorities Contracts) (Review Procedures) Regulations 2010, as amended - applicant looking for an order setting aside respondent's decision eliminating the applicant from any participation in tender competition - also looking for declaration that contract between respondent and notice party void - 3rd July, 2020 - contract notice from respondents on e-tenders website - 31st July, 2020 - applicant submits tender - 14th August, 2020 - respondents send applicants email to say the amounts tendered are abnormally low - 20th August, 2020 - applicants respond - 27th August, 4th September, and 15th September, 2020 - further correspondence between parties - 9th October, 2020 - letter from respondent to applicant - outlined why amounts were too low - notice party informed of success on same day - 27th October, 2020 - contract entered into - 3rd November, 2020 - published in Iris Oifigiúil that contract concluded - 6th November, 2020 - proceedings issued by applicant - five arguments from applicant - failure to notify and commence standstill period - improper fettering of discretion - misinterpretation of tender documentation - failure to apply the appropriate test in considering applicant's explanations - failure to give adequate or intelligible reasons - letter - regulation 5(1) standstill period - regulation 6(2) - contents - regulation 11 - court can say ineffective - regulation 13 - alternative penalties - respondent didn't follow procedure - exact date not known by respondents at that time - 9th October letter not standstill letter - no evidence given by applicant why pre-contractual remedies not pursued as a result - applicant did not seek to prevent the award - no entitlement under regulation 11(2) established - regulation 11(7) - court can assess relevant factors and make decision on whether contract valid - not in amended pleadings applicant so can't pursue - improper fettering of discretion - respondent had discretion whether to request explanation - case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union referred to - must establish whether the tenderer is reliable - have to allow tenderer to explain apparently suspect pricing - statutory obligation for respondent to investigate abnormally low pricing - duty to investigate - duty to afford opportunity for explanation - discretion to eliminate - ground of challenge fails - misinterpreting tender documentation - argument not made out in written or oral documents - unsupported by proper construction of tender documents and full consideration of correspondence applicants are relying on - failure to apply appropriate test for considering applicant's explanations - abnormally low ground dismissed - could have told respondents they could do it at the appropriate rate - reasons were given - reasons substantial enough for judicial review application to be brought - desirable to have reasons to avoid feelings of mystification and grievance - applicants in no doubt offer could potentially be rejected - general letter from applicants did not explain pricing - obvious it was being turned down - disagreement with respondent's reasons does not mean inadequate - court finds in plaintiff's favour regarding standstill letter - finds in defendants with others - application substantially dismissed costs hearing.

Nats (Services) Limited v Gatwick Airport Limited [2013] NIQB 64, actually citation for Resource (NI) Ltd v. Ulster University [2013] NIQB 64.
Nats (Services) Limited v. Gatwick Airport Limited [2014] EWHC 3728 (TCC) or Nats (Services) Limited v. Gatwick Airport Limited & Or [2014] EWHC 3133 (TCC).
(Case C - 599/10 Slovak)
Fratelli Costanzo (Case -103/88, judgment of 22nd June, 1989) Impresa Lombardini (joint Cases C-285/99 and C-286/99, judgment of the 27th November, 2001).
TQ3 Travel Solutions (Case T-148/04, judgment of the 6th July, 2005) the Court of First Instance (referring back to Renco v Council [2003] ECR 11-171) Secalux (Case T-90/14, judgment of the 8th October, 2015).
Tax-Fin-Lex (Case C -367/19, Judgment of the 10th September, 2020).
SAG case. That is the decision of the court in Case C-599/10, delivered on the 29th March, 2012, and the authority which counsel for Killaree focused in their submissions.