000			02102cab a22002415 4500
001			L146187
008			081215e20081030nik f v 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u146187
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aMcLaughlin and Harvey Limited v Department of Finance and Personnel _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2008
520			_a[2008] NIQB 122. Case considers whether a tender procedure was fair and what remedy could be decided in favour of the claimant. McLaughlin and Harvey (M) entered a competition to be selected in a Framework Agreement. A panel of the Central Procurement Directorate of the Department of Finance and Personnel (D) had to pre-select five candidates. They would thereafter be able to bid during the lifetime of the Framework Agreement, without competition from outside parties. M came sixth in the competition, within 1% of the bids placed fourth and fifth. So M asked for an inquiry which revealed it was fourth on the criterion of price. The other criterion was a method not disclosed to the candidates. So M asled for a remedy for loss and damages resulting of a breach of duty from D. It wanted to be added to the five successful candidates, or to have the competition re-run, or to be awarded damages. "Held": The public authority is in breach of its duty under Regulation 47.1 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 to M and the other candidates. The court would welcome a decision of D to abandon the Framework Agreement as this would be the best remedy for the claimant. If a new Framework Agreement should be reorganised, it shoud only include the eleven original candidates.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aMCLAUGHLIN AND HARVEY LIMITED V DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PERSONNEL
650	2	4	_aCHAPLIN V HICKS
650	2	4	_aAMERICAN CYANAMID CO V ETHICON LTD
650	2	4	_aLETTING INTERNATIONAL LIMITED V LONDON BOROUGH OF NEWHAM
651		4	_aNorthern Ireland _y2007-
651		4	_aEurope
690			_aProcurement _96260
856	4	1	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIHC/QB/2008/122.html _zView the item free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c81070 _d81070