Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a procurement matter. If Mr X disputes the outcome of the process it would have been reasonable for him to challenge it at court. The Public Procurement Review Service is better placed to decide if the Council followed the proper process and it is not our role to reassess the bids or to say the Council should have awarded Mr X the contract.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of a procurement matter. He believes the Council did not fairly consider his company’s bid and suggests the decision will cause his company financial loss

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I reviewed the information provided by Mr X, shared my draft decision with him and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X tendered for a high-value contract with the Council for the provision of services but was unsuccessful. Instead, the Council awarded the contract to a third party. Mr X believes the procurement process was unfair and that the Council manipulated the process to award the contract to its preferred supplier. He accuses the Council of unprofessionalism and corruption and says this has been covered up.
7. The substantive issue in this case concerns the Council’s recent award of the high-value contract. The procurement process leading to this award appears to be subject to either the Public Contract Regulations 2015 or the Utility Contract Regulations 2016 so if Mr X wishes to dispute the Council’s decision it would have been reasonable for him to do so at court.
8. Mr X may also notify the Public Procurement Review Service (PPRS) of his concerns about the Council’s actions; the PPRS is better placed to consider whether the Council followed the correct process and may recommend improvements.
9. It is not our role to reassess the bids or to say the Council should have weighted the process differently and awarded Mr X the contract. It is therefore unlikely we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for him by investigating his complaint.
10. Mr X appears to raise some concerns about actions dating back to 2019; any complaint about these actions is late and I have seen no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate them.
11. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to challenge the Council’s decision to award the contract to his competitor at court. It is unlikely we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X and the PPRS is better placed to consider Mr X’s concerns about the procurement process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman