Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the public procurement process because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to go to court or another better placed body if he considers the Council has acted unlawfully.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council gave incorrect information about the word limit for parts of the tender submission. He believes this led to his company being unsuccessful and the Council offering the contract to a favoured company already working for the Council. He wants the Council to run a fairer tender process in future.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council carried out a procurement exercise for a contract to provide services in 2024. Mr X’s company tendered for the contract but was unsuccessful. During the exercise, Mr X asked for clarification from the Council on the word limit for parts of the tender questions which the Council answered on the same day.
7. The Council said Mr X had not recalled his tender bid to modify and resubmit this before the deadline, when he appears to have discovered the word count limit had been removed. The Council also said it had no record of Mr X raising this issue again until April 2025, three weeks after the deadline for unsuccessful bidders to challenge the Council’s decision. The Council has confirmed a Senior Procurement Manager has since reviewed the tender exercise and found no evidence of mishandling or fault in the tender evaluation and scoring process.
8. The Council has also confirmed it has complied with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, which intend to make public procurement more accessible for small businesses. The guidelines apply to all public procurement contracts over a certain financial threshold. Where procurement contracts are above the financial threshold, a government body called the Public Procurement Review Service can investigate further.
9. If Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision and believes it acted unlawfully, it would be reasonable for him to seek legal advice about the interpretation of contract terms or procurement law and take the matter to court or the Public Procurement Review Service (if applicable).

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:

• there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council handled the procurement process to warrant an investigation;
• there are other bodies better placed to consider Mr X’s complaint, and;
• Mr X has to right to seek a remedy in court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman