Court finds ‘manifest errors’ in awarding of interpreters contract

The Court of Appeal has overturned the award of a contract for supply of interpreters for the State’s immigration service and Legal Aid Board.

The court on Thursday granted an appeal by Word Perfect Translation Services Ltd, which tendered unsuccessfully for the contract, over the High Court’s rejection of its case against the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform concerning how the contract was awarded to another firm, Forbidden City Ltd, trading as Translation.ie.

Word Perfect, which supplied interpreters to State bodies over several years, lost out by some 15 marks out of a possible 1,000 and made a range of complaints about how the tenders were evaluated.

Mr Justice Gerard Hogan found two “manifest errors” in the tender evaluation process left the court with no option, particularly given the closeness of the contest, but to set aside the award of the contract.

This was “unfortunate” in view of the “obvious and commendable” dedication of the evaluation team, and he was also sure the court’s decision would cause “grave disappointment” to Translation.ie.

Public procurement

However, it is necessary the court uphold and apply the essence of the public procurement rules as prescribed by EU law, and it was for those reasons Word Perfect’s appeal was being allowed, he said.

Mr Justice Hogan, with whom Mr Justice Michael Peart and Ms Justice Mary Irvine agreed, said the request for tenders for interpretation services was published in October 2015 by the Office of Government Procurement.

The evaluators, he held, committed one manifest error insofar as the quality assurance plan was concerned in wrongly treating Translation.ie as having supplied a “narrative” in the manner required by the tender when Translation.ie had not done so.

Word Perfect had scored full marks of 250 under this heading for a “high quality narrative report” while Translation.ie scored 170 (85 per cent).

He ruled there was a second manifest error relating to how the service delivery plan was evaluated, specifically, in relation to the requirement that interpreters retain their skills and fluency. Translation.ie got full marks of 250 under this heading while Word Perfect got 197.5.

Tender requirements

The “plain fact” is that both tenderers did not fully comply with the tender requirements on that issue as neither demonstrated they would “ensure”, rather than just “encourage”, their interpreters to retain their skills, he said. In those circumstances, the perfect score of 250 given to Translation.ie under that heading could not be allowed to stand.

Because of the two manifest errors identified, the appeal must be allowed, he ruled.

Dismissing other complaints by Word Perfect, he agreed with the High Court the evaluation team was not required to explain the “process” by which they arrived at the final marks or to provide reasons for the comparative disadvantage, as opposed to comparative advantage, of the preferred bidder.