Bouygues sues DfE over mega schools framework award | Construction Enquirer News
Summary
Bouygues has filed a lawsuit against the UK Department for Education, claiming scoring errors in the mega schools framework evaluation cost it a £15bn project opportunity.
Why It Matters
This case highlights significant concerns regarding procurement processes and transparency in public contracts. The outcome could impact future bidding practices and the integrity of project evaluations in the construction sector.
Key Takeaways
- Bouygues alleges scoring errors and flawed moderation led to its exclusion from a major project framework.
- The contractor argues that minor issues were overstated while similar flaws in rival bids were overlooked.
- The case emphasizes the need for transparency and consistency in public procurement evaluations.
- Bouygues is seeking to overturn the award decision or claim damages for lost opportunities.
- The outcome may influence future procurement practices within the UK construction industry.
The contractor claims flawed scoring and a botched moderation process cost it a place with the panel of firms on the coveted southern region major projects lot. It alleges the Department for Education failed to assess bids properly under the Procurement Act 2023 by making manifest scoring errors and applying undisclosed criteria. Bouygues finished 11th after scoring 74.67 out of 100. The final 10th place on the panel went to McLaren Construction on 74.8 points. The firm says the razor-thin difference has locked Bouygues out of a six-to-eight-year pipeline of high-value new-build and refurbishment projects across London and the south of England. Given the narrow margin and the scoring weightings, Bouygues argues that even a one-step uplift in its marks — or a corresponding downgrade for its nearest rival — would have flipped the result. In its particulars of claim filed in the Technology & Construction Court, Bouygues also claims minor issues were overstated while similar points in rival bids were treated more leniently. The firm also challenges the moderation process, arguing higher initial scores were reduced without clear reasoning, leaving the final assessment neither transparent nor consistently applied. The firm’s case zeroes in on disputed marking for questions covering nature-based solutions, building fabric, technology and social value themes. It argues that evaluators repeatedly invoked “risk to the Department” to justify lower marks without identifying any actual...