ROL Testing Limited v Northern Ireland Water
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Horner J |
| Judgment Date | 11 February 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] NIQB 10 |
| Date | 11 February 2015 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Year | 2015 |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2015] NIQB 10
Ref:
HOR9525
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
11/02/2015
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
________
BETWEEN:
ROL TESTING LIMITED
Plaintiff;
-and-
NORTHERN IRELAND WATER
Defendant.
________
HORNER J
A. INTRODUCTION
[1] The plaintiff is a limited liability company which specialises in electrical
testing, compliance, maintenance, UPS (“uninterruptable power supplies”) and
lighting. The defendant is a utility company, which is the sole provider of water and
sewage services in Northern Ireland. The defendant decided that the inspection and
maintenance of all its electrical equipment and circuitry should be carried out by the
same specialist sub-contractor. In the past it had contracted with the plaintiff to
provide for testing, inspection and reporting only. Under this proposed new
contract, the defendant was adding electrical installation and repair, which had
previously been carried out by Scott’s Electrical Services Ltd (“Scott’s”). The new
contract was expected to last 36 months from commencement and was thought to be
worth between £5.6m and £10.5m. It would provide for all the electrical circuits and
systems across the defendant’s estate in Northern Ireland. This new contract was an
Electrical Inspecting Testing and Repair contract (“EITR contract”). The negotiated
procedure was used to select the most economically advantageous tenderer
(“MEAT”). On 12 December 2013 pre-qualification questionnaires (“PQQs”) were
uploaded to e-sourcing. On 13 December OJEU Notice of Contract C685 – electrical
inspections, testing IT and repair- was advertised. The two stage process involved a
sifting process to identify at least three candidates who would come through the
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
Siemens Mobility Ltd v High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd
...the reasonableness or unreasonableness of particular enquiries or steps is to be judged. In ROL Testing Ltd v Northern Ireland Water [2015] NIQB 10 Horner J derived assistance in determining that standard from the conclusion of the Supreme Court in Healthcare at Home Ltd v The Common Servic......