Siemens Mobility Ltd v High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMrs Justice O'Farrell DBE,Mrs Justice O'Farrell
Judgment Date06 November 2023
Neutral Citation[2023] EWHC 2768 (TCC)
CourtKing's Bench Division (Technology and Construction Court)
Docket NumberCase No. HT-2021-000231 Case No. HT-2021-000391 Case No. HT-2021-000399 Case No. HT-2021-000424 Case No. HT-2021-000434 Case No. HT-2022-000168 Case No. HT-2022-000281 Case No. HT-2022-000350 Case No. HT-2022-000466 Claim No: CO/3119/2021 Claim No: CO/3523/2021 Claim No: CO/3897/2021 Claim No: CO/1729/2022 Claim No: CO/2971/2022 Claim No: CO/3470/2022 Claim No: CO/7/2023
Between:
Siemens Mobility Limited
Claimant
and
High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
Defendant

and

(1) Bombardier Transportation UK Limited
(2) Hitachi Rail Limited
Interested Parties

[2023] EWHC 2768 (TCC)

Before:

Mrs Justice O'Farrell DBE

Case No. HT-2021-000231

Case No. HT-2021-000344

Case No. HT-2021-000391

Case No. HT-2021-000399

Case No. HT-2021-000424

Case No. HT-2021-000434

Case No. HT-2022-000168

Case No. HT-2022-000281

Case No. HT-2022-000350

Case No. HT-2022-000466

Claim No: CO/3119/2021

Claim No: CO/3523/2021

Claim No: CO/3897/2021

Claim No: CO/1729/2022

Claim No: CO/2971/2022

Claim No: CO/3470/2022

Claim No: CO/7/2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES

TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT (KBD)

Royal Courts of Justice

Rolls Building, London, EC4A 1NL

Fionnuala McCredie KC, Ewan West, Fiona Banks, Alex Littlewood & John Steel (instructed by Osborne Clarke LLP) for the Claimant

Sarah Hannaford KC, Simon Taylor, Ben Graff & Tom Walker (instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP) for the Defendant

Azeem Suterwalla (instructed by Allen & Overy LLP) for the Interested Parties

Reading dates: 16 th & 17 th November 2022

Hearing dates: 21 st, 22 nd, 23 rd, 24 th, 25 th, 28 th, 29 th, 30 th November 2022

1

st, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 19th December 2022

23

rd January 2023, 14th March 2023

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on Monday 6 th November 2023 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives

Mrs Justice O'Farrell DBE

INDEX

Mrs Justice O'Farrell

Introduction

1.

Introduction

Para 1–11

2.

The Procurement

Para 12

PQP

13–16

The ITT

17–38

Tender Evaluation

39–53

Review Panels

54–60

Progress of the Procurement

61–80

3.

The Proceedings

Para 81–107

The Issues

108–109

Evidence

110–111

4.

The UCR

Para 112–132

5.

Issue 1- Scoring Challenge to stages 2–3

Para 133–134

Legal Principles

135–146

ID 2.2.6 C2- Pantograph

147–153

ID 2.2.7 C1- Energy Consumption

154–160

ID 2.2.21 C1- Platform Train Interface (“PTI”) Dimensions

161–169

ID 2.2.21 C2- PTI Dimensions

170–177

ID 2.2.21 C3- PTI Dimensions

178–189

ID 2.2.22 C1 & C2- Design Challenge 1 (PTI)

190–201

ID 2.2.23 C3- Dwell Time

202–226

ID 2.2.30 C2- Pass-by-noise

227–234

ID 2.3.36 C3- Reliability

235–244

ID 2.2.39 C4- Command, Control and Signalling (CCS)

245–257

ID 2.2.41 C2- Coupling

258–267

DP 1.1 C1- Project Management Sub-Plan

268–274

DP 1.1 C4- Project Management Sub-Plan

275–281

DP 1.2 C3- Project Programme

282–289

DP 1.3.1 C7- Design Development

290–297

DP 1.3.2 C6- Operation Functionality

298–305

DP 1.3.5 C1- Approvals

306–313

DP 1.3.5 C2- Approvals

314–321

Stage 2.3 C6- Maintenance Technical Plan

322–330

DP 1.3.5 C3- Approvals

331–338

DP 1.3.7 C4- Noise

339–346

DP 3.1 C2- Maintenance Deliverability

347–355

DP 3.2 C1- Mobilisation Plan for TSA

356–363

DP 3.4 C4- Refinement of Maintenance Plan

364–372

DP 3.5 C5- Fit Out Works

373–380

Conclusion on Scoring Challenges

381–384

6.

Issue 2- Shortfall Tender Decision

Para 385–386

DP 1.5- Testing Sub-Plan

387–399

Section 6.4 of the IfT

400–401

Review Panel 1 (RP1)

402–413

Siemens' Allegations

414

Exercise of Discretion

415–416

Ground (i)- Deliverability Risk

417–427

Ground (ii) The JV's Overall Performance

428–429

Ground (iii)- Other Tenders

430–431

Ground (iv)- Other Projects

432–433

Ground (v)- Improved Bid

434–435

Ground (vi)- Risk of Single Tender

436–437

Conclusion on Shortfall Tender

438–443

7. Issue 3- Change of Control Consent

Para 444–445

ITT Rules on Change of Circumstance

446–452

Material Facts

453–477

Siemens' Allegations

478

Notification Under Section 15.7.2

479–489

Disclosure of Tender Status

490–499

Informal Method of Communication

500–506

Material Changes to Bombardier's Circumstances

507–508

Conclusion on Change Consent

509

8. Issue 4- Stage 5 Evaluation

Para 510–512

Power to Seek Clarification

513–516

Stage 5 assessment

517–524

Allegation (i) Modifications

525–526

Allegation (ii) JV's Past Performance

527–528

Allegation (iii) Maintenance Costs

529–530

Allegation (iv) Stages 2–4 Scores

531–532

Allegation (v) Daily Unit Service Charge

533–538

Allegation (vi) Option Units

539–542

Allegation (vii) Appendices

543–548

Allegation (viii) Reasons

549–550

Allegation (ix) Alias Names

551–552

Allegation (x) Heavy Maintenance/Overhaul Analysis

553–554

Conclusion on Stage 5 Evaluation

555

9. Issue 5- Abnormally Low Tender Review

Para 556–557

Applicable Test

558–559

Abnormally Low Tender Review

560–564

Siemens 'Allegations

565

Discussion and Conclusion

566–571

10. Issue 6- Verification Prior to Negotiation

Para 572–588

11. Issue 7- Pre- Contract Checks

Para 589–590

Pre-Contract Checks

591–610

Siemens' Allegations

611

Improper Purpose

612–617

Reconsideration of the PQP and ITT Requirements

618–619

Economic and Financial Resilience

620–627

Technical Checks

628–642

Conclusion on Pre-Contract Checks

643

12. Issue 8- Modifications

Para 644–645

TTS 94 and TTS 161

646–651

Journey Time Issue

652–663

PCN 1 and PCN 2

664–668

Modification Decision

669–677

Inevitability of Modification Decision

678–684

Prohibitory Order

685–691

13.

Issue 9- Conflict of Interest (Claims 7 and 8)

Para 692–693

Material Circumstances

694–722

Pleaded Case on Claim 7 & 8

723–725

Issues raised by Claims 7 & 8

726

Limitation

727–746

Conflict of Interest

747–760

Steps to identify, manage or remedy any conflict of interest

761–765

Impact

766–767

Conclusion on Claims 7 & 8

768

14. Issue 10- Conflict of Interest (Claims 9)

Para 769–770

Material Circumstances

771–774

Pleaded case in Claim 9

775–776

The Applications

777–780

The Applicable Test

781–784

Limitation

785–792

Abuse of Process

793–804

Conflict of Interest

805–814

15.

Issue 11- Other Breaches- Adequacy of Reasons

Para 815–821

16.

Issue 12- Judicial Review Claims

Para 822–829

17.

Conclusions

Para 830–831

1

These proceedings concern a challenge by the claimant (“Siemens”) in respect of a procurement exercise (“the Procurement”) carried out by the defendant (“HS2”) under the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016 (“the UCR”), relating to: (i) a manufacture and supply agreement for a minimum fleet of 54 rolling stock units for the HS2 rail project (“the MSA”); and (ii) a train maintenance and services agreement (“the TSA”) for a minimum period of 12 years with optional extensions over the life of the rolling stock (together referred to as “the Contract”).

2

The Procurement was commenced on 21 April 2017 by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union, stating that the value of the proposed Contract was estimated at £2.75 billion and would be conducted using the negotiated procedure in regulation 47 of the UCR.

3

Following pre-qualification, there were five stages of evaluation to identify the lead tenderer:

i) Stage 1 comprised the submission of the tender, including a declaration that the bid complied with the mandatory Train Technical Specifications (“the TTS”).

ii) Stage 2 comprised three scored elements: Stage 2.1 – levels of compliance with the TTS; Stage 2.2 – deliverability of the trains to the stated TTS; and Stage 2.3 – the maintenance technical plan response.

iii) Stage 3 concerned assessment of three delivery plans: DP1 – train design, manufacture and acceptance; DP2 – responsible procurement; and DP3 – train service and whole life performance.

iv) Stage 4 concerned assessment of the deliverability of DP4 – benefits realisation (skills, employment and education, and supply chain strategy).

v) Stage 5 comprised evaluation of the whole life value (“WLV”) of the bids and determination of the ‘Assessed Price’.

4

At the end of Stage 4, the scored elements of the components in Stages 2 to 4 were used to calculate an overall classification and evaluation rating for each tenderer. In order to proceed to Stage 5, it was necessary for the tenderers to meet the defined evaluation threshold for each component; alternatively, if any tenderer failed to meet the threshold (a ‘Shortfall Tender’), to be deemed to meet the threshold by HS2's exercise of discretion.

5

Siemens met the evaluation threshold for each component. A joint venture (“the JV”), comprising Bombardier Transportation UK Limited (“Bombardier”) and Hitachi Rail Limited (“Hitachi”), failed to meet the evaluation threshold in respect of one component, DP1.5, but was deemed to meet the evaluation threshold as a Shortfall Tender. Accordingly, Siemens and the JV proceeded to Stage 5 of the competition.

6

On 31 March 2021 HS2 approved the JV as lead tenderer, on the basis that the JV's Assessed Price was substantially lower than Siemens' Assessed Price. On 21 May 2021 HS2 informed the tenderers of that the JV was the lead tenderer.

7

On 29 October 2021 HS2 notified Siemens that it had decided to award the contract to the JV (“the Contract Award...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT