HT-2025-000129 - [2025] EWHC 1654 (TCC)

Fecha: 01-Jul-2025

Background

The present proceedings challenge a procurement decision made by the Defendant (“LCC”). The Claimant (“Lime”) was an unsuccessful tenderer.

Lime is a company that provides services relating to the delivery of “micromobility services” using e-bikes and e-scooters. Lime offers shared electric vehicle services across five cities in the United Kingdom (including 17 separate boroughs across London) and, as such, is an experienced and prominent provider of such services in the UK market. Its case is that the data and information from operating in the cities in which it currently operates were important in informing Lime’s overall pricing submission.

LCC issued the tender along with an Invitation to Tender (“ITT”) on 10 January 2025. The ITT was later amended.

The ITT required bidders to complete and submit a Pricing Schedule as part of their final tender. The pricing submission that bidders were required to complete as part of the procurement worked as follows:

(a)

In the Pricing Schedule bidders had to set out (i) their expected mobilisation and exit costs associated with performing the Contract; (ii) their proposed price for various “income items” (such as the fee for unlocking an e-scooter or e-bike and the cost of renting an e-scooter for a week); (iii) their expected overhead cost (including exit costs but not mobilisation costs); and (iv) the income share that would be received by LCC, which could be based on:

(i)

Profit Share (with bidders having to show what LCC would receive as a percentage of the bidder’s profits);

(ii)

Revenue Share (with bidders having to show what LCC would receive as a percentage of the bidder’s total revenues); and/or

(iii)

A Fixed Operator Fee per month (shown as a figure).

The ITT, as amended, provided guidance as to how the bidders’ submissions would be evaluated.

On 14 February 2025, Lime submitted its final tender response, including its final submission on price.

By a letter dated 2 April 2025, LCC informed Lime that it had not been successful and that it was intending to award the Contract to Bolt Operations UK Limited (“Bolt”).

Lime commenced these proceedings by the issue of a Claim Form on 25 April 2025 in this Court. It is a claim for breach of obligations under the Concession Contracts Regulations 2016.

10.

The claim challenges LCC’s conduct of the tender process.

11.

On 30 April 2025, Lime served its Particulars of Claim. In summary, one limb of Lime’s case alleged breach of duties of transparency and equal treatment and of the tender rules in failing to evaluate and reject Bolt’s tender response as abnormally high.

12.

On 1 May 2025, Lime applied for specific disclosure of the following categories of documents, amongst others:

(1)

Any criteria, sub-criteria, information, evidence or standards used by LCC when conducting the evaluation process in respect of Bolt’s tender response;

(2)

The contemporaneous evaluation documents recording the evaluation and/or verification process conducted by LCC in respect of Bolt’s tender response and LCC’s decision that the Bolt pricing submission should be accepted;

(3)

Bolt’s pricing submission;

(4)

The contemporaneous evaluation documents recording the evaluation and/or verification process conducted by LCC in respect of Bolt’s tender response’s compliance with parts of the tender documentation and LCC’s decisions that Bolt complied with the published tender requirements.

13.

On 14 May 2025, Lime provided LCC with a draft CRO. This made clear that it was proposed that an “Employee of the Claimant” (i.e. a client representative) should be included within the CRO.

14.

LCC’s initial response on 15 May 2025 did not object to the inclusion of a client representative within the CRO. LCC’s position has since changed, and the differences between the Parties in that regard raise the issues which I have to determine (there are also cost issues which I will deal with separately hereafter).