DOCSLIB.ORG

Judgment Is to Be Handed Down by the Judge Remotely by Circulation to the Parties’ Representatives by Email and Release to Bailii

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Judgment Is to Be Handed Down by the Judge Remotely by Circulation to the Parties’ Representatives by Email and Release to Bailii Covid-19 Protocol: This judgment is to be handed down by the judge remotely by circulation to the parties’ representatives by email and release to Bailii. The date for hand-down is deemed to be 4 March 2021. Neutral Citation Number [2021] EWHC 458 (TCC) Case No: HT-2019-000061 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT (QB) Business and Property Courts Rolls Building London, EC4A 2NL Date: 4 March 2021 Before : THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE FRASER - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : BECHTEL LIMITED Claimant - and - HIGH SPEED TWO (HS2) LIMITED Defendant - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Michael Bowsher QC and Ligia Osepciu (instructed by Hogan Lovells LLP) for the Claimant Sarah Hannaford QC, Simon Taylor and Ben Graff (instructed by Addleshaw Goddard LLP) for the Defendant Hearing dates: 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 27, 28 October and 10 and 11 November 2020 Draft distributed to parties 12 February 2021 Mr Justice Fraser: 1. This judgment is in the following parts. Paragraph number A: Introduction 2 B: Confidentiality 31 C: The Issues 40 D: The Procurement 43 E: The Witnesses 105 F: The Duties upon HS2 and Records 283 G: Qualifications 314 H: Limitation 337 I: The Result of the Competition 345 J: Abnormally Low Tender 456 K: Different contract and abandonment 482 L: Conclusions 509 Appendix I: Questions challenged and scoring factors Appendix II: Fee Information - Confidential A: Introduction 2. This is a procurement claim brought by Bechtel Ltd (“Bechtel”) against High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd (“HS2”) for breaches of the duties imposed upon HS2 by the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016 (“UCR 2016”). It is not in dispute that UCR 2016 applied to the procurement competition in question, which was run using the negotiated procedure under Regulation 47 of UCR 2016. HS2 is a very well-known and high- profile infrastructure project to construct a new high-speed railway to connect London with destinations both in the Midlands and the North of England. Phase One is to construct four new stations, and approximately 140 miles of new high-speed rail track, between London and Birmingham. Two of the stations are in the south, and two further north, with the terminus in Birmingham. Journey times by rail between the two cities will fall from 1 hour 21 minutes, to about 50 minutes. Phase Two will then continue the high-speed rail link onwards, north of Birmingham, in the shape of a letter Y, connecting onwards to Manchester, and to Leeds. Some of that phase will use existing track. Once completed, London will be at the base of the letter Y, with Birmingham at the junction before the two limbs go on towards the North East (as far as Leeds) and to the North West (to Manchester). 3. The trains will run at speeds in excess of 250 mph. As a project, it is very high cost, and the current estimate is somewhat in excess of £100 billion. The duration of the works for Phase One is about 8 years, with Phase Two expected to open about ten more years after that. It has proved to be a controversial project, as major infrastructure projects often are. In 2019 there was a Government review into its future. There are those who strongly support it, those who strongly oppose it for a variety of reasons, and many more somewhere in between those two points of view. Although the project has been controversial for reasons associated with both the total cost, the increase in the originally predicted cost, delay and also its environmental impact, these proceedings are not concerned with any of those very wide issues. 4. This litigation is much more narrow in scope, and concerns the procurement competition conducted by HS2 to decide which entity should be the Construction Partner (or “CP”) with HS2 for Old Oak Common, one of the two Southern Stations (the other being at Euston in London). There is currently a disused train maintenance depot at Old Oak Common, which was utilised as a construction materials marshalling facility for Crossrail. Old Oak Common is located to the west of London, about 600 metres from Willesden Green. The two Northern Stations for Phase One are to be Curzon Street in Birmingham, and another one to the south of Birmingham, which is to be called simply Interchange. This litigation concerns only Old Oak Common, known as OOC in all the documents. The procurement competition was run separately from, but at the same time as, that for the other Southern Station, Euston. The Euston competition was Lot 1, and that for Old Oak Common was Lot 2. Originally Bechtel was pre-qualified to bid for Lot 1 too, but withdrew from that competition by way of a formal withdrawal on 7 March 2018. The reason for the withdrawal was that Bechtel, having conducted a detailed review of the Invitation to Tender (or “ITT”), decided to concentrate all its collective efforts on its bid for Lot 2. Another bidder, whom it is not necessary to identify, took the same decision in relation to withdrawing from Lot 2 to concentrate upon Lot 1. 5. Old Oak Common is to be what is called a super-hub station, and will be one of Europe’s largest railway stations when it is opened. It is to have 14 platforms, six of which will be high-speed platforms and entirely underground by a depth of 20 metres. The other eight platforms will be on the surface and will interchange with the West Coast Main line, Heathrow Express and Crossrail (now called the Elizabeth line). The West Coast Main line currently goes from London Paddington to Bristol, Plymouth and beyond. All these lines will therefore interchange with HS2 at Old Oak Common. 6. The station at OOC will also cost a very large amount of money to construct; one of the aims of the HS2 procurement process was to ensure that it could be built for £1.054 billion. This undoubtedly will make it one of the most expensive railway stations ever to be built in Europe, although still somewhat less than the cost of the New York World Trade Centre Transportation Hub in the United States, said to be the most expensive railway station in the world (at a cost of US$4 billion). The budget for Euston is even higher than that for Old Oak Common, and is in excess of £1.5 billion. Both station projects are, evidently, highly complicated and consequently expensive. 7. Four different bidders tendered to be the Construction Partner to HS2 for Old Oak Common. Although the procurement competition result was separate to that for Euston, some of the post-bid documents featured discussion of both, and some HS2 personnel were involved in both. The competitions were run simultaneously. No bidder could win both competitions, under a feature of the two competitions called the Win One Only Rule (or “WOOR”). As it happened, that rule did not need to be invoked as the winning bidder for each competition was different. 8. Although at one stage Bechtel had contemplated bidding jointly for Lot 2 with another well-known company, Morgan Sindall, as matters turned out Bechtel bid alone, with Morgan Sindall as its intended sub-contractor. 9. The evaluation of the different tenders resulted in another bidder being scored higher on the tender for OOC than Bechtel. This winning bidder was a joint venture between Balfour Beatty Group Ltd, Vinci Construction (UK) Ltd, Vinci Construction Grands Projets SAS and Systra Ltd. I shall refer to this consortium as BBVS. More detail on the scoring is provided below, but in overall terms in the procurement evaluation, BBVS scored 75.38% and Bechtel scored 73.76%. Although Bechtel scored higher than BBVS on some areas of the evaluation – these being Technical, Behavioural Assessment, Commercial and Staff Rates – it was substantially outscored by BBVS on the fifth area, Lump Sum Fee. On that one area of the evaluation, which was worth a maximum of 10%, Bechtel scored only 5.76% and BBVS scored 10%, the maximum score for that Question. That score is therefore 4.24% higher than the score Bechtel achieved on this area of the evaluation. Due to the way the ITT was designed, this means that BBVS tendered the lowest Lump Sum Fee of the four bidders, as the maximum score was to be given to the bidder tendering the lowest Lump Sum Fee. Given the overall difference in the total final scores of these two bidders was only 1.62%, it can be seen that the single difference in score on Lump Sum Fee alone, accounts for a considerable difference in the overall scores between Bechtel and BBVS. Bechtel was the bidder that achieved the second highest score overall. In these proceedings Bechtel challenges the outcome of the procurement competition. BBVS is an Interested Party in the litigation but took no part in the trial, given the issues to be tried at this stage of the litigation are essentially those of liability. 10. Projects of this nature are highly complex. Procurements involving these type of projects are, similarly, highly complex. There are a vast number of different documents and personnel involved in considering, submitting and evaluating a bid for a project such as this one, and putting together a bid of this nature involves a large team of specialist people working in very great detail. Similarly, evaluating such tenders is an arduous task, involving Independent Assessors, Moderators and other personnel. This judgment will not address all the different documents, nor all of the evidence adduced by the many witnesses called by both parties, but only those sufficient to address the issues necessary to resolve the litigation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Turning South London Orange Passenger Demand, Proposed Main
    Turning south London orange Passenger demand, proposed main schemes and new stations / interchanges Contents Background .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Current entry+exit demand ...................................................................................................................... 2 By Oyster Zone .......................................................................................................................... 3 By Route Corridor Group ............................................................................................................. 4 Modelling future demand ........................................................................................................................ 5 Interchanges and Connectivity ................................................................................................................. 6 New Services and Objectives .................................................................................................................... 6 Satellite Activity Zones ................................................................................................................ 6 Underlying railway technical changes .......................................................................................... 7 Streatham ‘Virtual Tube’ ............................................................................................................. 8 A new South London Line ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Submissions to Call for Evidence from Individuals
    Submissions to call for evidence from individuals 1 Ref Individual Name RD-35 Andrew Bosi RD-36 Ann Lusmore RD-37 ‘Bruce’ Rail User RD-38 Chris Torrero RD-39 D.M. Byrne RD-40 David Dando RD-41 Fenella De Smet RD-42 Graham Larkbey RD-43 Guiliana Castle RD-44 Joe Webb RD-45 John Linwood RD-46 Jon Salmon RD-47 Joseph Barnsley RD-48 Laurel Rutledge RD-49 Laurence Mack RD-50a Lewis Cooke RD-50b Lewis Cooke RD-51 Luke Nicolaides RD-52 Cllr O Rybinkski RD-53 Matt Buck RD-54 Patricia Taylor RD-55 Phil Vasili RD-56 Peter Haggett RD-57 Phil Wass RD-58a Philip Ridley RD-58b Philip Ridley RD-58c Philip Ridley RD-59 Richard Logue RD-60a Rob Knight RD-60b Rob Knight RD-61 Robert Woolley RD-62 Simon Feldman RD-63 Steve Whitehead RD-64 Vic Heerah RD-65 Zara Stewart 2 RD - 35 Thank you for the invitation to comment. 1. What are the key problems with National Rail services in London that need to be addressed? They are less frequent than tubes and London Overground services, they end too early, there are insufficent staff members on stations. 2. What changes to the delivery, funding or governance of rail services in London should be considered? The concession arrangement granted to LOROL has transformed the services in question, proving that increasing the frequency and attractiveness of the service brings people off the roads and onto rail, or out of their homes to become economically active. 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Table 2: Examining Authority's General Questions Arising from the Draft
    Application by NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited for an Order Granting Development Consent for The Sizewell C Pro The Examining Authority’s written questions and requests for information (ExQ1) Issued on 21 April 2021 Responses are due by Deadline 2: Wednesday 2 June 2021 PART 1 OF 6 G. 1 General and Cross-topic Questions Ag.1 Agriculture and soils AQ.1 Air Quality Al.1 Alternatives AR.1 Amenity and recreation Page 1 of 84 ExQ1: 21 April 2021 Responses due by Deadline 2: 2 June 2021 ExQ1 Question to: Question: G.1 General and Cross-topic Questions G.1.0 The Applicant Limits of deviation As drafted the DCO has no limitation on the depth to which works could be undertaken. Please explain how this aligns with the assessment carried out within the ES. In order to reflect the assessment within the ES does the DCO not require a maximum depth of excavation – with a potential for a limit of deviation? If this is not considered to be necessary, please explain how the ES has assessed the potential effects of unlimited excavation. Response G.1.1 The Applicant Plans The Planning Statement, Plate 3.2, identifies the nominated site area for Sizewell C from NPS EN-6. Please provide a set of the Figures from the original Government Appraisal of Sustainability for the site, and an overlay of the DCO Application site highlighting any additional land included or excluded from that assessed including identification of the temporary construction area. Response G.1.2 The Applicant Plans On an appropriately scaled ordnance survey plan show the land within the DCO for the main development site and the lines of latitude and longitude referred to in paragraph C.8.88 of NPS-6 Vol II.
    [Show full text]
  • Railse No.150 December 2020
    railse no.150 December 2020 The quarterly branch newsletter of in London and the South East Britain’s leading independent campaign for a bigger better railway for passengers and freight Return to rail – safely, confidently Decarbonisation = electrification! The predominantly electrified rail network across most of our regional branch area still has a way to go before diesel-powered trains become a rarity. One task is electrifying Thames port and other similar connections for freight haulage, to discard the ubiquitous class 66! As this newsletter is published so too are the Office of Rail & Road’s latest annual station usage estimates. For the year 2019/20, they reflect the pandemic near the end of the period to 31st March. Next December’s figures, for the current year to March 2021, will be a horror-show and our challenge as a pro-rail campaign is to ‘build back better’ passenger usage – of a resilient transport system which is now into the final five-year countdown towards a truly notable bicentenary! We have just two straightforward messages: ~ to the general public: of all possible ways in which you might become infected with the virus, using public transport is proven to be one of the most unlikely; Class 88 electro-diesel loco for Direct Rail Services ~ to the rail industry: as passengers see when they return to their local station after closure for a half-term Dirty diesels destined for departure? of route improvement work, post-pandemic passengers returning must see improvements too with consistently Our three unelectrified routes (two of which don’t serve higher standards maintained for cleanliness of stations London) operate a fraction of the hourly diesel trains and trains and for punctuality of services.
    [Show full text]
  • Cumulative Growth Scenario – West Sub-Region
    Cumulative Growth Scenario – West Sub-Region Presentation to West London Panel 24th September 2015 Contents 1. Sub Regional Approach & Methodology 2. Growth & Impacts of the Cumulative Growth Scenario 3. West Sub-Regional Challenges Summary 4. Next Steps 2 1 Sub regional approach & Methodology • Evidence-based approach – Range of data sources to identify current and future challenges – Focus on the cumulative impact of growth • A consistent method used across all sub regions • Two alternative scenarios were modelled and to identify the impacts of growth and tested against a 2011 baseline. These were: – A baseline scenario 2011 – A reference case scenario 2041, broadly in line with the revised London Plan 2015 (although see note on following page) – A maximum growth scenario 2041, to consider growth exceeding current assumptions. This scenario included higher density development in the opportunity areas. • The two 2041 test scenarios both included the committed transport infrastructure improvements: – Committed National Rail capacity upgrades associated with HSLOS1 and 2 (High Level Output Specification); – Committed London Underground capacity upgrades associated with the PPP upgrade programme; – Cross rail 1. – They did not include uncommitted schemes: e.g. Crossrail 2, various rail projects facilitated by a new overground station/stations at Old Oak Common. 4 • The boroughs, TfL and the GLA are working together to identify the strategic transport requirements to support both: – Current needs; and – Growth across the sub region over the
    [Show full text]
  • Report Title
    The voice of transport users A London TravelWatch report Response to TfL’s consultation on the potential extension of the Bakerloo line further into South East London November 2014 Published by: London TravelWatch 169 Union Street London SE1 0LL Phone: 020 3176 2999 www.londontravelwatch.org.uk 2 London TravelWatch is the official body set up by Parliament to provide a Extending the Bakerloo Li Extending the Bakerloo voice for London’s travelling public, including the users of all forms of public transport. We are supported by and accountable to the London Assembly. Our approach We commission and carry out research, and evaluate and interpret the research carried out by others, to ensure that decisions on transport policy and operations are based on the best possible evidence ne We investigate complaints users have been unable to resolve with service providers – we get more than 6,000 enquiries a year from transport users and in 2013-14 we took 1,100 cases up with the transport operator because we agreed that the response the complainant had received to their original complaint was not satisfactory We monitor trends in service quality as part of our intelligence-led approach We regularly meet and seek to influence the relevant parts of the transport industry on all issues which affect the travelling public and work closely with a wide range of public interest organisations, user groups and research bodies to ensure we remain aware of their experiences and concerns We speak for passengers and the travelling public in discussions with opinion formers and decision makers at all levels, including the Mayor of London, the London Assembly, the Government, Parliament and local councils.
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes Before the First Train Until 15 Minutes After the Last Train
    Appendix 2 Budget and Performance Committee – 15 October 2014 Transcript of Item 5 – London Overground John Biggs AM (Chairman): The main item then is London Overground and we have four witnesses, Jon Fox and Peter Austin from, well, I think of them both from Transport for London [TfL]. Peter Austin, you are actually from the operator, is that right? Peter Austin (Managing Director, London Overground Rail Operations Ltd): From the operating company. John Biggs AM (Chairman): We have Janet Cooke from TravelWatch and Jonathan Roberts from Jonathan Roberts Consulting, who many of us know from his work down the years on various bits of London’s transport. He and I grew old together on the East London line extension, I think. Peter Austin (Managing Director, London Overground Rail Operations Ltd): Yes. John Biggs AM (Chairman): We are now younger again. OK, so we have a series of questions, but I think we will start with a presentation from London Overground Rail Operations Limited (LOROL). So welcome. Peter Austin (Managing Director, London Overground Rail Operations Ltd): Good afternoon, thanks very much. There are just a few slides with thought we would take you through, just to try to set the scene. I am Peter Austin, I am the Managing Director at LOROL. I have been with the company since we actually went through the original bidding process as well; originally as Finance Director and for the last 18 months as Managing Director, so I have seen the whole procurement process and actually the change that has happened. Where did we start? Back before 2007 I think, a well-known piece of work about London’s forgotten railroad, about the North London line.
    [Show full text]
  • TSOL Passenger Demand | Jonathan Roberts Consulting
    Turning south London orange Passenger demand, proposed main schemes and new stations / interchanges Contents Background .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Current entry+exit demand ...................................................................................................................... 2 By Oyster Zone .......................................................................................................................... 3 By Route Corridor Group ............................................................................................................. 4 Modelling future demand ........................................................................................................................ 5 Interchanges and Connectivity ................................................................................................................. 6 New Services and Objectives .................................................................................................................... 6 Satellite Activity Zones ................................................................................................................ 6 Underlying railway technical changes .......................................................................................... 7 Streatham ‘Virtual Tube’ ............................................................................................................. 8 A new South London Line ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Raising the Capital the Report of the London Finance Commission
    Raising the capital The report of the London Finance Commission MAY 2013 RAISING THE CAPITAL | THE REPORT OF THE LONDON FINANCE COMMISSION Raising the capital The report of the London Finance Commission MAY 2013 1 RAISING THE CAPITAL | THE REPORT OF THE LONDON FINANCE COMMISSION C opyright P ublished by London Finance Commission City Hall, The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA May 2013 www.london.gov.uk 020 7983 4564 ISBN 978 1 84781 479 1 Design: www.jwcreativedesign.co.uk © London Finance Commission, 2013 2 RAISING THE CAPITAL | THE REPORT OF THE LONDON FINANCE COMMISSION C ontents CHAIR’S FOREWORD 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 RECOMMENDATIONS 10 PART 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 13 1. Introduction and background to the Commission 14 2. UK devolution in context 17 3. Summary of previous reviews 21 4. Principles adopted in making recommendations 25 PART 2: EVIDENCE 27 1. Summary of evidence received 28 2. Academic and international evidence 34 PART 3: SUPPORTING LONDON AND UK GROWTH 37 1. London and UK cities 38 2. Funding and incentivising growth 47 PART 4: FISCAL POWERS 56 1. Introduction to fiscal devolution 57 2. Emerging concepts of devolution to cities 59 3. Property taxes 62 4. Radical tax reforms? 70 5. Fees and charges 73 PART 5: RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN AND OUTSIDE LONDON 75 1. Distributional and equalisation mechanisms 76 2. Implications for wider London government reform 78 3. London within England 80 4. Conclusion 81 ANNEXES 82 1. Biographies 83 2. Terms of Reference 86 3. London’s tax and spending 89 3 RAISING THE CAPITAL | THE REPORT OF THE LONDON FINANCE COMMISSION C hair’s foreword T he London Finance Commission provides an opportunity to improve the government of London.
    [Show full text]