Guernsey’s air ambulance provider had a chance to strengthen its tender application, it was revealed in court on Wednesday, while we also learned more about why the States decided to change providers.
Gama Aviation previously held a five-year contract to provide the lifeline emergency air ambulance services for both Guernsey and Jersey since August 2020.
That was extended while the contract went out to tender earlier this year, with the States of Guernsey and Jersey both deciding to sign a new agreement with 247 Aviation.
The new contract is due to kick in this December, but Gama Aviation has asked for a judicial review of the decision making process.
Represented in court by Advocate Michael Adkins, Gama Aviation previously said Guernsey’s Committee for Health and Social Care breached the core principles of the States’ procurement policies in awarding the air ambulance contract to 247 Aviation.
He said it was a “startling result” to give the contract to a “provider which cannot provide a safe service”.
Advocate Adkins – a litigation Partner with Collas Crill – said Gama was challenging the decision to award the contract to 247 on three grounds.
Gama’s application for a judicial review is based on:
1. A breach of transparency related to the late change in aircraft requirements in Jersey.
2. A lack of transparency in reasoning and scoring in Guernsey.
3. Questions over the rationality of the evaluation and scoring in Guernsey.
The States, represented by Crown Advocate Penny Grainge, agreed that HSC’s decision was “amenable to a judicial review”, said Advocate Adkins.
Having been presented with numerous examples of procurement policies which have been subject to judicial reviews elsewhere, and examples of how Gama believed HSC had failed to follow the States of Guernsey’s procurement policies, including in relation to the scores awarded, LB Marshall heard evidence from Advocate Grainge yesterday.
Advocate Grainge explained how the scores are weighted in the procurement process – reiterating that this happened in line with the published policy when HSC was considering the tender applications for the air ambulance contract.
She said the questions being asked concerned whether the decision making in this procurement example was lawful, and whether the decision making was rational.
There were no manifest errors, she said, defeating the second and third grounds that Gama was seeking a judicial review on.
Sharing commercial information with the court, Advocate Grainge gave examples of the scores given to both Gama Aviation and 247 Aviation – explaining how the published and technical weighting differs, and how the scores given by Guernsey and Jersey differed in some areas.
Giving specific examples of how the scores varied between Gama Aviation and 247 Aviation, Advocate Grainge said 247 scored more points in the category concerning spare aircraft and sustainability.
Giving further evidence around the different scores achieved by both companies, Advocate Grainge offered additional examples including where Jersey had marked Gama lower, or 247 higher than Guernsey’s scores.
This included in areas of ‘resilience’, ‘risk management’, the ability to carry bariatric patients, and others.
Where Gama criticised the scores, and the explanation given for the scores, Advocate Grainge dismissed it saying the “reasons are minimal”.
Advocate Grainge also disclosed that Gama was given the opportunity to strengthen its tender application, but 247 still scored higher overall and was therefore awarded the contract.
“The scores and the scoring matrix speak for themselves,” she said.
The hearing continues…
