A legal battle over alleged unfairness in the awarding of the new contract for Jersey’s lifeline air ambulance service has played out in the Royal Court this week.

Gama Aviation, which lost out to competitor 247 Aviation when the new provider was chosen by the Health Department earlier this year, has applied for judicial review to have the decision quashed because of questions over fairness and transparency.

Gama has provided the service for emergency transfers of Islanders requiring medical treatment in the UK since August 2020, but its contract is due to end on 31 December this year following the successful bid by 247.

The two companies submitted different bids, with Gama utilising a twin-engined King Air plane while 247 included a single-engined option involving the Pilatus PC-12 plane. Evaluation of the two bids was likened to “comparing apples with pears” by the Bailiff, Robert MacRae, presiding with Jurats Ronge and Le Cornu.

“Manifest errors in procedure”

Advocate Jonathan Barham, representing Gama in the case against Health Minister Tom Binet, said major changes had been made to the tender process between the second and third stages of bidding.

The court heard that it was a “must” requirement at stage two that the Jersey service be provided by twin-engined aircraft, meaning Gama had prepared on this basis, whereas 247 had prepared options based on both twin- and single-engined planes.

Advocate Barham said that the government had then changed the specifications by the time bidders were given documentation for stage three on 1 April this year.

Reference was made to single-engined aircraft being permitted, although the document also contained conflicting wording of the “engines” of a plane.

He said this was the first such indication of the change, which caused problems for Gama because of the proximity of the deadline of 20 April for bids.

Gama’s legal representative spelled out in detail why the company felt that the evaluation and scoring process for the rival bids had been unfair and insufficiently transparent.

Out of ten individuals who scored Gama and 247 across 16 different criteria, two had not completed feedback paperwork, and in other cases the feedback had been incomplete and marks had been revised upwards or downwards with insufficient explanation.

One evaluator had described Gama’s bid as “speculative and unproven”, which Advocate Barham said was an unrealistic assessment given Gama had been providing the service since 2020, saying that he felt this feedback had mixed up the two companies.

Advocate Barham said: “There were manifest errors in procedure that were so significant that the decision cannot be allowed to stand and must be quashed.”

“All competitors were treated fairly”

Advocate James Rondel, representing the Health Minister, said the procurement process had been “robust and professional”.

He said that on multiple occasions during the bidding process, the Health Department had made clear that it welcomed a flexible approach from bidders in terms of the aircraft they would use.

This was to allow the exploration of solutions, including the potential use of single-engined planes, that would maximise efficiencies, without compromising service standards.

“All competitors were treated fairly and given a fair crack of the whip,” he said.

Advocate Rondel said both Gama and 247 had been given the same notification about the specifications, and that this communication had taken place in December 2025, 122 days prior to the final deadline for bids.

Gama had made a “commercial decision” in submitting its bid based on a twin-engined plane, Advocate Rondel said, with the company deeming that this gave it the best part of winning the contract.

There had been no failure to provide reasons or errors in marking, he continued, although he said that a full breakdown of marks had not been provided as this would have enabled the two companies to work out the cost of their rival’s bid.

Mr MacRae said that in assessing the two bids, the Health Department’s team of evaluators were “dealing with different things, like comparing apples with pears”.

The Bailiff also questioned whether the Health Department should have shared feedback from Jersey’s Director of Civil Aviation, who had ruled that a single-engined plane could be used.

Advocate Rondel conceded, “with the benefit of hindsight”, that this could have happened, but also asserted that Gama had been free to raise queries had it wished to.

Advocate Rebecca McNulty, representing 247 Aviation, focused on the lengthy delay in Gama having launched its bid for judicial review on 20 July, saying this had been detrimental both to 247 and to public administration.

There was “no justification”, she argued, for Gama to have sought to reserve its position and then to seek judicial review once it knew that its bid had been unsuccessful.

The Jersey proceedings follow a similar case in Guernsey, where Gama challenged the decision to give the contract to a new provider, claiming that the Sarnian Health Department had not properly followed the States’ own procurement rules.

In passing judgment, Guernsey’s Lieutenant-Bailiff, Hazel Marshall, said the procurement process had been followed correctly and dismissed Gama’s application for a judicial review, saying 247 won the contract “fair and square”.

Following a two-day hearing that concluded at 6.05pm yesterday, Mr MacRae confirmed that the court’s judgment would be reserved until a later date.