Supreme Court lifts suspension of social housing contract worth 500 million euros

The High Court has lifted the suspension of a contract for a €500 million programme aimed at building affordable social housing in six local authority areas over the next four years.

Judge Denis McDonald lifted the automatic stay of the contract award after one of the unsuccessful bidders initiated legal proceedings.

Coolsivna Construction Ltd has brought proceedings against Meath County Council, the lead local authority for a framework contract to award construction contracts for municipalities in Meath, Longford, Louth, Westmeath, Monaghan and Cavan.

Around 520 homes are almost ready for occupation under the programme, while work on 126 homes in two projects in Co Meath can start immediately or very soon.

Once the action has been brought, the contract will automatically be suspended until the procedure is completed, unless an application is made to lift the suspension, in accordance with EU procurement law.

Meath County Council submitted an application for annulment, which was opposed by Coolsivna.

On Friday, Judge McDonald explained that, among other things, the public interest in meeting the needs of the homeless requires lifting the stay.

These include the fact that two projects – one for 47 homes in Athboy and one for 79 in Ashbourne – are at the “ready for completion” stage and the construction of these units will have a major impact on waiting lists for homes in both areas. Other projects in Louth and Monaghan are also at an advanced stage, he said.

If the postponement is not lifted, construction projects could be delayed by eight to nine months, he said.

The judge agreed to delay lifting the stay of proceedings until Tuesday to give Coolsivna’s lawyers the opportunity to ask the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal his decision.

In its case, heard in the Commercial Court last month, Coolsivna claims that Meath Co Council’s decision to add six additional parties to the framework agreement was unlawful and invalid.

It alleges, inter alia, that the Council failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, failed to highlight the characteristics and relative advantages of the lowest-scoring successful tenderer and failed to apply the award criteria correctly.

It calls for the contract award to be annulled and for Coolsivna to be appointed as a member of a framework agreement under which successful tenderers are appointed. It also calls for an order that the Council initiate a new procedure.

The Council considers that Coolsivna’s complaints are unfounded and that he should not be granted the compensation he seeks.