好色先生TV

Contractor Energy Solutions has said the winning bid for a 拢7bn nuclear decommissioning job that went to a Babcock-led team should have been 鈥渆xcluded鈥� from the bidding process and is claiming up to 拢200m in damages after losing out in the race for the job.

Energy Solutions, which was in a partnership with Bechtel called Reactor Site Solutions (RSS), lost in its bid to run the Magnox and Reactor Site Restoration portfolio of decommissioning sites in March, one of the biggest jobs in the UK construction market.

Energy Solutions was the incumbent bidder but was beaten to the 14-year long job by a consortium comprising Babcock subsidiary Cavendish Nuclear and US engineer Fluor, called the Cavendish Fluor Partnership (CFP).

Energy Solutions - without bidding partner Bechtel - is now claiming up to 拢200m in damages from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), which awarded the contract.

In papers filed at the High Court, seen by 好色先生TV, Energy Solutions claimed there were 鈥渟erious and legitimate concerns鈥� about how the procurement race was run and that it had lost out on 拢100m of profit that it would have made on the job.

The firm also claimed it had spent 拢10m bidding for the job and incurred 拢8m in redundancy costs because of the loss of the contract, all of which it said should be reimbursed by the NDA.

It said it may increase its claim in the future because it had 鈥渇urther lost reputation and good will and, as a consequence, the opportunity to earn profits on contracts of a similar size and nature for which it would have successfully competed as a result of winning the contract鈥�.好色先生TV understands that as a result the total claim could rise to 拢200m.

Energy Solutions said it was notified in March that, following a bidding process that involved around 200 meetings with the NDA, its team had scored 85.42% while the winning bidder scored 86.48%.

But the firm said it had 鈥渟erious concerns鈥� that an 鈥渁ccidental error鈥� in scoring Energy Solutions鈥� bid identified by the NDA鈥檚 legal advisors meant its score had been upgraded to 85.42% near the end of the bidding process.

鈥淚n the context of an evaluation where the scores were already close, the existence of such a significant error required considerably more explanation and investigation than apparently took place,鈥� the court papers state.

Energy Solutions claimed its tender was not scored correctly, resulting in a lower score than it should have received.

It also claimed the winning bidder鈥檚 tender did not meet a number of required criteria and should have been 鈥渆xcluded from further consideration鈥�.

A spokesperson for the NDA said it 鈥渄id not accept鈥� Energy Solutions鈥� claims. 

She added: 鈥淭he NDA is confident that its procurement process, including the evaluation, complied fully with EU and UK regulations at all stages and is well prepared to present its case in court.鈥�

Energy Solutions declined to comment.