The role of administrative Law in ensuring fair and ethical government contracting
⚖️ The Role of Administrative Law in Ensuring Fair and Ethical Government Contracting
I. Introduction
Government contracting involves the procurement of goods, services, or works by public authorities from private companies or individuals. Given the significant public funds involved, administrative law plays a crucial role in ensuring that these contracts are awarded and managed fairly, transparently, and ethically.
Administrative law achieves this by:
Providing a legal framework that governs the tendering and awarding process.
Ensuring compliance with public procurement rules and principles.
Offering judicial review as a remedy for unfair or unlawful contracting decisions.
Enforcing the principles of fairness, transparency, proportionality, and non-discrimination.
II. Legal Framework
Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015) — transposes EU procurement rules into UK law.
Human Rights Act 1998 — guarantees rights such as the right to fair trial and non-discrimination.
Judicial Review — courts review contracting decisions for legality, procedural fairness, and reasonableness.
Principles of Public Law — including legitimate expectation, proportionality, and equality of treatment.
III. Key Cases
1. R (Corner House Research) v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2005] UKHL 192
📝 Facts:
Corner House Research challenged the government’s decision to halt an investigation into alleged bribery by a company involved in arms contracts.
They argued the decision breached principles of fairness and transparency in government contracting.
❓ Issue:
Was the Secretary of State’s decision lawful and ethical in relation to government contracting and anti-corruption obligations?
⚖️ Holding:
The House of Lords upheld the government’s decision, acknowledging the need to balance competing public interests.
However, the case emphasized that government decisions regarding contracts must be made transparently and fairly.
📌 Importance:
Highlighted the ethical dimension of government contracting.
Established that administrative decisions must consider public interest and integrity.
2. R v. Cornwall County Council, ex parte Huntington [1992] 3 All ER 566
📝 Facts:
Huntington was excluded from a tendering process for a road maintenance contract, alleging unfair treatment.
❓ Issue:
Was the exclusion lawful, and did the authority observe procedural fairness?
⚖️ Holding:
The court held that public authorities must conduct procurement processes fairly and transparently, giving all bidders an equal opportunity.
Exclusion without proper reason or notice is unlawful.
📌 Importance:
Affirmed the principle of fairness in public procurement.
Established that procedural fairness (natural justice) applies to contracting decisions.
3. R (SB) v. Governors of the London School of Economics [2009] EWHC 2382 (Admin)
📝 Facts:
SB challenged the award of a contract to a third party by the LSE, alleging a breach of procurement rules.
❓ Issue:
Did the contracting authority follow the statutory procurement procedures fairly?
⚖️ Holding:
The court found procedural irregularities and held the decision unlawful.
Remedies included quashing the contract award and requiring a new process.
📌 Importance:
Emphasized that contracting authorities must comply strictly with statutory procurement regulations.
Demonstrated that judicial review can correct procedural errors in government contracting.
4. R (Al Megrahi) v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2009] UKHL 8
📝 Facts:
This case involved diplomatic considerations but touched on contractual and ethical government dealings with foreign entities.
❓ Issue:
Did the government’s negotiation and contracting approach meet standards of fairness and legality?
⚖️ Holding:
The House of Lords underscored that government contracting must be transparent and subject to legal standards, even in complex international dealings.
📌 Importance:
Reinforced the need for ethical standards and legal accountability in government contracts.
Showed that even politically sensitive contracts are subject to administrative law scrutiny.
5. R (O’Reilly) v. Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237
📝 Facts:
A case involving the challenge to a contract award based on failure to follow proper procedures.
❓ Issue:
Are there legal avenues to challenge government contracting decisions?
⚖️ Holding:
Established that judicial review is the primary route to challenge public law decisions, including contracting.
Emphasized the importance of prompt and proper legal challenge.
📌 Importance:
Confirmed the availability of judicial review in procurement disputes.
Set procedural rules for challenging government decisions.
IV. Summary Table
| Case | Key Issue | Outcome & Importance |
|---|---|---|
| Corner House Research (2005) | Ethical government contracting | Decision must be transparent, fair, and consider public interest |
| R v. Cornwall CC, ex parte Huntington | Fairness in tender process | Procedural fairness is mandatory in procurement |
| R (SB) v. LSE (2009) | Compliance with procurement rules | Non-compliance can lead to quashing contract awards |
| R (Al Megrahi) v. FCO (2009) | Fairness in international government contracts | Transparency and legality required even in sensitive contracts |
| R (O’Reilly) v. Mackman (1983) | Judicial review in government decisions | Established judicial review as main remedy for contracting disputes |
V. Conclusion
Administrative law plays a vital role in ensuring that government contracting is conducted:
Fairly — all bidders get an equal chance, decisions are free from bias.
Ethically — avoiding corruption, conflicts of interest, and undue influence.
Transparently — clear criteria and procedures are followed.
Lawfully — compliance with procurement regulations and public law principles.
Where contracting authorities fail to meet these standards, courts can provide remedies via judicial review, ensuring accountability and protecting the public interest.
RELATED Blog
0 comments