The High Court has cleared the way for a plan focused on the construction of social and affordable housing worth €500 million over the next four years across six regional council districts. The automatic suspension on the contract awarding was lifted by Justice Denis McDonald in response to the initiation of legal action by an unsuccessful bidder.
The lawsuit was initiated by Coolsivna Construction Ltd against the Meath County Council, who is spearheading a framework agreement for the allocation of building contracts throughout Meath, Longford, Louth, Westmeath, Monaghan and Cavan councils. Under this plan, 520 homes are nearly ready for construction, and work on two schemes consisting of 126 homes in County Meath can commence swiftly.
As soon as the lawsuit was filed, European Union (EU) procurement law initiated an automatic halt on the contract until the legal case was settled, barring any application to lift the halt. An application for the halt removal was presented by the Meath County Council, a move which was resisted by Coolsivna.
Justice McDonald sanctioned a ruling on Friday scheduled to lift the halt due to a myriad of reasons, one of which being a public interest in providing a solution for the housing requirements of the homeless. This includes two almost-ready projects – one in Athboy for 47 homes and another in Ashbourne for 79 homes – the completion of which would significantly alleviate the housing waiting list in those specific areas. Advanced projects in Louth and Monaghan were also mentioned.
If the halt wasn’t lifted, it could cause an eight to nine month delay in the construction projects. Justice McDonald granted a delay to the halt lifting until Tuesday, providing Coolsivna’s lawyers with the chance to appeal his decision at the Court of Appeal.
In legal proceedings accepted by the Commercial Court last month, Coolsivna has alleged that the Meath County Council has unlawfully and invalidly assigned six different entities to the framework agreement.
According to the allegations, the council failed in various ways – it did not give sufficient or any justifications for its decision, failed to inform about the key traits and advantages of the least successful bid, and improperly applied the criteria for awarding. Coolsivna is seeking a nullification of the current contract award and wishes to be included in a framework agreement where successful bidders are given positions. Coolsivna also requests a new process to be initiated by the council. The council, however, regards these complaints by Coolsivna as groundless and believes it shouldn’t be awarded any of the things it is asking for.