If you haven't seen the latest update on the LSC site, then CLP have been successful in securing a contract following issuing their JR (statement below from LSC website)
As a result of the continuing verification process, the Legal Services Commission will be able to make an offer of an allocation of work to the Community Law Partnership to deliver social welfare law services in the Birmingham procurement area.
As a result, the Community Law Partnership has withdrawn its judicial review claim against the LSC.
LSC Executive Director Hugh Barrett said: "We’re pleased we have been able to resolve this matter without the need for litigation."
Ignoring the increasing ridiculous LSC comments that defy any explanation, sanity, logic or connection with the real world, what does the result mean? I am fantastically pleased for CLT and it's employees, but surely the granting of a contract on the basis of the irrationality of the tender criteria is basically a statement that they were <insert profanity of choice> anyway, and that everyone who didn't get a contract because of them needs to issue a JR quick smart.
I am not legally qualified, so if I am missing the point, please, please let me know, as I feel confused...
Post by Patrick Torsney on Sept 9, 2010 12:10:32 GMT
I think what's also interesting about this re-hash of a brief LAG article is that the Guardian writer has seemingly mixed up two separate stories, or at least the inference is now there that the one month delay was as a result of the CLP decision, which clearly it wasn't