Fewer legal concerns with new Jersey ferry tenders

The Danish firm was eliminated from the original Channel Islands’ joint process after seeking the unilateral right to adjust freight and passenger pricing, the sailing schedule and minimum service requirements, if the routes were less profitable than hoped.

Jersey’s Economic Development minister Kirsten Morel has said that he believed that problem could be overcome now that Guernsey was out of the picture.

‘I don’t believe that issue will be live in this process, but bids are yet to come in,’ said Deputy Morel yesterday, fielding more questions in Jersey’s States Assembly.

He expected new bids from incumbent operator Condor/Brittany Ferries and DFDS to arrive by Wednesday and hoped to announce the winner by the end of this week.

Deputy Morel also explained why he was unhappy that DFDS’ first bid failed the original process, after which Guernsey appointed Condor/Brittany Ferries, while Jersey refused and instead opened a new tender exercise.

‘All the information around those legal technicalities was information which was yet to be negotiated, which was one of my concerns about why it would be mandatory to fail it,’ he said.

'I think it would make sense to most islanders that if something is yet to be negotiated in full, why would it then become a mandatory fail so early on before that negotiation had taken place?'

The Jersey government has appointed an independent assessor to scrutinise fresh bids received to run a Jersey-only service.

Deputy Morel will seek the endorsement of the Council of Ministers for his choice of winner, although legally it is his decision.

During the original bid process, there were concerns that the two islands’ States could face legal action if they permitted DFDS’ submission to remain on the table, having failed a mandatory test in the tender criteria, but Deputy Morel said he had fewer such concerns this time around.

‘We are in a very streamlined process now. I believe both bidders have very willingly signed up to that process,’ he said.

‘The advice I was receiving would have perhaps led to higher potential for legal risk in terms of the last process, but that is given the specific circumstances of that process.

‘In this case, where we are one awarding party, not two awarding parties trying to come to an agreement, I think we are better positioned to avoid that situation.’