Tender process communications with First Point

​​Request 738752041

1

I would like the complete cost of the tender process to include all of the panel time including states members pro rata and the independent person on the panel as we as any Outdoor company that was employed to mediate the whole process.

2

I would also like to see any Information written by the panel regarding the lido tender and anything with the name First point in it all emails regarding the tender within the panel text messages and phone calls regarding any persons involvement in the Lido tender process.

When we ask for all documents that means emails written or WhatsApp texts phone calls All documents regarding the lido tender to include clarifications as to why love our lido and first point got scored and the score sheets from the panel Any documents from the panel Any documents regarding IHE and property holdings regarding lido tender And documents from Jonathan Queree and Lucy Schooling regarding lido tender.

Response

1

The Expression of Interest (EOI) process regarding the Havre des Pas events facility (formerly known as the Lido) is still ongoing, therefore, the final cost details are not held and Article 3 of the Freedom of information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies.

2

The requested information is exempt under Article 33(b) (Commercial Interests) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 as details of the EOIs and related documents are considered commercially sensitive.

Article 33 is a qualified exemption; therefore, a public interest test has been applied and is shown at the end of this response.

Articles applied

Article 3 - Meaning of “information held by a public authority”

For the purposes of this Law, information is held by a public authority if –

(a)     it is held by the authority, otherwise than on behalf of another person; or

(b)     it is held by another person on behalf of the authority.

Article 33 - Commercial interests

Information is qualified exempt information if –

(a) it constitutes a trade secret; or

(b) its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of a person (including the scheduled public authority holding the information).

Public interest test

​In applying this article, the following considerations were taken into account.  

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure   

• Disclosure of the information would ensure the general public are informed about the EOI documents related to the Havre des Pas events facility.

• Disclosure of the information would support transparency and promote accountability to the general public, preventing favouritism of the potential operators.

• Disclosure would also promote trust in the Scheduled Public Authority (SPA) by showing openness.

Public interest considerations favouring withholding the information    

• The disclosure of the Havre des Pas EOI’s from the potential operators may disadvantage the operator’s and the SPA’s ability to retain commercial advantage in any future EOI process.

• The EOI process has not yet reached the final stage and is in a period of collaboration with the applicant(s).  

• This could also result in the SPA’s inability to secure best value for the taxpayer and this will likely prejudice the SPA as its bargaining power decreases. 

• EOI documents can contain proprietary methodologies, pricing structures, and operational strategies developed by the potential operator. Making these public would unfairly advantage competitors and potentially reduce market participation in future EOIs.

• The disclosure of the EOI may result in misinformed public debate during the EOI process, therefore, this could jeopardise the business relationship between the SPA and the potential operator.

• The disclosure of the EOIs can invite undue interference from third parties who may misinterpret timelines or attempt to influence operational decisions,. For example, public stakeholders may react to proposed methodologies or maintenance schedules without understanding the technical or regulatory rationale, causing unnecessary delays or conflicts.

Considering all considerations above, while transparency and accountability is important, the public interest in disclosure must be weighed against potential harm caused by prejudice of the commercial interests and the risks of misinformation.  

The SPA has concluded that, on balance, the risk of causing harm caused by prejudice of the commercial interests and or concerns or spreading misinformation, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the benefits disclosing the information.​​​