Ferry tender process (FOI)

​​Request

DFDS has recently won the tender process. 

1) What details of DFDS’s bid made it the successful tender, particularly in terms of pricing, service quality, environmental considerations, or other factors?

2) What commitments did DFDS make regarding sailing frequency, capacity, and customer service - especially when it comes to disability accessibility?

3) Was Brittany Ferries provided with feedback on why their bid was unsuccessful? If so, what feedback was given?

4) Did Brittany Ferries raise any objections or concerns about the tender process?

5) Are there any performance guarantees or penalties included in DFDS’s contract?

6) Were environmental impacts part of the evaluation criteria? If so, how did DFDS’s proposal address these concerns?

7) Were any public subsidies or incentives offered to the successful bidder?

8) Are there provisions in the contract for public accountability, such as reporting on performance or customer satisfaction?

9) Were there any conflicts of interest declared by individuals involved in the tender process?

10) What measures are in place to ensure a smooth transition between Condor Ferries and DFDS?

11) What is the breakdown of funding or financial support provided by the government for this ferry service?

Response

1) This information is exempt under Article 34 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011

2) This information is exempt under Article 33 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011

3) Yes, they were provided with feedback. Details of the feedback provided are exempt under Article 33 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011

4) Yes, Brittany Ferries did raise concerns. Further detail is exempt under Article 34 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011

5) Performance guarantees did form part of the agreed contract. The details are exempt under Article 33 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011

6) Yes, environmental impacts were part of the evaluation criteria. The details are exempt under Article 33 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011

7) No subsidies or incentives were offered to the successful bidder

8) Yes, This information is Exempt under Article 33 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011.

9) Conflict of interest forms were completed, and no Conflict of interest was reported for the Jersey based evaluators.

10) No information is currently held. Therefore Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied. 

11) No financial support has been offered by the Government of Jersey

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 

Article 33 (b) is a prejudice-based exemption. That means that to engage this exemption there must be a likelihood that disclosure would cause prejudice to the interest that the exemption protects. In addition, this is a qualified exemption, and consideration must be given to the public interest in maintaining the exemption.

The Scheduled Public Authority (SPA) considers that providing information could prejudice the commercial interests of the Government of Jersey and / or third parties. There may be public interest in the commercial information, however it was considered that this is outweighed by the potential for commercial and or financial damage.

Article 34 - The Economy 

Information is qualified exempt information if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice – 

(a) the economic interests of Jersey; or 

(b) the financial interests of the States of Jersey.

Public Interest Test 

Article 34 is a qualified exemption which requires there to be a likelihood of prejudice against the economic interests of Jersey or the financial interests of the States of Jersey. Whilst this could include reputational concerns, the larger concern is whether the economic interests of the Government of Jersey could be prejudiced by the release of information that could undermine Jersey's reputation.

The following extract from the guidance of the UK Information Commissioner should also be noted:

The exemption concerns the effect on the economy rather than the government's ability to manage the economy. However, since it is an aim of governments to improve economic prosperity, weakening the government's control over the economy may also damage the economy itself.

Public interest would not be served by disclosing information which may have a detrimental impact on the economy.