Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Summit Helicopters challenged the fairness of a public procurement process for air ambulance services in British Columbia.

• A reasonable apprehension of bias was found due to a conflict involving a procurement evaluator whose spouse had ties to the winning bidder.

• The Evaluation Committee failed to properly exercise its discretion by automatically excluding Summit’s proposals.

• The Review Committee recommended a re-evaluation of proposals but declined to cancel the awarded contract.

• Summit sought an interlocutory injunction to delay the contract's implementation, arguing procedural unfairness and business harm.

• The Court dismissed the injunction application, siding with the public health authorities and allowing the transition to the new contract.

Facts and outcome of the case

Summit Helicopters Ltd., an incumbent provider of air ambulance services in British Columbia, participated in a 2021 public procurement process launched by the British Columbia Emergency Health Services (BCEHS) and Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA). The goal was to consolidate helicopter emergency medical services under a single provider using a uniform helicopter model with enhanced capabilities. Summit submitted four proposals, but none advanced to the financial evaluation stage due to failing to meet the minimum technical evaluation threshold. Ascent Helicopters Ltd. was ultimately awarded the contract.

Summit initiated a formal complaint under PHSA’s Vendor Complaint Policy, eventually reaching Stage 4—the final review by an independent Review Committee. The Committee found merit in two key issues: first, that a reasonable apprehension of bias existed due to a committee member’s undisclosed conflict of interest, and second, that the Evaluation Committee improperly applied a rigid scoring rule without exercising the discretion granted under the RFP.

Rather than recommending cancellation of the Ascent contract, the Review Committee proposed a re-evaluation of all proposals by a new evaluation committee monitored by an independent third party. PHSA initially accepted only some recommendations, but during court proceedings, it committed to implementing all of them.

Summit applied to the Supreme Court of British Columbia for an interlocutory injunction to maintain its Kamloops contract and prevent implementation of Ascent's contract while the re-evaluation process was carried out. Summit argued that it would suffer irreparable harm—loss of revenue, operational capability, and staff—if the contract was allowed to expire. It also invoked public interest in ensuring procedural fairness in government procurement.

Justice Elwood denied the application. The Court held that Summit did not meet the high threshold for a mandatory injunction, especially since its contract was set to expire according to its terms. The alleged harms were considered speculative, and the public interest favored a smooth transition to the new provider, particularly given PHSA’s full commitment to re-evaluating the proposals. Additionally, the injunction would impose potential financial and logistical burdens on both BCEHS and Ascent, which had already invested significantly in the new contract. The Court retained jurisdiction but made no award of costs, ordering that all parties bear their own expenses.

In conclusion, the Court sided with the defendants—BCEHS and PHSA—allowing the awarded contract to proceed while endorsing the remedial process recommended by the Review Committee. Summit Helicopters’ attempt to block the transition was unsuccessful.