Provision of Support and Maintenance of Automatic Passenger Gate Systems

This direct award is justified under Section 41 and Schedule 5, Paragraph 5 (Protection of intellectual property rights or other exclusive rights) and Schedule 5, Paragraph 6 (Absence of competition for technical reasons).

1. Single Supplier due to IP and Technical Restrictions (Para 5(a) & Para 6(a)):

Support and Maintenance of the Automatic Passenger Gate Systems can only be delivered by the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), Cubic Transportation Systems, due to the proprietary nature of the system architecture, including supplier-specific hardware, core software and technical systems.

The OEM has confirmed that the core software, technical systems and core components of the gateline equipment are proprietary to Cubic and protected by intellectual property rights. The OEM has confirmed that:

• Access to Cubic diagnostic software or fault management systems is not available to third-party maintenance providers;
• Maintenance manuals or technical documentation for Cubic gateline equipment are not provided to third-party maintenance providers;
• Hardware or calibrated spare parts are not provided to third-party maintenance providers; and
• No formal certification or accreditation scheme exists that would allow a non-Cubic engineer to maintain the Cubic-supplied equipment.

As such, EMR is not aware of any alternative supplier capable of delivering the requirement that possesses the necessary legal rights, technical documentation, software access, spare parts and technical capability to maintain the existing systems.

2. Absence of Reasonable Alternatives (Para 5(b) & Para 6(b)):

The existing gateline infrastructure is operational and has not reached end-of-life. A competitive tender for maintenance only is not feasible because access to the proprietary software, diagnostic systems, technical documentation, calibrated spare parts and maintenance accreditation required to support the assets is restricted to the OEM. Sourcing an alternative supplier would require a full removal and replacement of the live asset base across stations. Full system replacement would result in substantial duplication of cost, significant technical and operational complexity, and disproportionate disruption to live station operations.

Replacing functional, non-obsolete assets solely to facilitate a competitive maintenance procurement would not represent a reasonable alternative. Competition is therefore absent, and a direct award to the OEM is justified under Schedule 5, Paragraphs 5 and 6.