International SOS loses bid to maintain suspension in Ministry of Defence medical services contract dispute

In a significant Technology and Construction Court decision, Mr Justice Eyre has lifted the automatic suspension preventing the Ministry of Defence from awarding a global medical support contract to Healix International Group Ltd, despite a procurement challenge from incumbent provider International SOS Assistance UK Limited.

The case, heard on 2 October 2025, centred on a contract for medical assistance to armed forces personnel serving overseas—one of only two contracts classified as "UK StratCom Key Contracts" by Defence Medical Services. International SOS had provided these critical services since 2012, most recently under arrangements due to expire on 30 April 2025.

Following a procurement exercise commenced in October 2024, the MoD announced its intention in March 2025 to award the new contract to Healix, whose bid was substantially lower than International SOS's tender—reportedly less than half the cost. International SOS promptly initiated proceedings alleging breaches of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, triggering an automatic suspension under regulation 95.

The claimant advanced four grounds of challenge. The first two alleged lack of transparency in the Invitation to Tender regarding the frequency and information requirements for Requests for Information (RFIs), suggesting this prevented fair comparison between tenders. The remaining grounds contended that Healix's bid should have been treated as abnormally low, requiring investigation under regulation 69 and referral to the Cabinet Office.

Whilst accepting that International SOS had demonstrated a serious issue to be tried, Mr Justice Eyre focused his analysis on whether damages would constitute an adequate remedy and where the balance of convenience lay. The judge found that calculating damages would prove particularly challenging if International SOS succeeded, given the speculative nature of assessing counter-factual scenarios—either if the ITT had provided different information or if Healix's bid had undergone the abnormally low tender process.

However, the court rejected International SOS's broader arguments about reputational damage and loss of future contracts. Despite the company's assertions that losing this prestigious contract would affect prospects with other "Five Eyes" nations and NATO members, no compelling evidence supported these claims. The contract represented only 3.6% of International SOS's revenue, undermining arguments about significant operational impact.

The balance of convenience ultimately favoured lifting the suspension. Mr Justice Eyre gave considerable weight to the public interest in implementing what the MoD viewed as improved arrangements, particularly the new RFI Management Plan expected to eliminate duplicate requests and enhance efficiency. The judge also accepted the MoD's argument regarding the importance of implementing changes before any potential conflict, referencing the 2025 Strategic Defence Review's emphasis on achieving warfighting readiness.

Notably, the court dismissed International SOS's unusual argument that public interest favoured maintaining the suspension due to concerns about Healix's capacity. Whilst Healix scored lower than International SOS on five technical criteria (achieving 70 rather than 100), these scores still demonstrated "good response" with "sufficient confidence" and only "minor risk."

The judgement emphasises courts' deference to public bodies' assessments of operational benefits whilst maintaining scrutiny of procurement processes. With expedition refused and the suspension lifted, Healix can commence its 12-week mobilisation period, with new arrangements potentially operational by January 2026. International SOS's substantive challenge proceeds on a standard timetable, though success would now yield only damages rather than contractual remedy.