A BC Supreme Court judge refused on May 21 to grant an air ambulance company an injunction to continue working out of its Kamloops base and to pause the contract given to a competitor.
But Justice Bruce Elwood did not dismiss the underlying action filed by Summit Helicopters Ltd. due to a tainted procurement process.
BC Emergency Health Services (BCEHS) and its parent, the Public Health Services Authority (PHSA), decided in early 2023 that Ascent Helicopters Ltd. would service five areas: Vancouver, Qualicum Beach, Prince George, Prince Rupert and Kamloops. Ascent is now operating out of Prince George and Qualicum Beach, while incumbent Helijet is still operating in Vancouver and Prince Rupert.
Summit’s contract was set to expire May 22, the day after Elwood’s decision.
PHSA and BCEHS sought bidders in November 2021 for air ambulance services. Summit and Ascent were among the incumbent contractors, who used seven different helicopter variants from three manufacturers. The province wanted to move to a single air carrier, using a single helicopter model, compatible with a model of power stretchers used in hospitals.
BCEHS entered a 10-year, $544.5 million contract with Ascent in February 2023 to use the Leonardo AW169 for all service deliveries.
Summit’s June 2023 procurement complaints were rejected, but then referred by PHSA to a review committee. Last November, it found merit on two grounds. Evaluation committee member Tammy Schiere’s husband had a consulting contract with Ascent, Also, the evaluation committee wrongly excluded Summit’s proposals that scored less than 60% at the first stage, contrary to the goal of obtaining value for money.
After the November 2024 review committee’s decision, PHSA agreed to improve conflict of interest assessment training for evaluation committees and staff. It had yet to strike a new committee to re-evaluate proposals and appoint an independent third-party monitor, but has since committed to do so.
Elwood decided that transition to Ascent should carry on concurrently with the re-evaluation process. However, Elwood said PHSA was unable to provide a timeline or details of the process.
“Accordingly, in my view, it would be appropriate for the court to retain jurisdiction and not dismiss the underlying action,” Elwood said. “I am not seized of the action, but the parties may request to appear before me for directions or any further applications.”
Elwood said PHSA, BCEHS and Ascent sought reimbursement for their legal costs, but he decided that all parties should bear their own costs.
“In my view, the application by Summit was a matter of significant importance to the parties and the public at large, based on a finding of a reasonable apprehension of bias in a major procurement award,” Elwood decided.
