Jersey Royal Court Hears Gama Aviation Challenge to 247 Aviation's Air Ambulance Contract Award

The Royal Court of Jersey has heard a legal bid by Gama Aviation to have the government's decision to award the Island's air ambulance contract to 247 Aviation quashed, citing "fundamental" questions over fairness and transparency. Gama has provided the emergency transfer service for Islanders needing medical treatment in the UK since August 2020, and its contract is due to end at the end of 2026.

The court, with Bailiff Robert MacRae presiding alongside Jurats Ronge and Le Cornu, sat for a two-day hearing that concluded at 6.05pm. Judgment was reserved until a later date. Gama's case is brought against Health Minister Tom Binet.

A central issue was the differing nature of the bids. Gama offered a twin-engined King Air, while 247 included a single-engined option using the Pilatus PC-12. Mr MacRae likened evaluating the two bids to "comparing apples with pears". Advocate Jonathan Barham, for Gama, told the court that twin-engined aircraft had been a "must" requirement at stage two of the tender, so Gama prepared on that basis, whereas 247 had prepared both twin and single-engined options. He said the specifications had changed by the time stage-three documents were issued on 1 April.

The tender used a 60:40 split between technical factors and price. Advocate Barham said that of ten individuals who scored the bids across 16 criteria, two had not completed feedback paperwork, and in other cases marks were revised up or down with insufficient explanation. One evaluator described Gama's bid as "speculative and unproven", which he said was unrealistic given Gama had run the service since 2020, and he suggested the two companies had been confused. He argued the "manifest errors in procedure" meant the decision must be quashed.

Advocate James Rondel, for the Health Minister, said the procurement was "robust and professional" and that the Health Department had repeatedly signalled it welcomed flexible approaches, including single-engined aircraft, without compromising service standards. He said both bidders received the same notification about the specifications in December 2025, 122 days before the final bid deadline, and that Gama made a "commercial decision" to bid with a twin-engined plane. He said a full breakdown of marks was withheld because it would have let each company work out its rival's costs.

Advocate Rebecca McNulty, for 247 Aviation, focused on Gama's delay in launching its judicial review on 20 July. She argued the delay harmed both 247 and public administration, and that there was "no justification" for Gama reserving its position and then seeking review once it knew it had lost. A similar case in Guernsey, in which Gama challenged the awarding of the contract to a new provider, was dismissed by Lieutenant-Bailiff Hazel Marshall, who said 247 won the contract "fair and square".

Government-funded air ambulance work is a small, concentrated segment: a handful of providers compete for contracts that run for years, and a loss can remove a core line of revenue from an incumbent. That structure explains why an incumbent with six years on the service would contest an award rather than accept it. It also explains why the arguments here turn less on the aircraft than on process: how requirements were written, when they changed, and how scorers documented their marks.

The dispute over twin-engined versus single-engined aircraft shows a recurring tension in medical-transport tenders. Where a specification is framed as a "must" at one stage and loosened at a later one, bidders who built their offers around the earlier wording can claim they priced against a different contract from the one that was scored. Commissioners, for their part, have an interest in keeping room for lower-cost or more flexible solutions. Both positions were put to the court in this hearing, and a ruling on how far a procuring body may move between stages would be read well beyond Jersey.

The timing argument cuts the other way and matters to the whole market. If a court treats a bidder's wait before seeking review as a reason to refuse relief, incumbents will have to decide whether to challenge immediately or risk losing the option. The Guernsey outcome, where a comparable challenge by the same company was dismissed, is the nearest reference point. The next milestone is the court's judgment, which is reserved with no date given, and the contract's end at the close of 2026 sets the practical deadline for any change.