Security company sues Tate over £27m lost contract
Security company Wilson James is suing the Tate Gallery for awarding a £27m contract to handle security across its estate to a rival.
Wilson James has been the Tate’s incumbent security firm across its sites for more than 25 years and, according to legal papers filed by the Tate, security is the gallery’s second-largest contract by value.
In August last year the Tate put the contract out to tender. According to court documents, the brief was to provide professional security and visitor experience services, be responsible for securing Tate sites, visitor safety, employee safety and the safety of the gallery’s multi-million-pound art collection.
Security company Wilson James is suing the Tate Gallery for awarding a £27m contract to handle security across its estate to a rival.
Wilson James has been the Tate’s incumbent security firm across its sites for more than 25 years and, according to legal papers filed by the Tate, security is the gallery’s second-largest contract by value.
In August last year the Tate put the contract out to tender. According to court documents, the brief was to provide professional security and visitor experience services, be responsible for securing Tate sites, visitor safety, employee safety and the safety of the gallery’s multi-million-pound art collection.
The contract was valued at £9m per year and set to run for three years from 1 April 2025, with an option to extend for a further two years.
Some 53 companies made bids. Incumbent Wilson James was shortlisted in the final two, but in January the company was told it hadn’t been selected. According to court document, the gallery chose Mitie Security instead.
In response, Wilson James filed a High Court claim, alleging there were errors in the way their bid was analysed in the procurement process, rendering the decision to give the contract to Mitie over them unlawful.
Wilson James “has been deprived of the opportunity of its bid response being fairly and properly evaluated in the procurement,” they lawyers say in the filing.
The lawyers are seeking a declaration that the contract decision was unlawful, an order quashing the decision, an order forcing the Tate to reevaluate Wilson James’s bid and unspecified damages.
Lawyers for the Tate oppose the claim and say Wilson James isn’t entitled to damages.
Wilson James and the Tate didn’t immediately respond to messages seeking comment.
Image © Guy Bell/Shutterstock
