Forest’s Hounslow e-bike contract win sparks concerns over cash-first tender model
Hounslow Council awarded one of its two e-bike contracts to the operator which offered them the highest fees despite scoring demonstrably lower than rivals on other metrics, CityAM can reveal.
The move, which has attracted fury from rival operators, lays bare the competing interests of cash-strapped local authorities as they weigh which criteria to prioritise in awarding lucrative e-bike contracts to operators.
According to documents seen by CityAM, Forest garnered just 45 per cent out of a potential 60 per cent in the crucial ‘quality’ section of its bid, in marked contrast to competitors, one of which reportedly achieved a significantly higher score on quality.
But Forest scored 40 out of 40 in the ‘fees’ section of the report – a figure believed to be approximately five times the council’s initial financial expectations.
Forest is also understood to have been marked down on several critical measures including parking management, safe vehicle design, operations and affordability.
The move is the latest in a series of controversial e-bike contract awards by local authorities, and follows a recent Liverpool tender in which the financial component comprised 40 per cent of the overall score, precipitating legal action from Lime, the losing bidder.
Industry sources complain that the absence of a fixed financial threshold has led to “a competition based on who can give them the most money”, referring to the Liverpool case as an “egregious example”.
“Usually, these tenders have two portions: quality, and price”, a source close to the matter told CityAM.
“Yet, in the UK, and almost, I would say uniquely in the UK, the decision boils down to writing a check to the council, whether it’s just a blank spot that whoever puts the biggest number in, like, quarterly or yearly payments [or] revenue share”.
A Forest spokesperson said: “For the past five years, Forest has been dedicated exclusively to London, supporting boroughs across the capital with a best-in-class, green, affordable, and accessible. shared e-bike service.”
“We have a strong track record delivering a high-quality service for both users and our local authority partners, as evidenced by the high levels of riders using our bikes every day and the positive user feedback we receive”.
The spokesperson added: “We always welcome the opportunity to work collaboratively with boroughs to meet their transport goals, and we’re looking forward to continuing to expand access to sustainable transport across the city.”
The company also conceded that while they believed they scored strongly on quality in Hounslow, their top financial bid was likely a key factor in securing the contract.
Hounslow Council did not respond to a request for comment.
Beate Kubitz, an industry analyst, warned on the inherent risks of this financial primacy.
“In general there is a temptation for local authorities to look for income or lowest cost for them for bike and e-scooter share”, she told CityAM.
“The risks are that there isn’t enough surplus over rider fees to pay for a decent team and depot to organise maintaining, collecting and redistributing bikes or e-scooters. Basically having people on the ground to make sure you don’t have piles of pavement clutter, fish them out of the canal, etc”.
Unsustainable bids and compromised service
An industry expert warned on the financial fallout to councils who prioritised money over quality of service.
“I think people will make a bid they know is unsustainable because they know they’ll win it, with the intention of renegotiating it later”, one industry expert told CityAM.
He added that such renegotiations have become common practice, arguing that the “council doesn’t want you to leave because it’s embarrassing for them and also expansive for them to run procurements”.
This practice directly compromises the quality of the scheme and escalates costs for users, he warned.
“First, it’s the council’s not getting the best quality scheme. But second, it directly leads to higher prices to users. The companies try to make up that difference somewhere. It’s usually on the back of users.”
Hackney council’s e-bike contract, for example, reportedly demanded revenue shares as high as 25 per cent.
CityAM understands that in the Hackney tender, financial offers were scored based on a percentage revenue share, rather than a fixed monetary figure.
The broader ramifications extend to public safety. Just last week, the Hounslow Herald reported a fire caused by an e-bike battery failing due to use of an incorrect charger.
What’s more, the scourge of pavement clutter remains a contentious issue.
Actor and Camden local Robert Powell revealed his four-year battle with Camden Council over a swarm of Lime bikes obstructing the pavement outside his Highgate home.
He told the Camden New Journal: “You’ve got two octogenarians here who are in danger of being killed. The entire pavement has been blocked by bikes.”
He also questioned the council’s priorities: “Camden say they prioritise safety and safer travel, so do they know that allowing bikes on pavements is not safe for anyone?”
There have also been concerns over how carefully operators maintain rental e-bikes after having contracts awarded.
An investigation into e-bike operator Lime by London Centric found cases of Londoners breaking their legs after riding faulty bikes, with one surgeon reporting a “big increase in Lime-bike related injuries” arriving on his operating table.
A Lime spokesperson told London Centric that “safety is our highest priority. It guides how we design and maintain our vehicles, how we develop technology and educational materials to encourage safe riding,” adding that over 99 per cent of trips end without a reported incident.
A plea for proportionate procurement
Leading industry figures have advocated for a radical re-evaluation of tender weightings in e-bike contract awards.
Some have called for a more unified, pan-London tender run by TfL, with a clear, fixed per-bike fee, similar to models seen in cities like Paris, could create a more streamlined and equitable environment for all operators.
Richard Dilks, chief executive of CoMoUK, said: “Our recommendation to councils is to make any financial asks clear and transparent, and to understand that these must be balanced against other considerations such as service quality and viability.”
“This ensures that operators are contributing appropriately without making it a bidding war that compromises the quality of service for residents.
“The goal should be to foster robust, well-maintained schemes that genuinely serve the community and support local transport strategies, not simply to maximise short-term income.”