A further legal challenge to the Scottish Government's media services procurement framework is looming after a leading media research entrepreneur said he is "consulting lawyers" over a leaked email sent to public-sector bodies that he claims is damaging his company's reputation.

Jerry Ward, whose company Press Data has been supplying news cuttings services to Scottish administrations since 1996, but which lost the £500,000 annual contract to Nasdaq OMX/Precise Media in the latest framework agreement, claimed that officials had been "warning former clients off" the firm, accusing it of attempting to undermine the framework agreement.

In the April email, circulated to more than 50 public-sector bodies including Transport Scotland, Education Scotland and Police Scotland, Diane Archer, a senior portfolio specialist in the Scottish Government's procurement department, accuses the £2m-turnover Press Data of "contacting individuals within public-sector organisations in an attempt to undercut the framework pricing and to persuade individuals to buy or continue to buy these services from Press Data and not to transfer to the new framework".

The email requests that managers report to Archer "in first instance, should they receive any approach from Press Data going forwards".

The Scottish Government has rejected Ward's claim that the email, leaked to the firm by a public-sector recipient, implies improper behaviour on the firm's part and is therefore "deeply damaging" to its prospects of gaining further work in Scotland.

A spokesman for the Scottish Government said: "The email simply reflects the reality of the approaches of Press Data since losing out on the framework and - in no way can be construed in the manner [Press Data has described]."

While he admitted that the new framework is "not mandated [compulsory]" he said that the Government was merely "promoting the use and advantages" of Nasdaq by flagging up concerns about Press Data.

While admitting contacting former clients, Ward has rejected the accusation that his firm was "undercutting" the framework, saying: "We did not offer lower rates. The complexity of the pricing matrix would make it impossible for us to actually know what price we did submit. Is the Scottish Government able to provide any evidence to support this statement?

"Centralising procurement makes sense in some sectors but not in the services market. All of these public-sector organisations have their own specialised needs, have their own procurement teams, and are capable of making their own procurement decisions. If the Scottish Government wants to impose a top-down system, why retain all of these well-paid procurement specialists?"

The Scottish Government has already faced legal challenges from failed bidders for the media services framework, the publication of which was delayed by six months, partly due to challenges over alleged arithmetical and procedural errors in the "scoring" of submissions.

Last month the Newhaven Agency, one of Scotland's largest, was to challenge the Scottish Government's decision in the Court of Session, an action that was withdrawn days before it was due to go before the judges.

While the Scottish Government announced that Newhaven had "abandoned its legal challenge to the award of the multi-lot marketing services framework", stressing its conviction that "the procurement was carried out properly and correctly", Newhaven has not yet confirmed whether a financial settlement was reached.

Last month, Deputy First Minister and cabinet secretary for infrastructure Nicola Sturgeon wrote to members of the Scottish Government's Procurement Advisory Group after deferring introduction of the Procurement Reform Bill, saying: "It is important that in framing our proposals for the bill, we are confident that we understand what is and is not likely to be possible within the parameters of EU procurement law. Reluctantly, therefore, we have decided that it would be prudent to defer the introduction - until after the summer recess, to allow us to take stock of any further developments in Europe."

One member of the advisory group, speaking on condition of anonymity, criticised the bill process, saying: "It's hardly as if this [EU delay] wasn't foreseeable. It surely makes sense to wait until the new directive is done and dusted. [The Scottish Government is] now in a difficult situation as the directive could be delayed again.

"The other problem the Government has is that they're struggling to put anything meaningful in the bill. It was always a daft idea to legislate in this area, as anything worth doing can be done administratively."