Question from a National Department? What, if any, should the role of the Bid Adjudication Committee be if the Department procures against a transversal agreement.

[quote=ShaunScott;395]Post questions and answers to the effective implementation and operation of Bid Adjudication Committees here......[/QUOTE

Company X tendered twice for two different security services. On each occassion they scoreD highest points. First tender their presentation does not convince the adjudication panel and they are rejected. They tender for the second time different security services and still score highest points. The bid adjudication committee rejects them outright because last time they bidded they could not convince the bid adjudication committee. Does the bid adjudication committee has the prerogative to deny them the chance to do a presentation because the first time they were not convincing?

On the second occasion they are denied the opportunity automatically based on their first presentation. Is it right for the adjudication committee to act so unfavourable towards this company?

What are the implications if this company finds out that they were eliminated without doing a presentation on the second tender because the faired unfavourably on the first tender? Remember this tenders were separate tenders for different branches and were conducted separately.

Hi Edwin,
Interesting question. Before responding I want to just check on a few things.
1) Did the Bid Evaluation Committee make a formal recommendation to the Adjudication Committee (ie to award the work to Supplier X)?
2) What was the "entity" that scored the companies? Was it the SCM unit?
3) Was it the evaluation committee that they presented to, or the adjudication commmittee (or is this the same thing in your organisation?)
Many thanks
ShaunCScott

Also...what was the approximated value of the overall contract? Although you must be fair in all cases, if the approx. contract value were to exceed OJEU, it may be seen as more visible than lets say a low dollar contract where the company may not have to necessarily justify its decision to a regulatory body. Don't know how your organization works as it may answer to a board or body in all cases but just providing some feedback.

Regards,

Jennifer

In a few of the workshops I have done of late, the issue of public involvement in the Adjudication processes comes up. One or two municipalities even publish the dates and times in local papers and invite the public to attend.
Whilst initially thinking that this was not a bad idea (in the spirit of transparency) I've now changed my mind.
The principle that gets compromised is "competition". In many Adjudication meetings the real difference between different bids is often discussed. Sometimes these differences relate to the competitive advantage of one supplier over another. If this is discussed at a meeting prior to the awarding of the bid, and the bid is then not awarded and a new bidding process is started, then the principles of fairness and competition are compromised.
So how then do we not compromise on the principle of transparency?
My answer is that committees must keep the discussions confidential until after the bid is awarded and only then should information be disclosed in accordance with the different "access to information" pieces of legislation.
What do you think?
ShaunCScott