Post by StephenMichael on Jun 17, 2010 7:51:30 GMT
I thought that as well.
the provider I am trying to help has asked the LSC if they can appeal and have been told
"THE APPEALS PROCESS IS SET OUT IN THE INFORMATION FOR APPLICANTS. HOWEVER PLEASE NOTE THE RIGHTS OF APPEALS ARE LIMITED TO THOSE STATED IN PARAS 10.20-26 AND THERE IS NOT RIGHT OF APPEAL AGAINST THE SIZE OF MATTER STARTS AWARDED."
Post by Patrick Torsney on Jun 17, 2010 9:20:17 GMT
Well, I think this is what the LSC intended the relevant sections of the MH IFA to mean i.e. that appeals should be limited to the situations set out in the IFA and that there are no rights of appeal in any other situation
The IFA describes rights of appeal only in terms of "unsuccessful applicants" - see 11.29, which refers the reader to sections 10.20 to 10.26, the appeals sections
The appeals sections seem to be pretty clear that when the LSC says "unsuccessful applicants" it is saying organisations that have not been awarded a contract at all
The LSC is saying to you then that appeals are limited to unsuccessful applicants only - those that have not been awarded a contract at all - and that there is no right of appeal in any other circumstance e.g. in your scenario
As it is, I think 10.23 in particular could have been better worded and so it may very much depend on how you read the IFA. Both 11.29 and the appeals sections may also be read differently - that the appeals sections do not limit other types of appeals but merely describe and set conditions on how one type of appeal (where you are entirely unsuccessful) may be made and progressed
If you intend to proceed then I would be inclined if in your shoes to take some proper legal advice on this and how best to progress it
On the broader issue, I'm not sure though on what grounds the firm is appealing (and it would be no doubt unwise to write it out on here)? As Rich said, the mechanism for allocation was set out clearly enough, pro-rata etc. If the LSC has actually followed it then even if it were possible it looks a bit of a long shot to me if it is simply an appeal at not being allocated as many NMS as they would have liked. Are there others in similar positions - it may be that some providers think the whole thing is not viable so drop out and then more NMS may be awarded to those who held on?
Post by Richard Wilkinson on Jun 17, 2010 10:21:32 GMT
"Are there others in similar positions "
Yeah - we didnt get as many as asked for. We got about 57%. If you read the standard contract award letter that Patrick posted on here there is some hint at the end of it that they may come back and offer more. Presumably that will be in the circs suggested by Patrick i.e. that someone decides its not viable and gives up their NMS, or someone fails to meet the verification deadline in a few weeks time thus lose their NMS and they get re allocated.
I agree - irrespective of what the appeal stuff says i just cant se anyway an appeal for extra NMS would work as its simply a basic mathematical calculation.
Post by Patrick Torsney on Jun 17, 2010 17:21:37 GMT
It's an interesting situation though, and I suppose what's nagging at me with all this is whether the LSC has distributed the full amount of NMS it said were available within the Procurement Plan to the MH suppliers that were successful?
Barring every provider who bid giving out their results it's impossible to know without the LSC saying so but, with all these 'austerity measures' these days, one does wonder whether the PAs have been pruned somewhat behind the scenes between the tender going out and a new government coming in
It does sound totally outrageous though, so I must be wrong
Post by Patrick Torsney on Jun 18, 2010 8:32:58 GMT
A very exhaustive and, funnily enough, timely statement which addresses every point - at least gives the Commission's perspective - in this message thread, by the looks of things! Well done LSC, good to know you're listening