Post by Richard Wilkinson on Jul 21, 2010 6:37:43 GMT
Rich, the very same has emerged with our bid. Ranked top taking majority of Housing NMS but with 45 left over.
By the way, if you are ranked joint first surely the allocation should be 50/50. Not according to the LSC.
@ rwilkinson: I thought you said: "In one PA there were 200 housing available. We have finished 1st but been given 178- ie someone has 22- but i thought that the minimum they could give was 100. I dont understand. Can anyone explain what could have happened?"??? Anyway, rest time, tomorrow will no doubt be even more interesting....
Good morning- sorry i will try to explain better. Was a bit unsure about what info was postable etc
First reaction was that the pot had been split with another bidder that must have also 87 points (though with knowledge of the local market that would have been 'interesting'). 87 was the max score. That would explain WB and Debt as they could have bid for less than the max. But on housing they would have to bid for minimum of 100. Thus surely we would have got 133 and them 67. They would have then been upped to the minimum of 100. Either way we would have got 133 NMS (or 100) and not the 178 that we got. I cant see a permutation to provide that result on housing. Can anyone work it out?
Post by Patrick Torsney on Jul 21, 2010 7:07:58 GMT
Here's something I posted last night, I've got to have a proper think about the issue and a close read of the IFA is no doubt necessary before forming a final opinion. Anyone got any ideas on rwilkinson's issue feel free to reply - or if in the same situation please let us know. In the meantime, here is last nights post:
@ rwilkinson and mainwaring: it would not necessarily be 50/50 if ranked joint first. Bear in mind that NMS are allocated on a pro-rata basis. This would mean that whoever bid for more, would get more in the final calculation. Of course, this does not address the very small number of NMS (lower than the min bid/possible award) that have apparently gone to another supplier. The question to ask I would have thought, is have they actually gone to another supplier...? In such situations, I would have thought an appeal on the grounds of misapplication of the selection criteria might be a goer - that if they can't award a nominal number to the other first place, you should have the lot, but I would have to get the IFA out and look at it after a good nights sleep
Post by Patrick Torsney on Jul 21, 2010 7:22:45 GMT
Whilst it's on my mind, you should be able to work out what the other party (or parties between them) bid for in such a situation. If you know (a) what you bid for and (b) what was available and (c) what you got
Look at what you got and compare it as a proportion to what you didn't get, eg I got the lion's share of the NMS available and the proportion is 3:1, the '1' being those NMS that seemingly have gone to someone else
Now look at what you actually bid for and work out what the '1' is in terms of a proportion. If it is still lower than the minimum bid then one thing that is probably worth determining is whether anyone else actually come first or has the LSC simply kept back a small % of NMS for some reason?
Post by Patrick Torsney on Jul 21, 2010 7:42:40 GMT
Of course, the next step would be, armed with this to simply ask the LSC through the eportal to confirm whether the NMS you did not get were awarded to another supplier
The reply will then help dictate the grounds for your appeal. If the LSC don't reply in time - bearing in mind you have a 14 day window within which to appeal - then appeal anyway on an 'either or' basis
Post by Richard Wilkinson on Jul 21, 2010 8:05:25 GMT
Thanks Patrick- would be intrestred to hear mainwaring thoughts too. Popped a question down the eportal along those lines within about 5 mins of getting it. Will keep posted with what comes back.
Like you say we need to read IFAs. In Asy a number of agencies got awarded minimums have been pro ratad below in a tying situation.
I'm similarly perplexed. Our bid was for the maximum NMS in all three categories. We were ranked first. I have assumed that it was tied with another on points. Our allocation of NMS against our bid was:
Debt 50% Welfare 41% Housing 70%
Pick the bones out of that! I understand the Debt outcome. However if we maxed our bid on Welfare how can we get less than 50%. Overall we received EXACTLY half the overall NMS on offer for the three categories. There was no need to adjust Housing as the NMS on offer 150 and the minimum 75.
It appears that for some unknown reason, the LSC has 'removed' 30 NMS from our notional Welfare allocation and added it to the Housing allocation. It has probably done that to the other provider for the overall allocation to add up.
I presume the LSC does not publish all the offers it makes, so we're unlikely to see some sort of list until after offers have been accepted and contracts agreed. Although I note that the IFA states that the LSC might have to release tender details in response to Freedom of Information requests. It would be useful to see who had received what...
having now calmed down from all the excitement and reading our offer letters properly - in one access point the over all score we were give is lower than i scored our answers. We were ranked 2 but knew that would be the case and a couple of our NMS reduced. It doesn't affect the over all result really but is it worth appealing or asking how they scored it ?
Post by Richard Wilkinson on Jul 22, 2010 16:29:08 GMT
Hi Jeffrey,
It sounds really daft- but, have you been back into the eportal to check that the tender info form tallies with the score you thought you should have got? Might be worth re confirming. Had not disimilar issue with one of ours- same as you it made no difference ultimately- but might be worth doin just in case for example another provider pulls out or something
