we are considering whether to issue JR proceedings on the SWL tender, but we need to be certain of one thing that we believe has happened. It is our understanding that where successful bidders have been contacted through the verification process and told the LSC that they are unable to deliver the amount of NMS bid for, that the LSC has allowed them to take a reduced number of NMS.
eg. An organisation bids for all the NMS in a procurement area, expecting only to get a pro rata award. It then finds to its shock that it got more points than everyone else and is now expected to deliver everything. It cannot do so but the LSC, instead of ripping up the tender bid, come to an agreement with them that they can have less than they originally asked for. In other words, that organisation is allowed to re-tender, ad hoc, for a lower amount of NMS; something that the organisations that scored lower are not able to do.
If anyone is able to confirm this has happened, we would be very grateful.
Post by michaelhaycock on Oct 19, 2010 10:00:31 GMT
"1. Extension options The LSC believes that the government will not be ready to implement the new proposals arising out of the imminent Green Paper in time to tender for any new arrangements to start in April 2012"
does this mean any scope cuts in the spending review are not likely to be implemented until 2012??
Michael, I have heard that the legislation may take a year, but not 100% on this.
I am conscious that I may be repeating what someone has already said, but wouldn't the easiest solution now be to re-score all family bids, taking out the offending criteria, and allocating pro-rata NMS on that basis? Most firms would succeed surely on this basis and the tender round and new contracts would then come in to play- or is this a little simplistic and naive? No more NMS would be used up than originally envisaged, access to justice arguments would be alleviated and whatever changes tomorrow (the detail of which will be known at end of November from what I hear- when the Green paper is out) will only come in over the next 3-4 years and can be introduced via the expected 6 month termination that is inevitable....does that make any sense?!
I am conscious that I may be repeating what someone has already said, but wouldn't the easiest solution now be to re-score all family bids, taking out the offending criteria, and allocating pro-rata NMS on that basis? Most firms would succeed surely on this basis and the tender round and new contracts would then come in to play- or is this a little simplistic and naive?
I don't think it is naive. For one, I know I've said something similar and others will have said it too. It was even one of the stages in my 50p accumulator on Sept 28th, prior to the decision, ahem:
Re-scoring of all Family applicants who got past the PQQ stage with certain Selection Criteria removed (esp. panel membership). Order/agreement that this re-scoring exercise be limited to Family only. Lots more Family lawyers get contracts - although some still don't
Post by StephenMichael on Oct 28, 2010 15:07:58 GMT
Not appealing the court decision, the LSC start with the statement
"After careful consideration"
Try putting that expression in a file note and claiming a bit extra time. they should deem it a claimable expense bearing in mind how much "careful consideration" they have given to do nothing about a court decision.