Post by Colin Henderson on Sept 9, 2010 16:18:15 GMT
Here's another one which has been issued (on 7 Sept). This time the family-friendly flexible working practices of this firm have (of course) meant they cannot score as highly as others who have five-day a week supervisors.
Post by Richard Wilkinson on Sept 10, 2010 6:29:16 GMT
Sometimes the best cases are the most blindingly simple- as soon you I read this it hits you right between the eyes. The supervisor availability in the office scoring criterion on Com Care and Immig (and some other areas) tenders were extremely tough - as soon as the availability dropped to 99% then you were not able to get a maximum. I just cant see a defence to this one.
On a slight tangent - but relevant enough, it will be andf has been interesting to see the LSC line on the 'consultation' on this one and the others that are happening. One of the salient points where the challenges are on the actual scoring criteria is that the providers where not aware of the detail of scoring criteria until the tender process actually opened. If you cast your minds back the scoring detail was released after the 'consultations' had finished. In the CLP case the LSC said "‘The tender invitation went out last year. If they wanted to argue about the criteria they should have done it then, not now"- well Mr Oldham- I didnt received the detail of how points would be allocated till the tender process opened....and that was THIS year not last I remember well that Friday night!
Indeed the very issue of the LSC not releasing the detail until the tender process opened was a point raised at Provider Reference Group time and time again over the 18 months leading up to the tender.
I would like to make a comment in relation to Rich's tangent about the LSC saying that complaints/legal action about the selection criteria should have been made earlier.
The Immigration Removal Centre Tender (to which there has still not been an outcome!!) had horrendously unfair selection criteria which were wholly irrational and completely biased towards very large suppliers and/or those suppliers with the existing IRC contracts. I thought that the criteria were clearly in contravention of EU Procurement Law because there was no level playing field, especially for new entrants into the IRC 'market'.
I discussed with the legal team at the Law Soc about challenging the selection criteria but was firmly told that it was premature to make a legal challenge as I had not yet been disadvantaged by said criteria. I was told I would have to be unsuccessful and then lose an appeal before a legal challenge was possible.
This seemed perverse to me as it was blindingly obvious that I would not be successful in the IRC Tender as my firm is very small with just three lawyers, but I bowed to the greater knowledge of others.
When (if?) there is a decision on the IRC Tender and when I am unsuccessful and my appeal fails, then I hope to mount a legal challenge at that stage and would hope the Law Soc will back me.
The interesting point for me regarding the IRC Tender is that when there was a previous IRC Tender (the one which was abandoned) which focussed on experience and quality, my firm was successful (briefly, because the LSC abandoned the tender due to their inability to cope with the appeals - the selection criteria were too subjective) and one of the firms that will be successful this time (when the objective criteria are basically size!!) were unsuccessful last time.
Post by Richard Wilkinson on Sept 10, 2010 21:29:49 GMT
We wil probably get in trouble for going off topic here but hey its an interesting discussion
but anyway- yes i get your point crc very much about that tender. We looked at the IRC stuff too but we would have really been pushing it to 'make the weight'. I hadnt had the sharpness of mind to link the raison d'etre of the SWL tender to that particular tender to highlight the blatant contradiction. Your mention of it here and its blindingly obvious. Its made also start to think of the telephone tenders that also felt v difficult to get into for the same reasons. Having said all that presumably it would be difficult to take some thing to the law without being able to show that you had been disadvantaged first?!
Best of luck for the IRC tender- maybe a jr application form yourslef might be the way forward shoudl the law soc not feel there is sufficient reason to?