Post by Patrick Torsney on Oct 19, 2010 6:48:24 GMT
I haven't heard of any decisions recently either. It doesn't mean that there haven't been any of course. In any case, I would have thought the message boards on the eportal are an absolute mess at the moment and will take some cleaning up. Whether this will slow down appeal decision notifications is anyone's guess
Today we have received the outcome of our employment tender appeal and we won. The LSC admitted it had made an error of fact which denied us the points needed to get a contract. They have now given us max points for our employment tender and we await to see what that means in terms of NMSs.
Goodness knows what the implications are for others with a provisional allocation in our procurement area. We seem to have been waiting for ever and that's hard on those whose jobs are at stake. So, much relief here all round. But our good news may be someone else's bad news....
I assume that means the outcomes of the appeals will be rolled out nationally in the next few days.
We had stated that we had a permanant presence in the procurement area ( 5 points)- which is a simple matter of fact. Someone at the LSC bizarrely amended this to a part time presence open for 2 or fewer days per week ( 1 point).
We thought it a pretty open and shut case but with the LSC you can never be sure. You have been facing down the barrel of a gun and though you think it is loaded with blanks, after three months you begin to have doubts. For once I am glad there is no right of further appeal!
But how many NMSs are we to have and who- if anyone- will lose out as a result?
Post by Richard Wilkinson on Oct 24, 2010 21:43:47 GMT
and well done on winnig your appeal, it must have been a worrying time when such an apparently obvious error took so long to resolve.
"But how many NMSs are we to have and who- if anyone- will lose out as a result?"
I had the understanding that any nms won on appeal would be 'extra'. But I cant recall where I got this understanding from (did i dream it? :o). I have had a quick look back over the FAQs when the decisions came out, the closest I can find so far is
Q4 Unsuccesful tenders at PQQ/Essential criteria of the following document:
Post by Patrick Torsney on Oct 25, 2010 10:14:45 GMT
My understanding is that the success of anyone at the appeal stage will not affect the offers that have already been made to other tender applicants (those who were already successful)
As well as the link Rich gives above, I think the following is telling, from the award letters:
In some circumstances (only if your award is less than your bid), where matter start awards are not taken up by other applicants and this results in matter starts remaining in the Access Point, we may come back to you with an increased offer. This will happen once the appeals process is complete and only where the volume of matter starts remaining in the Access Point warrants this approach.
I think the LSC has anticipated that it would be able to meet the terms of any successful appeal via the verification process and, if it really does exist, its war chest hoard of cash that it has in reserve to fund additional NMS in areas where there are successful appeals
I may be quite wrong on this, as it does beg the question of what happens in an area where all the available NMS had been distributed but then someone wins an appeal? Surely awarding them NMS would mean that the original allocation within the Procurement Plan has now been exceeded, which can't be right or fair?
Well, this is why I wonder whether the LSC, in areas where there was potential for appeal, top-sliced everyone's award to ensure that NMS would be available for anyone who happened to succeed in appeal. Should no-one appeal, or those that do do not succeed, then the LSC can simply say that more NMS are available as a result of the verification exercise and dish the NMS it had been holding in reserve out to the successful bidders
Speaking hypothetically, a bidder previously ranked somewhere down the pecking order might be ranked = 1st once the appeals are finally determined.
Where the original single bidder ranked 1st received 100% of their NMS bid (the remainder having been more or less allocated in full those ranked 2nd and 3rd) that war chest is going to have to be mighty deep to increase the new = 1st offer to 100% of the NMS bid for (to match the other joint 1st).
In this scenario then the eventual allocation could end up looking like 2 x the NMS originally available in the Procurement Area. If there were multiple succesful appellants who now rank = 1st and the previous solo 1st place had swept the board then without cutting back the original offer to the first bidder, which they said they wouldn't do, the SWL budget could be blown in a matter of months....
Post by Patrick Torsney on Oct 25, 2010 11:32:41 GMT
Hello and welcome to ilegal, pseudonym
Where the original single bidder ranked 1st received 100% of their NMS bid (the remainder having been more or less allocated in full those ranked 2nd and 3rd) that war chest is going to have to be mighty deep to increase the new = 1st offer to 100% of the NMS bid for (to match the other joint 1st)
I'm not so sure. This would assume that the LSC made NMS offers to bidders first time around without first risk assessing each PA as part of the allocation of NMS in the awards. There's a thought, anyone think of that one before!
I'm beginning to think that only certain bidders got exactly what they asked for: those in areas where there was only one bidder or, where there were so few bidders (or NMS bid for by other bidders were few by category) that even following appeals there would be little change to the status quo of the original offers to successful bidders
I know I am being speculative, however. Do we have any evidence that this I am likely to be wrong or to be right? As Holmes said: once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
This has already happened with Family contracts in a number of areas. For instance in one procurement area, two major contracts were initially refused. They appealed and won (the usual LSC [auto mod]-up on bid scoring). Ergo the LSC had to give them a substantial NMS allocation. That meant the overall allocation was nearly twice what had been published in the IFA!
The ramifications of which is that the LSC would have great difficulty in enforcing the NMS usage KPI of >85% having meddled with the allocation so much. It renders the KPI virtually useless in those areas.
Of course the above is rather academic at the moment given the LawSoc JR. Or is it.....