Post by Patrick Torsney on Jul 29, 2010 8:37:59 GMT
@ rurallincs: I don't know anyone myself who is having this particular problem, hopefully someone will reply if they do have
I'm a little confused by what might be happening here. It looks like your solicitor partner appealed against the rejection at the PQQ/Essential Criteria stage and, presumably, was successful? If so, then the only reason I can see for a delay to 20th August is that the solicitors have now appealed the allocation/final tender outcome in respect of their particular bid. Alternatively, that their initial appeal is still ongoing but, if it were, I'd be surprised that you would have been allocated anything before it had been decided
Can you clarify rurallincs? Did the solicitor get a decision in respect of their initial appeal and/or are they now appealing the final notification decision whatever that may have been?
Neither us, nor the solicitor, were contacted at the PQQ/essential criteria stage. The first we heard was when we received the rejection letter on 6 July. The solicitor managed to speak to someone at the LSC who said it just needed clarification but it had to be appealed. This is all very frustrating and very galling when the other two partner CABx have been awarded contracts - we hope to provide a more seamless service than them, as clients won't be directed to another office for housing advice, as it will be provided here. I am sure this should all have been clarified at the initial stage.
Neither us, nor the solicitor, were contacted at the PQQ/essential criteria stage. The first we heard was when we received the rejection letter on 6 July. The solicitor managed to speak to someone at the LSC who said it just needed clarification but it had to be appealed. This is all very frustrating and very galling when the other two partner CABx have been awarded contracts - we hope to provide a more seamless service than them, as clients won't be directed to another office for housing advice, as it will be provided here. I am sure this should all have been clarified at the initial stage.
That date (6th July) sounds like it maybe was at that stage? The main SWL decisions didnt start till the week after. Yeah it does sound like someone may have misunderstood something at the initial stage- though I must admit i found the issues around who was supposed to do what in cosortia rather confusing. Do you know if there is another bid thats had an outocme in the area? Hopefully as contact as been made with the LSC it will all get sorted out, though it makes it v difficult to plan as the time between decision and contract start date gets shorter and shorter. I hope that the 2 agencies concerned are working closely with eachother in relation to what further info or clarification has been put to the LSC.
We have lost out on contract not because our bid was scored incorrectly but because a competitor scored higher then we think they ought to have. Does anyone think further checks will be carried out before contract starts?
Post by Patrick Torsney on Jul 29, 2010 20:17:52 GMT
The LSC continues to say that it will perform checks before contract start (8 weeks before) however, it is not at all clear to what extent these may be intensive enough to uncover any substantive discrepancies between fact and and what may turn out to be fiction; where any such 'fiction' may be unintentional or otherwise
From what I've seen, the intended checks appear to be quite limited, having the office you say you have, the supervisors being more than advice store mannequins and so on and so forth. I imagine that they would only be more intensive if the LSC believed there was cause to look into the matter more deeply
I could be wrong, but given the timescales and pressures on the LSC right now I imagine they will be pretty cursory, perhaps even self declaration only
Post by Colin Henderson on Sept 8, 2010 9:01:09 GMT
Latest I hear is that appeals are only being granted where the LSC considers it has itself made a clear error on the tender rules. I haven't heard of a successful appeal yet. Has anyone got an example where they have been successful?
There are a few examples of appeals being successful. All of the ones I have heard relate to Family.
Notwithstanding that NMS allocations are not supposed to be appealable, I have done so on several occasions. You should challenge everything the LSC does on this process as it is riven with errors from top to bottom. I have succeeded in getting the LSC to admit to errors on their part in the way they allocated the NMS. However, often the reallocated NMS are similarly flawed. They are obviously throwing low-level labour at the appeals.
I am currently trying to get the LSC to admit that where two bidders, ranked equal first and who both bid for all the NMS, they should get a 50/50 split. I didn't think it was rocket science but their first allocation was 60/40 and the second was 55/45 after I challenged it.
Post by Colin Henderson on Sept 20, 2010 10:12:43 GMT
Latest is that LSC say all appeal decisions will be notified by end of the month: " We've started notifying organisations of the outcome of appeals submitted in relation to our assessment of the Family and SWL selection criteria. All organisations should receive their appeal outcome by the end of September. Where an appeal is successful it will be reassessed and we'll contact organisations separately about any Matter Start allocation. This process is separate from the verification exercise"
Post by Patrick Torsney on Sept 20, 2010 11:38:34 GMT
@ mainwaring: yes, this is odd. If both bidders bid for exactly the same amount of NMS (all that were available) then they should be pro-rata'd equally between them if they got the same points. Let us know how you get on
