# Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this site.



## censuspro

Has anyone ever used ?

We've submitted a few tenders (approx 10) and can never seem to get a look in.

Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this webste?

P.S. I see that the NAMA contract for tax advice was awarded to PWC...


----------



## Towger

*Re: Government E-Tenders Website*

Under EU rules tenders must be issued, but we have been told that in most cases for the likes of NAMA etc it is in reality a closed shop.


----------



## eggerb

*Re: Government E-Tenders Website*



censuspro said:


> Has anyone ever used ?
> 
> We've submitted a few tenders (approx 10) and can never seem to get a look in.


 
You would be entitled to contact the procurement officer in the organisation issuing the RFT/awarding the contract and ask how the process was conducted and how applicants were scored.


----------



## censuspro

*Re: Government E-Tenders Website*



eggerb said:


> You would be entitled to contact the procurement officer in the organisation issuing the RFT/awarding the contract and ask how the process was conducted and how applicants were scored.


 
I've done that before but they dont provide specific information. I understand that certian contracts would be oustide our remit e.g. NAMA, but there are payroll and accounts contracts that could easily be done by smaller firms.


----------



## z107

*Re: Government E-Tenders Website*



> I understand that certian contracts would be oustide our remit e.g. NAMA, but there are payroll and accounts contracts that could easily be done by smaller firms.


We could easily do these contracts for far less money, and probably better service, (payroll), but tenders are often  specifically engineered for target companies. 
We don't entertain the tendering process.

From what I've heard, there is also certain technique to filling these things in.


----------



## Latrade

*Re: Government E-Tenders Website*

I've used them and won some lost some. Never seen it as being unfair.


----------



## Towger

*Re: Government E-Tenders Website*

I am sure it is fine for supply of goods and general contracts, but for the more specialised stuff they will go with the big names. As they say, 'No on eever got fired for buying IBM'.


----------



## Latrade

*Re: Government E-Tenders Website*



Towger said:


> I am sure it is fine for supply of goods and general contracts, but for the more specialised stuff they will go with the big names. As they say, 'No on eever got fired for buying IBM'.


 
All the stuff I've tendered for would be pretty specialised and we've lost out on some to smaller suppliers who've come in at a better price. I'm not saying you may not have grounds to be suspicious, just in my experience it's all been legitimate.


----------



## censuspro

*Re: Government E-Tenders Website*

Does anyone have any links or tips to creating tenders. Currently using a mix or word, excel and pwerpoint and pdfs.


----------



## Complainer

*Re: Government E-Tenders Website*

I'm generally on the other side of the fence (recieving these tenders). Tips as follows;

1) Read the tender, and follow instructions given.
2) Read the tender, and follow instructions given.
3) Read the tender, and follow instructions given.

It is amazing how many very detailed tenders that must have taken days of work to produce are recieved, where they don't provide some of the essential information requested in the tender. If the tender asks for VAT inclusive pricing, make sure this figure is given. If it asks for VAT exclusive, make sure this figure is given. If is asks for fixed price, give a fixed price, not one that depends on variables like expenses. Tenders that don't provide the required information will be excluded early on.

4) Ask questions well before the tender deadline - most procurers are only to happy to clarify issues beforehand. This might be done via the Q&A facility on the eTenders website, or sometimes the procurer will issue supplementary documents.

5) Ask for detailed feedback afterwards. Find out where you came on the ranking. Ask how your score in each category related to the highest score in that category.


----------



## euroDilbert

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*

In relation to this, has anyone received an email about a "Successful Tendering" course being run in Dublin from a company called Tenders Direct ?


----------



## censuspro

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



euroDilbert said:


> In relation to this, has anyone received an email about a "Successful Tendering" course being run in Dublin from a company called Tenders Direct ?



I seen the ad in the Sunday Business Post (I think), if I remember correct it's about €500.


----------



## Diddles

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*

Hi guys,
What you have to remember is that 'most' of these tenders are already unofficially awarded. This is obviously not meant to be the case but alas its true.
The company that is 'awarded' the tender, in most cases write the tender documents to the specification of their offering.
I have given up on these tenders as they have proven in my particular case to be a waste of time and effort for zilch at the end.
d


----------



## z107

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



> What you have to remember is that 'most' of these tenders are already unofficially awarded. This is obviously not meant to be the case but alas its true.


This is what I've heard as well.


----------



## Complainer

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



Diddles said:


> Hi guys,
> What you have to remember is that 'most' of these tenders are already unofficially awarded. This is obviously not meant to be the case but alas its true.
> The company that is 'awarded' the tender, in most cases write the tender documents to the specification of their offering.
> I have given up on these tenders as they have proven in my particular case to be a waste of time and effort for zilch at the end.
> d





umop3p!sdn said:


> This is what I've heard as well.



While this stuff did happen in FAS, I am very skeptical about claims that it is generally happening across the board. If you believe it is, let's get some examples on the table - all the tenders are already in the public domain, so please tell us which specific tenders were written by a supplier, or even which were written in a way that favours a specific supplier.



Towger said:


> I am sure it is fine for supply of goods and general contracts, but for the more specialised stuff they will go with the big names. As they say, 'No on eever got fired for buying IBM'.



Some tenders require a supplier of certain size. This requirement can be controversial (see [broken link removed]) but it is a clear, up-front requirement. If such requirements are not specified, I am again very skeptical about claims that contracts are awarded to the big names *because they are the big names*. They may well be awarded to the big names, because the big names have the best track record, or the best team, or the best references.

A lot of the unsubstantiated criticisms may well be sour grapes. I've been on the recieving end of this from suppliers in the past, and when I've explained clearly and specifically where their tender was beaten by other alternatives, they sometimes face up to the reality that they are not the best in the world at everything. If you haven't seen all the tenders, you can't claim with certainty that yours is the best tender.


----------



## Mpsox

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*

From my own perspective and having been part of various tenders over the years, in some cases you do get the impression that you are tendering for the sake of tendering and that the current supplier will continue to get the deal. I actually have no issue with that, if they are delivering the services required and have a proven track record with the purchaser, they are going to be the favourite anyway. Sometimes you have to tender to get your name out there and noticed

I've also found that where you cannot supply specific information, then explain why that is, sometimes for example, it may be because the information is commercially sensitive . Most occassions, that has been ok, providing your justifacation is reasonable. Also if you are unsure as to what is being requested, then ask the question?

As for big companies getting the deals, speaking as someone who works for one of them, that's not always the case. On a number of occassions we've had to tidy up the mess from smaller companies who got a deal and have bitten off more then they can chew. There is a reason large successful companies are large and successful, it's because they tend to be consistantly good at what they do and have the resources when issues arrise


----------



## z107

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



> On a number of occassions we've had to tidy up the mess from smaller companies who got a deal and have bitten off more then they can chew. There is a reason large successful companies are large and successful, it's because they tend to be consistantly good at what they do and have the resources when issues arrise


Lehmans was large and successful, doesn't look like they were that good though. Mircosoft was small once. With this attitude, they still would be small.

We often do work for large firms (outside of the tendering system). When we are awarded these contracts, we make sure that our client gets the best possible service. A larger company mightn't care so much because they already have loads of contracts. They might just get a couple of juniors in to do the project, to save costs.

If I was looking for work to be done, I would actually be more inclined towards a smaller company, to get better service and product, rather than some faceless corp.


----------



## z107

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



> While this stuff did happen in FAS, I am very skeptical about claims that it is generally happening across the board. If you believe it is, let's get some examples on the table - all the tenders are already in the public domain, so please tell us which specific tenders were written by a supplier, or even which were written in a way that favours a specific supplier.


How do you prove this? Like most 'soft corruption', it's often subtle.
A tender could be written:
"The successful applicant should be in business for at least 10 years, and have at least 50 employees"
There might be only one company that has this. They obviously would never explicitly name the supplier.


----------



## Complainer

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



umop3p!sdn said:


> How do you prove this? Like most 'soft corruption', it's often subtle.
> A tender could be written:
> "The successful applicant should be in business for at least 10 years, and have at least 50 employees"
> There might be only one company that has this. They obviously would never explicitly name the supplier.


So give us the examples of where these conditions have been used?


----------



## censuspro

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*

It is the case that the Big 4 firms always land the government consultancy contracts. E.g. tax advice for NAMA has been awarded to PWC. 

Someone also mentioned that larger firms have the resources for larger jobs which is not exactly true. For example in insolvency, there are smaller firms that have more resources and experience in insolvency than the larger firms however perception is that because it's a Big 4 firm then they must be better and unfortunately perception is reality.

On a related topic, Are people using a particular software for tendering for these jobs or are they using word, excel, PP etc?


----------



## z107

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



> So give us the examples of where these conditions have been used?


No. I'm too busy to look this up.
However, you seemed to have done this yourself:


> Some tenders require a supplier of certain size. This requirement can be controversial (see [broken link removed]) but it is a clear, up-front requirement.


----------



## Complainer

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



umop3p!sdn said:


> No. I'm too busy to look this up.


OK, so just to be clear, you don't know that this potential issue has occured. You have no specific examples or knowledge of any specific cases where this has occured - right?



umop3p!sdn said:


> However, you seemed to have done this yourself:


Nope, the guidelines in that case don't restrict the market to one supplier. The market is open to many, many large suppliers (mostly international).

Are there any examples of where these problems have occured?


----------



## censuspro

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*

Before this thread gets closed can you tell in what format people mostly submit their tenders i.e. Word, excel, powerpoint or a particular software?


----------



## Complainer

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



censuspro said:


> Before this thread gets closed can you tell in what format people mostly submit their tenders i.e. Word, excel, powerpoint or a particular software?


Keep it simple. The tender recipients may not have latest versions of the MS products. I would stick with Word or pdf, but if in doubt (and the tender document does not specify what format is required), ask the question beforehand.


----------



## z107

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



> Nope, the guidelines in that case don't restrict the market to one supplier. The market is open to many, many large suppliers (mostly international).
> 
> Are there any examples of where these problems have occured?


It is restricting the tender to large suppliers. This in itself is problem enough. My anecdotal evidence suggests that in some cases the criteria goes even further in restricting which company will be successful, to the point that it's reverse engineered.

We've only ever gone for one or two tenders, and gave up after that because of the reasons mentioned in this thread. ie - it's a rigged system.


----------



## Mpsox

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



umop3p!sdn said:


> It is restricting the tender to large suppliers. This in itself is problem enough. My anecdotal evidence suggests that in some cases the criteria goes even further in restricting which company will be successful, to the point that it's reverse engineered.
> 
> We've only ever gone for one or two tenders, and gave up after that because of the reasons mentioned in this thread. ie - it's a rigged system.


 
I absolutely would not agree it is rigged, however I would agree that some of the requirements in place can make it difficult for a smaller supplier to land a deal, in particuler those related to the financial standing of the supplier and associated guarantees relating to that.  I would imagine that a start up would find it very difficult to meet some of the criteria required


----------



## Complainer

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



umop3p!sdn said:


> It is restricting the tender to large suppliers. This in itself is problem enough.


It is indeed a problem, but it is an explicit, up-front, on the table problem, which is made absolutely clear to suppliers in the tender. To imply that this means the system is rigged is without basis.



umop3p!sdn said:


> My anecdotal evidence suggests that in some cases the criteria goes even further in restricting which company will be successful, to the point that it's reverse engineered.


So give us the anecdotes - point us to the tenders that were 'reverse engineered' and let us all take a view on this.



umop3p!sdn said:


> - it's a rigged system.


That's loser talk.


----------



## z107

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



> So give us the anecdotes - point us to the tenders that were 'reverse engineered' and let us all take a view on this.


Will I just make up some stories? A friend of mine said this was the case. The winner has already been chosen before the tendering process, so the tender was designed to make it much easier for that company to win. This is what I heard.



> That's loser talk


Actually no, that's winner talk.
We look at things realistically, and instead concentrate our efforts on contracts we are likely to win. If we were to get bogged down with filling in tenders, then we would be real losers.

How can it be suggested that the tendering isn't rigged, when we can see at least one area (favouring large suppliers) where it obviously is? 'Soft corruption' is very hard to prove.

There isn't much else I can add to this discussion.


----------



## Complainer

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



umop3p!sdn said:


> Will I just make up some stories? A friend of mine said this was the case. The winner has already been chosen before the tendering process, so the tender was designed to make it much easier for that company to win. This is what I heard.


The real question is; did you friend actually know what he was talking about, or was he looking for excuses to shoot the messenger, and blame someone for his failure. In the absence of any specific evidence, I know which option I think is more likely.



umop3p!sdn said:


> How can it be suggested that the tendering isn't rigged, when we can see at least one area (favouring large suppliers) where it obviously is? 'Soft corruption' is very hard to prove.


Favouring large suppliers is not evidence of 'rigging'. Favouring large suppliers is evidence of favouring large suppliers - no more, no less. You could make the same arguement about any particular criteria within a tender document, that it favours one supplier over the other. That is not evidence of rigging - just evidence that the tendering organisation is specifying their requirements.


----------



## Latrade

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



umop3p!sdn said:


> Will I just make up some stories? A friend of mine said this was the case. The winner has already been chosen before the tendering process, so the tender was designed to make it much easier for that company to win. This is what I heard.


 
So a friend told you and this makes it true.

I've stated before on this thread and so will simply state again: I've never had any reason to suspect that there is any form of rigging with any of the tenders I've put in for, whether won or lost.

I will state that we have been "asked" to tender for some work, but this was only ever where we had done work in the past for the client prior to the introduction of this system. Funnily enough, we never got the work in any of those cases even though the person was keen to work with us again.

However, to fuel the corruption issue, tenders are sent out even though a provider has already been selected...in the private sector.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*

I have no direct experience of tendering this way but I would think it is far less open to corruption than low value direct quotation. We have quoted for and won orders for various semi-sate organisations. They are usually very low value (a few thousand). The only time I saw any blatant corruption was when I was told that I would have to pay €X to an individual in order to get the work. We didn’t pay and we didn’t get the work.


----------



## z107

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*

I don't think this is a public/private sector issue. 

I'm also not suggesting that any other system is necessarily better than the tendering process. Tendering is just not for us.


----------



## Diddles

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*

' If you believe it is, let's get some examples on the table - all the tenders are already in the public domain, so please tell us which specific tenders were written by a supplier, or even which were written in a way that favours a specific supplier'.



Lets be fair here,it does still go on. I was part of a 'successful' tender in the past when I worked for a large multi.
We were not the current supplier either. We met the 2 guys involved twice before the tender was even uploaded to e-tenders and gave them a total price including specifications of the equipment involved. We knew the total amount available for the equipment so included all the bells and whistles to bring it up to the spend amount.
Finally we had all the equipment on order the day before the tender became public. The tender docs were ours practically word for word, so I guess we met all the criteria. The opposition even called us to congratulate us on the order when the docs were viewed by them.
I wouldnt dare mention the name of the body involved 9 (not Fas by the way) on any public forum.
Having called a few of my ex colleagues since this post first appeared, it appears this practice is still alive and well in this country.


----------



## censuspro

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



Diddles said:


> ' If you believe it is, let's get some examples on the table - all the tenders are already in the public domain, so please tell us which specific tenders were written by a supplier, or even which were written in a way that favours a specific supplier'.
> 
> 
> 
> Lets be fair here,it does still go on. I was part of a 'successful' tender in the past when I worked for a large multi.
> We were not the current supplier either. We met the 2 guys involved twice before the tender was even uploaded to e-tenders and gave them a total price including specifications of the equipment involved. We knew the total amount available for the equipment so included all the bells and whistles to bring it up to the spend amount.
> Finally we had all the equipment on order the day before the tender became public. The tender docs were ours practically word for word, so I guess we met all the criteria. The opposition even called us to congratulate us on the order when the docs were viewed by them.
> I wouldnt dare mention the name of the body involved 9 (not Fas by the way) on any public forum.
> Having called a few of my ex colleagues since this post first appeared, it appears this practice is still alive and well in this country.


 
I didnt think it was possible to view successful tender documents? Surely they would contain sensitive information.


----------



## Complainer

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



Diddles said:


> Lets be fair here,it does still go on. I was part of a 'successful' tender in the past when I worked for a large multi.
> We were not the current supplier either. We met the 2 guys involved twice before the tender was even uploaded to e-tenders and gave them a total price including specifications of the equipment involved. We knew the total amount available for the equipment so included all the bells and whistles to bring it up to the spend amount.
> Finally we had all the equipment on order the day before the tender became public. The tender docs were ours practically word for word, so I guess we met all the criteria. The opposition even called us to congratulate us on the order when the docs were viewed by them.
> I wouldnt dare mention the name of the body involved 9 (not Fas by the way) on any public forum.
> Having called a few of my ex colleagues since this post first appeared, it appears this practice is still alive and well in this country.




Very dissapointing to think that this is still going on, though I draw some succour from the karma aspect, i.e. noting your frustration with corruption in tendering process "I have given up on these tenders as they have proven in my particular case to be a waste of time and effort for zilch at the end" is payback for your previous participation in corrupt tendering.


----------



## Diddles

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



Complainer said:


> Very dissapointing to think that this is still going on, though I draw some succour from the karma aspect, i.e. noting your frustration with corruption in tendering process "I have given up on these tenders as they have proven in my particular case to be a waste of time and effort for zilch at the end" is payback for your previous participation in corrupt tendering.


 


Different gig now complainer not with the multi any more
d


----------



## z107

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



> Very dissapointing to think that this is still going on, though I draw some succour from the karma aspect, i.e. noting your frustration with corruption in tendering process "I have given up on these tenders as they have proven in my particular case to be a waste of time and effort for zilch at the end" is payback for your previous participation in corrupt tendering.


Where's my Karma?


----------



## Complainer

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



Diddles said:


> Different gig now complainer not with the multi any more
> d



You played your part in creating an environment of corruption in your industry, so don't be surprised when it comes back to bite you on the ass.


umop3p!sdn said:


> Where's my Karma?


In your imagination, with the rest of your makey-up stories about tendering.


----------



## z107

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



> So give us the anecdotes - point us to the tenders that were 'reverse engineered' and let us all take a view on this.





> In your imagination, with the rest of your makey-up stories about tendering.


So you believe Diddle's stories, but not mine!

Diddle's anecdote suggests that the tendering system is in fact rigged.


----------



## Complainer

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



umop3p!sdn said:


> So you believe Diddle's stories, but not mine!


Yep - his was first hand information, not pub gossip.



umop3p!sdn said:


> Diddle's anecdote suggests that the tendering system is in fact rigged.


No, it suggests that a tender was rigged.


----------



## z107

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



> No, it suggests that a tender was rigged.



More than one apparently...


> Having called a few of my ex colleagues since this post first appeared, it appears this practice is still alive and well in this country.



I'd also like to point out that I haven't been to the pub in quite a while, and it certainly wasn't where I heard my anecdote. An anecdote that tallies with Diddle's first hand experience, which you believe.

So I conclude, that potential candidates should be aware that the tendering system is indeed rigged. However, it might not be rigged in all cases.


----------



## Complainer

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



umop3p!sdn said:


> So I conclude, that potential candidates should be aware that the tendering system is indeed rigged. However, it might not be rigged in all cases.


I see your logic. It rained yesterday, therefore it rains everyday. Except on those days where it doesn't rain.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



Complainer said:


> You played your part in creating an environment of corruption in your industry, so don't be surprised when it comes back to bite you on the ass.



Do you really believe in Karma????


----------



## Purple

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



Complainer said:


> I see your logic. It rained yesterday, therefore it rains everyday. Except on those days where it doesn't rain.



How about its rained on and off for years, we live in a wet country and so it might well rain tomorrow?


----------



## censuspro

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*

Does anyone know the name of the seminars for tendering for these contracts, think they're on in the RDS?


----------



## censuspro

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*

Sorry to dig up and old thread but has anyone seen this article in the Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6954483.ece about The Shannon Foynes Port Company (SFPC).

Unbelievable stuff!


----------



## lion_bar

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



Complainer said:


> Keep it simple. The tender recipients may not have latest versions of the MS products. I would stick with Word or pdf, but if in doubt (and the tender document does not specify what format is required), ask the question beforehand.


 
I'd suggest you use pdf. 

I've seen proposals in Word go out from one large consulting firm with full change tracking history still on the document.


----------



## darrenbyrne9

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*

I have used this website quite a lot. I have won a coupld of things off it. I'd say 1 in 10.

It's very hit or miss though. It's much better when you have some form of intro into the organisation beforehand.


----------



## censuspro

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*

I see PWC and E&Y have been awarded the NAMA contract for "Appointment to a panel for Loan and Associated Valuation Services to NAMA"...

PWC have also been awarded the contract for Tax Advisory Services.


----------



## sinbadsailor

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



censuspro said:


> I see PWC and E&Y have been awarded the NAMA contract for "Appointment to a panel for Loan and Associated Valuation Services to NAMA"...
> 
> PWC have also been awarded the contract for Tax Advisory Services.



PWC to Govt: "Hey looks like you'll need some crazy vehicle to hide all of this mess from the public. If there was any tender for any such madness, I'm sure we could be competitive...."

Govt to PWC: "Funny you should mention that, we are looking into restructuring the countries foreign debt, you might be on to something, we will indeed be issuing a tender. Vehcile, good idea"

PWC: "Hey look, they tender is nearly exactly the same as we would have advised, lets post..."

Future: Tender awarded to PWC for NAMA consulting bid

Now obviously it never happened like that, I have no idea how that tender was run, but it's just used as an example as to how the process can remain intact and proper, while still being abused and closed.

If it was to be transparent as possible a full list of tenderers and their price quoted should be available to all other tenderers, even before they submit in order to avoid waste of time money and costs as we know "..all costs, time etc for this tender shall be covered by the tenderer..."

Huge waste of time, money and effort for the majority of reputable businesses trying to win a tender. 

I stay clear of them


----------



## Complainer

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



sinbadsailor said:


> If it was to be transparent as possible a full list of tenderers and their price quoted should be available to all other tenderers, even before they submit in order to avoid waste of time money and costs as we know "..all costs, time etc for this tender shall be covered by the tenderer..."


So that the tenderers can come in with a high-ball price? This would completely defeat the purpose of competitive tendering!


sinbadsailor said:


> Huge waste of time, money and effort for the majority of reputable businesses trying to win a tender.
> 
> I stay clear of them


Many, many reputable businesses are quite willing to tender within the current system - imperfect as it may be.


----------



## davidoco

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*

I have evaluated tender replies for about 10 years now where the value of the contract would be in around €100k (ICT) or less each time.  The various comments over the past 3 pages about predetermined winners is b*s* in 100% of the tenders that I have seen.  
The winner of a tender is scored based on the tender reply received.  I can’t rely on information regarding a company (no matter how formal) if that information is not placed in the tender reply.  I’ve seen plenty of smaller companies fail to feature in the final 3 because they just didn’t take the time to present a decent reply or displayed a total lack of understanding of the requirements.
Tips 

If you are asked for CVs – attach them.
Reproduce the tender document in Word and comment on each requirement, but do not write AGREED or NOTED where you could in fact write some interesting fact about yourself/your company.
warning to docx users - convert your documents into PDF before submitting.  Check that your pdfs open on another machine before sending.
Usually there is no problem ringing the publisher for a quick chat before submitting the reply to introduce yourself.
Answer every single question in the response instructions.  If you omit to answer a question you will drop scores.


----------



## Featherhead

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*

In some cases there will already be a preferred supplier but for legal reasons they have to get quotes off at leat three different companies before making a decision. I know this as in one job I had a company actually admit it to me when they rang looking for a quote! Doesn't mean you haven't a shot - if what you put in is very good it may still get their attention. 

Other tender will not already have a preferred supplier and therefore it will all go on whats submitted. 

Re that particular site I have worked with companies who used it and they won some and lost some. Often a company would ring in and say that they had requirements and would send you on the tender details or tell you what site it was going to be listed on in advance.


----------



## sinbadsailor

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*

In the end it is a flawed system whereby works are given to preferred parties all the time under the guise of a fair and equitable system. I've even heard of the preferred party having a major role in outlining the text of the Tender!

The words 'competitive' and 'competition' are thrown around way to much. The more you hear it , the less there actually is once you get past the 'process'.

The tendering process is just not equal. Website projects are looking for accounts for companies turning 500k in a year. There are many software development houses who would run rings around the big consultancies for half the price but are automatically excluded by an unfair requirements, designed to do this on purpose.


----------



## Complainer

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



sinbadsailor said:


> In the end it is a flawed system whereby works are given to preferred parties all the time under the guise of a fair and equitable system. I've even heard of the preferred party having a major role in outlining the text of the Tender!


No system is perfect, but works aren't given to anyone 'all the time'. This just isn't happening on a widespread basis. If you believe that it is happening, then you need to address this by raising the issue with the CEO or Shane Ross or Joe Duffy or whoever it takes to get it sorted.



sinbadsailor said:


> The words 'competitive' and 'competition' are thrown around way to much. The more you hear it , the less there actually is once you get past the 'process'.


This is just meaningless.



sinbadsailor said:


> The tendering process is just not equal. Website projects are looking for accounts for companies turning 500k in a year. There are many software development houses who would run rings around the big consultancies for half the price but are automatically excluded by an unfair requirements, designed to do this on purpose.


 The size requirement is controversial, and I don't always agree with it, but it has some basis. The small guys are less likely to be still around at the end of the project than the big guys.


----------



## censuspro

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



davidoco said:


> I have evaluated tender replies for about 10 years now where the value of the contract would be in around €100k (ICT) or less each time.  The various comments over the past 3 pages about predetermined winners is b*s* in 100% of the tenders that I have seen.
> The winner of a tender is scored based on the tender reply received.  I can’t rely on information regarding a company (no matter how formal) if that information is not placed in the tender reply.  I’ve seen plenty of smaller companies fail to feature in the final 3 because they just didn’t take the time to present a decent reply or displayed a total lack of understanding of the requirements.
> Tips
> 
> If you are asked for CVs – attach them.
> Reproduce the tender document in Word and comment on each requirement, but do not write AGREED or NOTED where you could in fact write some interesting fact about yourself/your company.
> warning to docx users - convert your documents into PDF before submitting.  Check that your pdfs open on another machine before sending.
> Usually there is no problem ringing the publisher for a quick chat before submitting the reply to introduce yourself.
> Answer every single question in the response instructions.  If you omit to answer a question you will drop scores.



How do you explain The Shannon Foynes Port Company (SFPC). Have a look at my previous post further up the page. Also, wasn't Artur Cox awarded the contract to advise the government on the bank guarantees without the tender going out to contract?

Also, the fact that E&Y are part of the valuations panel is just beggars belief when you consider their involvement in the Anglo affair.


----------



## z107

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



> The size requirement is controversial, and I don't always agree with it, but it has some basis. The small guys are less likely to be still around at the end of the project than the big guys.


This is exactly the attitude that is a root cause of the problem. There is absolutely no basis to it either. Big companies go bust, and so do small companies. Indeed, it might be better to go with a small company, because they might devote more to it than their larger competitors.

The small guys will never get to be the big guys when people think like this.


----------



## sinbadsailor

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



> The size requirement is controversial, and I don't always agree with it, but it has some basis. The small guys are less likely to be still around at the end of the project than the big guys.



Thats because they have used better tools, done a better and faster job and have already left the building, leaving the customer with smile and a fatter pocket. What you have to remember is that a successful project should not need a 2 year maintanence contract bolted on to the end of it.

That is not a fair way to judge whether or not you give a smaller company a break within the tender process. They have after all signed contracts to provide the solution and in the end, need the job as they are only a small business. Greater customer focus and incentive to impress are therefore present. Win win in my opinion, but alas, it doesn't work out that way.


----------



## sinbadsailor

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



umop3p!sdn said:


> The small guys will never get to be the big guys when people think like this.



Probably the whole point of it. Protect and control their profits and actually stifling competition rather than promoting it


----------



## Complainer

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*

I can see that 'size' is a sore point, and I don't claim to be expert in the procurement rationale behind this. But if anyone is really concerned to know what is going on (as opposed to just wanting a good moan), they should contact [broken link removed] and have a good chat to understand the rationale. 

There are indeed some procurement exercises where ongoing support is absolutely essential, such as an ERP system or a key business application. Sometimes I wonder why it is easier for people to accept conspiracy theories (e.g. they are all out to get us, the job was sewn up beforehand etc) rather than just accepting that the other guy had a better proposal/price.


----------



## sinbadsailor

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



Complainer said:


> Sometimes I wonder why it is easier for people to accept conspiracy theories (e.g. they are all out to get us, the job was sewn up beforehand etc) rather than just accepting that the other guy had a better proposal/price.



Time and again, the simplest explanation for something usually turns out to be correct explanation. Other posters have cited examples where corruption was present in this type or process and in the end, big business + government = corruption, full stop. History repeats this over and over.

The simple fact of the matter is that it is not a level playing field all things being equal. The so-called requirements do not seem to determine the outcome as for the most part a tender that is designed to get the best job for the best value for money usually has the caveat bolted on that 'the lowest price will not necessarily get the contract', usually a lower quote is taken to mean that you are not good enough of big enough to handle the job. 

There is no excusing this obviously flawed system


----------



## Complainer

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



sinbadsailor said:


> Time and again, the simplest explanation for something usually turns out to be correct explanation.


Glad we agree on something. I've no idea how you made the massive leap that the simplest explanation = corruption. When you have been through the process many many times on the inside, it is quite easy to see that the simplest explanation is that the other guy had a better proposal/price.



sinbadsailor said:


> The simple fact of the matter is that it is not a level playing field all things being equal. The so-called requirements do not seem to determine the outcome as for the most part a tender that is designed to get the best job for the best value for money usually has the caveat bolted on that 'the lowest price will not necessarily get the contract', usually a lower quote is taken to mean that you are not good enough of big enough to handle the job.


You clearly don't understand the evaluation process that take place on tenders recieved. You clearly don't understand how 'most economically advantageous tender' (MEAT) ensures best value for money. I evaluated some tenders in 2008 that ranges from €40k to €350k for a well-specced technology solution. The chosen tender was for about €120k, as this tender came out best from a detailed weighted scoring model.

Really, we're not all out to get you. There a few examples of corruption in Shannon Port and FAS and a few others. There are also hundreds of tenders awarded each month without controversy or complaint.


----------



## Towger

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*

Who is saying it is always corruption? For example we tendered for a job, it was awarded to a semi state. We inquired using a few contacts and were told that we were wasting our time when we applied as it was always going to be awarded to them.


----------



## Complainer

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



Towger said:


> Who is saying it is always corruption?


Sinbad is - see above.



Towger said:


> For example we tendered for a job, it was awarded to a semi state. We inquired using a few contacts and were told that we were wasting our time when we applied as it was always going to be awarded to them.



If this was happening in reality, then this is corruption too. But really, are people just sitting back and saying 'Ah sure that's all right then'. If this stuff is happening out there, then fight it. Confront it with a CEO or a board or the C&AG or Shane Ross or Joe Duffy or whoever.


----------



## sinbadsailor

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*

If someone started that game then at some stage a concrete example would have to be publicised, and that means names and monetary figures. To protect their 'honour', the awarded person/company might issue legal proceedings against the accuser and we all know what happens from there. If you were small enough to fall foul of a tender process, your surely small enough to fall foul of a media concentrated media attack/legal process that is again used to keep dissenters in check.

So, how about everyone agrees that the process is inheritantly unfair, unjust and 'at times' varyingly corrupt. We could then at least try and build a system that might foster a bit of entreprenurial spirit in Ireland where we could all compete on a level playing field, out in the open. It would be nice to see a giant slayer story in the papers for once where a smalltime underdog won the major deal and now has the chance to prove themselves. Thats the kind of environment that breeds true, healthy competition.


----------



## z107

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



> If this was happening in reality, then this is corruption too.


So how much evidence do you need?

These two comments, both from complainer, are pretty telling:


> The size requirement is controversial, and I don't always agree with it, *but it has some basis.*


and


> * I evaluated some *tenders in 2008 that ranges from €40k to €350k for a well-specced technology solution.



I'd never waste my time with tenders. I won't waste any more of my time on this thread either.


----------



## Complainer

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



sinbadsailor said:


> If someone started that game then at some stage a concrete example would have to be publicised, and that means names and monetary figures. To protect their 'honour', the awarded person/company might issue legal proceedings against the accuser and we all know what happens from there. If you were small enough to fall foul of a tender process, your surely small enough to fall foul of a media concentrated media attack/legal process that is again used to keep dissenters in check.
> 
> So, how about everyone agrees that the process is inheritantly unfair, unjust and 'at times' varyingly corrupt. We could then at least try and build a system that might foster a bit of entreprenurial spirit in Ireland where we could all compete on a level playing field, out in the open. It would be nice to see a giant slayer story in the papers for once where a smalltime underdog won the major deal and now has the chance to prove themselves. Thats the kind of environment that breeds true, healthy competition.


So to sumarise, we don't have any concrete examples. We don't have anyone with enough certainty about what is happening to stick their head above the parapet to complain.

But you are absolutely convinced (despite the absence of any evidence beyond rumour and gossip) that the whole system needs to be changed. 

No chance of just a little tad of evidence before we go throwing out the baby with the bathwater?


----------



## sinbadsailor

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



Complainer said:


> So to sumarise, we don't have any concrete examples. We don't have anyone with enough certainty about what is happening to stick their head above the parapet to complain.



That is why it works so well for those who abuse it. Red tape and the process hide the true nature and operation of the shady tenders.

I for one dont see this thread going any further, as I concede that you will be able to respond with a rebuttal to any criticism I may post, short of me posting names and figures. You have obviously had far more experience defending the process as I have had opposing it.

I leave the last word on the matter to you. I'm getting dizzy on this roundabout.


----------



## Complainer

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



sinbadsailor said:


> That is why it works so well for those who abuse it. Red tape and the process hide the true nature and operation of the shady tenders.


This is vague nonsense. Nothing is hidden about the process. There is no red tape - just standard conractual requirements, that aren't that different from the kind of tendering that goes on in the private sector.



umop3p!sdn said:


> So how much evidence do you need?


How about 'some'?

Something beyond vague 'my mate told me' stuff would be nice. Somebody willing to stick their head above the parapet and point to one or two particular tenders and state how they were corrupt.


----------



## AlbacoreA

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*

Many would do well to evaluate their own tenders. Score each requirement out of 10 and give it to someone unfamilar with it, to find the required information within 10~15 mins. Using only the information supplied in the tender. I'd guess 75% of tenders would fail that simple test. Thats my experience of them.


----------



## sinbadsailor

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



Complainer said:


> How about 'some'?
> Something beyond vague 'my mate told me' stuff would be nice. Somebody willing to stick their head above the parapet and point to one or two particular tenders and state how they were corrupt.



There are publicised examples in the past of corrupt tenders. They have been referenced in this thread already. So that should cover your evidence requirements.

As for sticking your head out, well, that would take what is a general discussion into the realm of making specific accusations in a public forum, which would not a very bright thing to do.

When you hear about the corrupt examples in the media (and they are only the ones that are outed, by the way) and then when you see massive floor quote limits, phone calls being made to preferred tenderers by the issuers to remind them of closing dates, accepting of late tenders from preferred tenderers, well it is just not a sound process.


----------



## AlbacoreA

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*

Whats a floor quote limit?


----------



## censuspro

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



Complainer said:


> This is vague nonsense. Nothing is hidden about the process. There is no red tape - just standard conractual requirements, that aren't that different from the kind of tendering that goes on in the private sector.
> 
> 
> How about 'some'?
> 
> Something beyond vague 'my mate told me' stuff would be nice. Somebody willing to stick their head above the parapet and point to one or two particular tenders and state how they were corrupt.



In fairness, examples have already been provided e.g. Arthur Cox and The Shannon Foynes Port Company (SFPC)


----------



## sinbadsailor

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



AlbacoreA said:


> Whats a floor quote limit?



Apologies, badly phrased. It is the situation where smaller outfits are excluded by design in a tender by stating that a company has to have turnover of say 500k with audited accounts to be considered for the tender. 

For some tenders size and turnover of a company have no direct refection on the quality/cost of the job that coud be provided, I think websites was the area this came up in.


----------



## AlbacoreA

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*

I don't know much about the details of it. But my understanding (I could be wrong) is that not as simply as just turnover. The company financials in good order going forward, and secondly, is there enough staff to cover the project, and its support, and also the other work they are doing. If they are doing multiple projects for multiple clients at the same time. 

Because you could pick a small place thats hanging on, your their only client, with a few staff, and all it would take a delay in the project, and thus a payment, or a couple of key staff to leave and the projects in trouble. No one want to be left holding the baby in that case.

Sometimes a smaller company would be better doing a few smaller contracts before pitching for the bigger ones. Get some history of good projects under their belt.


----------



## Complainer

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



censuspro said:


> In fairness, examples have already been provided e.g. Arthur Cox and The Shannon Foynes Port Company (SFPC)



I'm still not clear on what exactly is the problem with the Arthur Cox/NAMA thing - I certainly didn't see any clear evidence of corruption. But regardless, to use a handfull of examples of problems as evidence that 'the whole procedure is corrupt' is foolish. That would be a bit like looking at the results of [broken link removed] and concluding that the entire house-building process in Ireland is screwed up and needs to be changed. 

There are hundreds of boring, quiet contracts awarded and completed each month without fuss or bother.



sinbadsailor said:


> As for sticking your head out, well, that would take what is a general discussion into the realm of making specific accusations in a public forum, which would not a very bright thing to do.
> 
> When you hear about the corrupt examples in the media (and they are only the ones that are outed, by the way) and then when you see massive floor quote limits, phone calls being made to preferred tenderers by the issuers to remind them of closing dates, accepting of late tenders from preferred tenderers, well it is just not a sound process.



I'm not sure why phone calls to remind tenderers would be an issue, given that the eTenders website issues automatic reminders to interested parties anyway. If late tenders are being accepted, tell us where this is happening. A simple FOI request will expose the facts for just €20. Let's get it all up on the table and see what we really have.

Linking 'corrupt examples' with minimum turnover requirements is a bit silly. There is nothing corrupt about a minimum turnover requirement. You might not like it (and I might not like it), but it is not evidence of corruption, or anything like it.

Let's get some facts on the table, and then see where we are with the whole thing.


----------



## sinbadsailor

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



Complainer said:


> I'm still not clear on what exactly is the problem with the Arthur Cox/NAMA thing - I certainly didn't see any clear evidence of corruption.



Were you personally involved in any of these?



Complainer said:


> But regardless, to use a handfull of examples of problems as evidence that 'the whole procedure is corrupt' is foolish. That would be a bit like looking at the results of this case and concluding that the entire house-building process in Ireland is screwed up and needs to be changed.



The process is not screwed up but the default building standards were too low and have resulted in a lot of shoddy work and poorly insulated homes during the boom. Hence how the building industry is now in the business of retrofitting the insulation technology on homes that should have had it by default when built in the first place



Complainer said:


> There are hundreds of boring, quiet contracts awarded and completed each month without fuss or bother.



I agree, but this does not prove that the process isn't flawed. It just proves that not all tenders are dubious.



Complainer said:


> I'm not sure why phone calls to remind tenderers would be an issue, given that the eTenders website issues automatic reminders to interested parties anyway. If late tenders are being accepted, tell us where this is happening. A simple FOI request will expose the facts for just €20. Let's get it all up on the table and see what we really have.



The type of phone call I was talking about was where certain companies that were usually in the picture, had not applied and are called to ask why and tell them there is time to get it in. Surely there is a difference from getting an email alert for something you have registered an interest in and the issuer proactively calling a provider because they didn't see there application in the stack?



Complainer said:


> I'm still not clear on what exactly is the problem with the Arthur Cox/NAMA thing - I certainly didn't see any clear evidence of corruption.



Were you personally involved in any of these?



Complainer said:


> But regardless, to use a handfull of examples of problems as evidence that 'the whole procedure is corrupt' is foolish. That would be a bit like looking at the results of this case and concluding that the entire house-building process in Ireland is screwed up and needs to be changed.



The process is not screwed up but the default building standards were too low and have resulted in a lot of shoddy work and poorly insulated homes during the boom. Hence how the building industry is now in the business of retrofitting the insulation technology on homes that should have had it by default when built in the first place



Complainer said:


> There are hundreds of boring, quiet contracts awarded and completed each month without fuss or bother.



I agree, but this does not prove that the process isn't flawed. It just proves that not all tenders are dubious.



Complainer said:


> Linking 'corrupt examples' with minimum turnover requirements is a bit silly. There is nothing corrupt about a minimum turnover requirement. You might not like it (and I might not like it), but it is not evidence of corruption, or anything like it.
> 
> Let's get some facts on the table, and then see where we are with the whole thing.



I concede on that point, minimum turnover requirements are not corrupt in themselves. But in certain instances they can be used to knowingly narrow who or who cannot apply, which might seem to some as an unfair requirement.


----------



## AlbacoreA

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*

I would suspect the scale of poorly built/insulated housing is on a vastly bigger scale than dodgy tenders. So its not logical to assume the former is not flawed.


----------



## Complainer

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



sinbadsailor said:


> Were you personally involved in any of these?


Absolutely not - I was talking about the vague mentions earlier in this thread.



sinbadsailor said:


> I agree, but this does not prove that the process isn't flawed. It just proves that not all tenders are dubious.


It doesn't prove anything, but it does point to the fact that this process generally works. We have no evidence that the general procurement process (which mirrors international processes and indeed private sector processes) is fundamentally flawed.



sinbadsailor said:


> The type of phone call I was talking about was where certain companies that were usually in the picture, had not applied and are called to ask why and tell them there is time to get it in. Surely there is a difference from getting an email alert for something you have registered an interest in and the issuer proactively calling a provider because they didn't see there application in the stack?


OK, I see the difference. But I don't see any corruption here in making a phone call to let somebody know about information that is already in the public domain.


----------



## anniemac

*Re: Government E-Tenders Website*



Latrade said:


> I've used them and won some lost some. Never seen it as being unfair.



with you on this and as also posted tenders in past we have found there are companies who apply for any and all tenders - it must be relevant to the work you are doing and that you are fully confident that you can produce the goods if you are awarded. 
Won 4 out 7 in past year - very much industry and experience specific.


----------



## Latrade

*Re: Government E-Tenders Website*



anniemac said:


> with you on this and as also posted tenders in past we have found there are companies who apply for any and all tenders - it must be relevant to the work you are doing and that you are fully confident that you can produce the goods if you are awarded.
> Won 4 out 7 in past year - very much industry and experience specific.


 
And to just say, won another tender just today.

I think there's an element of art to doing tenders. Mind the art is just provide the information the tender asks for and read carefully. Many don't want electronic copies, only hard copy and some want 3 copies sent, etc.

If it looks like a cut and paste job, it's not likely to do so well on the scoring system.


----------



## AlbacoreA

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*

It can be interesting to ask people tendering to find their own information in their submitted tender. They often can't do it.


----------



## galwegian44

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*

I've been notified that I'm on the shortlist for a tender and I'm delighted to get this far as it's the first time I've used this eGov site. My company has been asked to give a presentation as the final stage to determine the winner; is this standard practice or unusual?

Also, does anyone know if there are standard questions that are usually asked at these presentations before getting into the nitty gritty?

Thanks for all suggestions.



AlbacoreA said:


> It can be interesting to ask people tendering to find their own information in their submitted tender. They often can't do it.


----------



## Complainer

*Re: Govt E-Tenders Website: Has anyone had any success with the contracts on this sit*



galwegian44 said:


> I've been notified that I'm on the shortlist for a tender and I'm delighted to get this far as it's the first time I've used this eGov site. My company has been asked to give a presentation as the final stage to determine the winner; is this standard practice or unusual?
> 
> Also, does anyone know if there are standard questions that are usually asked at these presentations before getting into the nitty gritty?
> 
> Thanks for all suggestions.


Be ready to answer questions on all the stuff detailed in the tender. They will be marking you based on the weightings/criteria detailed in the tender, so you should focus on these issues. Ask them beforehand if there are any particular issues you should focus on, or anything unclear in your tender that you need to expand on.


----------



## Purple

piece in the Enterprise Ireland magazine "The Market" might be of interest to some of the people whio posted in this thread.


----------



## csirl

My employers do well at this sort of stuff and I've been involved in quite a few over the years. Some tips

1. Supply ALL the information required IN THE EXACT FORMAT required. Not more, no less. If you are asked for A, B & C you supply A, B & C in that order. You'd be amazed how many people send in generic info, such as brochures, price lists etc. instead of tailoring their reply to the competition. Generally speaking, you get disqualified if you dont supply all the info required - supplying 9 out of 10 answers is no good no matter how good each of the answers are. Also, those who mark the tenders wont go thru dozens of pages of extraneous information to find the specific answers they need - if its not in the correct format, it wont be read.

2. Make sure your business has all the certs required and supply them. Forgetting to send in your companies tax clearance cert is sometimes enough to get disqualified - have seen this happen. If the tender requires your staff to have certain specificed qualifications, they must have them AND you must supply the cert to prove. If you are required to have e.g. ISO 9001 etc., you must supply cert to prove. No good saying "my staff are experienced enough, even though dont have the formal cert"...or "my systems are good enough for ISO cert etc. etc." - either you have it or you dont full stop.

3. Get it in on time. Procurement law requires that any tender or part of tender received after the deadline cant even be opened by the recipient.

4. Remember that there is a wider world out there. Its no use being the best in Ireland in your field - tenders are generally done EU wide. This is an EU rule which the government can do nothing about. Irish firms always complain about it saying foreign firms are taking their customers, but they forget that it works both ways - very few Irish firms bother to tender for contracts with other EU governments. Can be very lucrative tendering in other countries, notably the UK as language and distance isnt really a problem - huge market out there for those who chase it.

5. Get feedback. FOI is wonderful, but most places will give you feedback plus a breakdown of your marks/price versus the winning tenderer outside of FOI. 

On the size issue, I asked the logic on it once - there is some overall government policy that a tender should not be given to some firm if the contract price would be most of their turnover - dont like dealing with companies that are solely dependent on a government contract to survive as there are too many risks.


----------



## Complainer

Some interesting new guidance from Dept Finance on turnover criteria and other things that hurt SMEs.

From [broken link removed]



> Summary of Measures by Contracting Authorities
> to Facilitate the Participation of SMEs in Public Procurement
> 
> •    Contracting authorities are to advertise all contracts for supplies and services with an estimated value of €25,000 and upwards on www.etenders.gov.ie  (eTenders) (Section 2).
> •    Contracting authorities should, as the norm, use the electronic tendering facility on eTenders (Section 2).
> •    Contracting authorities are to use “open” tendering procedures for advertised contracts for supplies and services up to €125,000 in value, and for advertised contracts for works and related services up to €250,000.  Beyond these levels they may decide which tendering procedure is most appropriate in each case (Section 3).
> *•    Contracting authorities must ensure that any capacity levels they set for tenderers are relevant and proportionate to the circumstances of the particular contract (Section 4).
> •    Contracting authorities should allow applicants to self-declare their capacity to undertake the contract, and should seek verification or evidence of such capacity only in the event of the tenderer being short-listed or coming under consideration for the award of a contract (Section 4).
> •    Contracting authorities should be flexible in accepting alternative means of verification of capacity if suppliers are having difficulty in providing one kind of evidence sought (Section 4).*
> •    Contracting authorities may only set insurance requirements that are relevant and proportionate to the circumstances of the contract, should require tenderers only to declare that they can obtain the cover, and should only seek evidence of the cover in place from the winning tenderer to allow for the award of contract (Section 5).
> •    Contracting authorities are not to use arrangements that involve potential tenderers having to pay so as to access opportunities to compete for public contracts (Section 6).
> •    Contracting authorities should provide constructive de-briefing to unsuccessful tenderers (Section 7).
> •    Contracting authorities may only short-list on an objective and non-discriminatory basis (Section 8).
> •    Contracting authorities should avail of the possibility to award contracts in “lots” where this can be done without compromising efficiency and value for money (Section 9).
> •    Contracting authorities should ensure that framework agreements facilitate the inclusion of smaller businesses where these could meet requirements or compete for particular lots (Section 10).
> •    Contracting authorities should encourage joint bidding among SMEs and sub-contracting in the case of larger contracts.  They should be aware of the potential of SMEs as suppliers of innovative solutions and in contributing to eco-innovation (green procurement) (Section 11).
> •    Contracting authorities should describe their requirements in functional terms where appropriate (“ask for a solution, do not prescribe it”) (Section 11).
> •    Contracting authorities should use the online tax clearance system put in place through the Revenue Commissioners website www.revenue.ie  (Section 11).
> •    Contracting authorities should use simple, and where possible, standard documentation to assist suppliers, have better structured tendering, and “de-mystify” the public procurement process (Section 11).


----------



## censuspro

Deloitte & Touch awarded the contract for the provision of internal audit service to NAMA:

[broken link removed]


----------



## werner

Diddles said:


> Hi guys,
> What you have to remember is that 'most' of these tenders are already unofficially awarded. This is obviously not meant to be the case but alas its true.
> The company that is 'awarded' the tender, in most cases write the tender documents to the specification of their offering.
> I have given up on these tenders as they have proven in my particular case to be a waste of time and effort for zilch at the end.
> d


 
+100

Very True!


----------



## Complainer

Diddles said:


> Hi guys,
> What you have to remember is that 'most' of these tenders are already unofficially awarded. This is obviously not meant to be the case but alas its true.
> The company that is 'awarded' the tender, in most cases write the tender documents to the specification of their offering.
> I have given up on these tenders as they have proven in my particular case to be a waste of time and effort for zilch at the end.





werner said:


> +100
> 
> Very True!



Just in case you missed Diddles others posts on this thread, you might want to check out the post where he confesses to colluding with a public body to corrupt a tender process. 

It is therefore difficult to take his concerns about corrupt tender processes too seriously. If you have any evidence about corrupt tender processes, please get that evidence into the public domain. 

Sometimes conspiracy theories are easier for people to accept that plain old 'we weren't good enough' theories.


----------



## Purple

Excellent posts from Complainer and CSIRL on this thread. Should it be a edited into a key post?


----------



## amabellent

*certification requirements to apply for a tender with the US government*

I am tasked by my boss to find out what are USA's certification requirements in order to apply for tender? 

I have no idea at all. Can anyone be so kind to provide me links where to find these info? 

Thanks


----------



## Complainer

I'd guess that it all depends on the type of product or services involved. You'd have to give more detail, and ideally a link to the US tender in question.


----------



## johnm

Find out first which agency/department issued the tender. There are many levels of jurisdictions, i.e. federal (national), state, county, local, and they'll all have different rules. If it's federal, you may not qualify unless you have a US presence.


----------

