No. I'm too busy to look this up.So give us the examples of where these conditions have been used?
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.
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?No. I'm too busy to look this up.
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).However, you seemed to have done this yourself:
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.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?
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.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.
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.It is restricting the tender to large suppliers. This in itself is problem enough.
So give us the anecdotes - point us to the tenders that were 'reverse engineered' and let us all take a view on this.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.
That's loser talk.- it's a rigged system.
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 give us the anecdotes - point us to the tenders that were 'reverse engineered' and let us all take a view on this.
Actually no, that's winner talk.That's loser talk
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.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.
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.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.
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.
' 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.
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.
Where's my Karma?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 complainernot with the multi any more
d
In your imagination, with the rest of your makey-up stories about tendering.Where's my Karma?
So give us the anecdotes - point us to the tenders that were 'reverse engineered' and let us all take a view on this.
So you believe Diddle's stories, but not mine!In your imagination, with the rest of your makey-up stories about tendering.
Yep - his was first hand information, not pub gossip.So you believe Diddle's stories, but not mine!
No, it suggests that a tender was rigged.Diddle's anecdote suggests that the tendering system is in fact rigged.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?