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

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

and

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Whats a floor quote limit?

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

AlbacoreA said:

Whats a floor quote limit?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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)

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Government E-Tenders Website

Latrade said:

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

Click to expand...

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.