Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 32114 Location: The Corridor of Uncertainty
bren2k wrote:In the real world - I am subject to exactly the same rules tigertot has described; that's how procurement with the NHS and LA's works, and despite my best efforts, there is no way around it.
Indeed. I was involved in an NHS procurement recently that jumped through all those hoops.
"If you start listening to the fans it won't be long before you're sitting with them," - Wayne Bennett.
Joined: Jan 30 2005 Posts: 7152 Location: one day closer to death
King Street Cat wrote:And which world would that be? The one where tenders are accepted with a nod and a wink, an extra brown envelope, and the furious deleting of email exchanges? Tigertot's description of the tender process is exactly how it works where I work, and as bren2k has pointed out, there is no way around it. We actually employ a person dedicated to ensuring everything is done to the letter.
This is so dull.
Yes, that is all true. No-one is denying legislation exists.
But - as tigertot doesn't seem to understand - any bid you receive will contain data, information, projections, etc, that have been compiled by the bidder based on their own internal data, information, projections, etc - and intended margins/yield - that you simply cannot verify independently and the bidder may choose to protect. You have to trust it is true and correct. Then, at some point you need to look at your bids having carried out all your checks and adhered to all the processes and regulations, you make a decision. There is always an element of trust that everything you're basing your decision on is true and correct.
Stagecoach (and other transport providers, to be fair), for example, failed to foresee a vast increase in home-working, which has hit their passenger number projections in a big way. They may have submitted an honest and open bid, but in hindsight they got at least one part of it wrong. Whoever accepted that bid at the DoT may have carried out due diligence to the n'th degree, but it doesn't change the fact the sums turned out to be wrong.
Yes, that is all true. No-one is denying legislation exists.
But - as tigertot doesn't seem to understand - any bid you receive will contain data, information, projections, etc, that have been compiled by the bidder based on their own internal data, information, projections, etc - and intended margins/yield - that you simply cannot verify independently and the bidder may choose to protect. You have to trust it is true and correct. Then, at some point you need to look at your bids having carried out all your checks and adhered to all the processes and regulations, you make a decision. There is always an element of trust that everything you're basing your decision on is true and correct.
Stagecoach (and other transport providers, to be fair), for example, failed to foresee a vast increase in home-working, which has hit their passenger number projections in a big way. They may have submitted an honest and open bid, but in hindsight they got at least one part of it wrong. Whoever accepted that bid at the DoT may have carried out due diligence to the n'th degree, but it doesn't change the fact the sums turned out to be wrong.
What excuse is there for GNER & National Express, they took the franchise on when numbers were booming? Funny really this government says it is against state ownership of our railways, but seems to have no problem with SNCF, Deutsch Bahn, and NS subsidising their own systems with profits from ours.
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 17165 Location: Olicana - Home of 'Vark Slayer
King Street Cat wrote: We actually employ a person dedicated to ensuring everything is done to the letter.
Just the one
“At last, a real, Tory budget,” Daily Mail 24/9/22 "It may be that the honourable gentleman doesn't like mixing with his own side … but we on this side have a more convivial, fraternal spirit." Jacob Rees-Mogg 21/10/21
A member of the Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati.
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 17165 Location: Olicana - Home of 'Vark Slayer
Cronus wrote:Stagecoach (and other transport providers, to be fair), for example, failed to foresee a vast increase in home-working, which has hit their passenger number projections in a big way.
That's the risk of capitalism. If the gamble works the return is profit. If it fails you are supposed to pay the price. But those responsible in major projects, as with the financial collapse, rarely do. It's the poor suckers further down the line who do.
“At last, a real, Tory budget,” Daily Mail 24/9/22 "It may be that the honourable gentleman doesn't like mixing with his own side … but we on this side have a more convivial, fraternal spirit." Jacob Rees-Mogg 21/10/21
A member of the Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati.
tigertot wrote:That's the risk of capitalism. If the gamble works the return is profit. If it fails you are supposed to pay the price. But those responsible in major projects, as with the financial collapse, rarely do. It's the poor suckers further down the line who do.
I think that's the big scandal here - under the current regime, it seems that these huge companies are quite happy to reap the rewards, but not to take on the risk.
Joined: Feb 27 2002 Posts: 18067 Location: On the road
tigertot wrote:That's the risk of capitalism. If the gamble works the return is profit. If it fails you are supposed to pay the price. But those responsible in major projects, as with the financial collapse, rarely do. It's the poor suckers further down the line who do.
In the real world you would just put the company into liquidation - nobody can realistically be expected to keep putting good money after bad without a vision of the future that says the money is recoverable.
It is a problem of choosing the lowest bid - seldom does it offer real value for money as the saying goes "if it looks too good it probably is". The person assessing the bids is only able to assess data provided to them by the bidder - if the bidder chooses not to disclose then there is very little the assessor can do.
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 17165 Location: Olicana - Home of 'Vark Slayer
Sal Paradise wrote:It is a problem of choosing the lowest bid - seldom does it offer real value for money as the saying goes "if it looks too good it probably is". The person assessing the bids is only able to assess data provided to them by the bidder - if the bidder chooses not to disclose then there is very little the assessor can do.
that's why you would be stupid to accept just the lowest bid, rather than best value, unless you were buying identical goods. And there's lots you can do.
“At last, a real, Tory budget,” Daily Mail 24/9/22 "It may be that the honourable gentleman doesn't like mixing with his own side … but we on this side have a more convivial, fraternal spirit." Jacob Rees-Mogg 21/10/21
A member of the Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati.
Joined: Feb 27 2002 Posts: 18067 Location: On the road
tigertot wrote:that's why you would be stupid to accept just the lowest bid, rather than best value, unless you were buying identical goods. And there's lots you can do.
It happens all the time - it usually the reason for the government placing work overseas - the latest being the passport contract.
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 72 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
