Today in the newspaper there was another in a series of articles on inappropriate procurement practices at e-Health. So not that this is new news, but the issue that caught my eye today was about the $1billion contract awarded to IBM without tendering.
The comment that was made by someone in the government was that even though it would have most probably gone to IBM anyway, it should have been tendered. And this is where I wholeheartedly disagree.
Please understand that I am a proponent of fair and ethical procurement. And this also means that when a tender is issued that all parties truly have a shot at the business, vs. issuing an RFP just for optics or for benchmarking.
Over the years, I was often asked to issue RFPs to "squeeze the incumbent" or to "just look like we are considering others." Well guess what? I refused, because I know the costs and time that companies will spend pulling together a competitive bid, the resources etc. And if this I as the issuer am just putting an RFP out there for the sake of optics, then I am being way more inappropriate than if I didn't do it in the first place.
The risks associated with the illusionary RFP are even larger than if no RFP is issued at all -- the main one being that the award can be challenged in court and that the evaluator(s) would need to defend the decision. I have worked on enough of these to know that there is a lot of subjectivity that goes into the final decision, regardless of the weightings and evaluation grids -- at the end of the day, it is not just a mathematical formula.
The time that it costs the organization to issue and evaluate an RFP is also quite massive and I'm sure at this juncture the government and crown agencies are overwhelmed with what is being asked of them -- and understand the decisions that will be made because of lack of resources and time constraints will be suboptimal.
If an incumbe
nt is doing a fine job and is market competitive (a little bit of research will ensure this) and if there is a need for continuity, if they only have this particular expertise -- whatever the reason, the organization would be better served by making a case for no tender than just put one out there which basically is like hiding yourself behind a fake nose and glasses. Everyone knows its not real, but suppliers feel compelled to participate.
If you are not sure, issue an RFI to at least investigate whether there are things you don't know -- which may convince you to issue an RFP.
But please, let's not issue RFPs, just for the sake of doing it. There is already too much waste in government and corporations.
The comment that was made by someone in the government was that even though it would have most probably gone to IBM anyway, it should have been tendered. And this is where I wholeheartedly disagree.
Please understand that I am a proponent of fair and ethical procurement. And this also means that when a tender is issued that all parties truly have a shot at the business, vs. issuing an RFP just for optics or for benchmarking.
Over the years, I was often asked to issue RFPs to "squeeze the incumbent" or to "just look like we are considering others." Well guess what? I refused, because I know the costs and time that companies will spend pulling together a competitive bid, the resources etc. And if this I as the issuer am just putting an RFP out there for the sake of optics, then I am being way more inappropriate than if I didn't do it in the first place.
The risks associated with the illusionary RFP are even larger than if no RFP is issued at all -- the main one being that the award can be challenged in court and that the evaluator(s) would need to defend the decision. I have worked on enough of these to know that there is a lot of subjectivity that goes into the final decision, regardless of the weightings and evaluation grids -- at the end of the day, it is not just a mathematical formula.
The time that it costs the organization to issue and evaluate an RFP is also quite massive and I'm sure at this juncture the government and crown agencies are overwhelmed with what is being asked of them -- and understand the decisions that will be made because of lack of resources and time constraints will be suboptimal.
If an incumbe
nt is doing a fine job and is market competitive (a little bit of research will ensure this) and if there is a need for continuity, if they only have this particular expertise -- whatever the reason, the organization would be better served by making a case for no tender than just put one out there which basically is like hiding yourself behind a fake nose and glasses. Everyone knows its not real, but suppliers feel compelled to participate.If you are not sure, issue an RFI to at least investigate whether there are things you don't know -- which may convince you to issue an RFP.
But please, let's not issue RFPs, just for the sake of doing it. There is already too much waste in government and corporations.
1 comment:
Patricia ... its nice to read some common sense on this issue. Thanks.
Post a Comment