Labels and Tags

Accountability (71) Adequate documentation (7) ADR in procurement (4) Allocation of risks (6) Best interest of government (11) Best practices (19) Best value (15) Bidder prejudice (11) Blanket purchase agreement (1) Bridge contract (2) Bundling (6) Cancellation and rejection (2) Centralized procurement structure (12) Changes during bid process (14) Clarifications vs Discussions (1) Competence (9) Competition vs Efficiency (29) Competitive position (3) Compliance (35) Conflict of interest (32) Contract administration (26) Contract disputes (4) Contract extension or modification (9) Contract formation (1) Contract interpretation (1) Contract terms (3) Contract types (6) Contract vs solicitation dispute (2) Contractor responsibility (20) Conviction (4) Cooperative purchasing (3) Corrective action (1) Cost and pricing (13) Debarment (4) Determinations (8) Determining responsibility (37) Disclosure requirements (7) Discussions during solicitation (10) Disposal of surplus property (3) Effective enforcement requirement (35) Effective procurement management (5) Effective specifications (36) Emergency procurement (14) eProcurement (5) Equitable tolling (2) Evaluation of submissions (22) Fair and equitable treatment (14) Fair and reasonable value (23) Fiscal effect of procurement (14) Frivolous protest (1) Good governance (12) Governmental functions (27) Guam (14) Guam procurement law (12) Improper influence (11) Incumbency (13) Integrity of system (31) Interested party (7) Jurisdiction (1) Justification (1) Life-cycle cost (1) Limits of government contracting (5) Lore vs Law (4) market research (7) Materiality (3) Methods of source selection (33) Mistakes (4) Models of Procurement (1) Needs assessment (11) No harm no foul? (8) Offer & acceptance (1) Other procurement links (14) Outsourcing (34) Past performance (12) Planning policy (34) Politics of procurement (52) PPPs (6) Prequalification (1) Principle of competition (95) Principles of procurement (25) Private vs public contract (17) Procurement authority (5) Procurement controversies series (79) Procurement ethics (19) Procurement fraud (31) Procurement lifecycle (9) Procurement philosophy (17) Procurement procedures (30) Procurement reform (63) Procurement theory (11) Procurement workforce (2) Procurment philosophy (6) Professionalism (17) Protest - formality (2) Protest - timing (12) Protests - general (37) Purposes and policies of procurement (11) Recusal (1) Remedies (17) Requirement for new procurement (4) Resolution of protests (4) Responsiveness (14) Restrictive specifications (5) Review procedures (13) RFQ vs RFP (1) Scope of contract (16) Settlement (2) Social preference provisions (60) Sole source (48) Sovereign immunity (3) Staffing (8) Standard commercial products (3) Standards of review (2) Standing (6) Stays and injunctions (6) Structure of procurement (1) Substantiation (9) Surety (1) Suspension (6) The procurement record (1) The role of price (10) The subject matter of procurement (23) Trade agreements vs procurement (1) Training (33) Transparency (63) Uniformity (6) Unsolicited proposals (3)

Friday, November 5, 2010

Request for too much information?

"Competitive Dialogue" is a process to which I admit ignorance. But it sounds like something worth exploring. This brief introduction to the concept sounds a bit like what the ABA Model Procurement Code describes as "multi-step competitive bidding", but I would need to know more to appreciate the differences.

Public procurement: let’s make it work by Stephen Matthew of Nabarro LLP, United Kingdom
As the government publishes its intention to re-examine the use of competitive dialogue in public procurements, is it time to take greater control and work better with what we’ve got?

* Competitive dialogue is over-used – there are times when alternative procurement routes may be more appropriate;
* Dialogue processes can be efficient and effective - when well run

In many sectors, competitive dialogue is now selected as a matter of course, even where the simpler and quicker restricted procedure or even the negotiated procedure may be more appropriate. The time has come for a more pragmatic and realistic approach to public sector procurements.

Is it really necessary for a relatively bog standard contract for an IT managed service or a contract to build a new school to hold extensive dialogue with bidders on all aspects of the design, the price and the contract? Perhaps not – and maybe the restricted procedure is more suitable.

The public sector has shied away from using the negotiated procedure in recent years. Whilst it must only be used in exceptional circumstances, this does not mean that it can never be used at all. Where there are particular complexities, the negotiated procedure can and should be used. An audit trail of the justification (for any procurement route) is an absolute.

Where competitive dialogue is appropriate (and it will be in many circumstances), a well run dialogue pays dividends for both the procuring public sector body and the bidders.

Our top tips are:

* Plan the dialogue carefully, allowing sufficient time for face to face meetings and for ideas and thoughts to consolidate;
* Decide on the right number of bidders to go through at each stage – dialogue on detailed solutions with more than three bidders is a challenge for any public body;
* Avoid dialoguing absolutely every element of the contract, focussing instead on the areas where bidders’ input is required or where innovation is sought;
* Build in regular “pit stops” to check on progress and outcomes and to ensure that the dialogue is progressing as planned;
* Have a realistic timetable and stick to it – authorities need to be braver about deciding when to close dialogue and move to final tenders, and the private sector needs to support this

Decisions, decisions … choosing the right procurement route

* Open and restricted procedures – for relatively simple procurements where requirements can be specified and where prior overall pricing is possible.
* Competitive dialogue procedure – for complex contracts where the open or restricted procedures cannot be used and where there are complexities in the legal or financial structure
* Negotiated procedure – to be used in exceptional circumstances only.

No comments: