Taking that a step further, it should not be controversial to assert that an evaluation is not fair if the evaluator either doesn't know anything about what it is that is being evaluated, or if the specifications are so vague or "flexible" that the bidder/offeror doesn't know what is asked of it, or if the evaluator is so close to a bidder/offeror as to be partisan to a particular submission.
Some examples of this follow:
One Guam Superior Court case (trial court) involved a bid evaluation of technical samples of products submitted in response to a bid. The evaluation was conducted by a clerk in the procurement office. She testified she did not examine samples submitted because she “did not know much about” them. (L.P. Ganacias Enterprises, Inc., dba RadioCom v. GIAA and Guam Cell Communications, CV 1787-00).
The judge was not impressed. He said “the person charged with reviewing the bids should be an individual with some knowledge of the product which is the subject of the bid”.
The second case here is one recently reported from Bangladesh. This is an interesting case also for the apparent remedy: the Court set aside the contract awarded by the government agency, affirmed the administrative review that found the solicitation defective, and ordered a new solicitation to be held:
BTRC's telecom audit move illegal: HC
The High Court Division yesterday declared illegal the appointment of firms by the telecom regulator to open audits into mobile phone operators.The final example here has either nothing or everything (depending on your predisposition) to do with scientific evidence of global warming, in that it involves, incidentally, polar bear biologist Charles Monnett, who, according to this blog report, "was lead author of a 2006 study on drowned polar bears that helped turn the bear into an iconic victim of global warming. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) cited Monnett’s study four times in its Jan. 2007 proposed rule to list Ursus Maritimus as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act."
Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) did not follow public procurement rules (PPR) of 2008 in appointing the auditors for Grameenphone and Banglalink, the court said in a verdict on a writ petition.
The review panel had questioned BTRC's terms of reference and the methodology of work. It also said BTRC did not include any outside expert in the evaluation committee. The panel asked BTRC to cancel the bidding and go for a fresh one, but the telecom regulator had pressed on with its earlier plan.
The panel also said the advertisement given in the newspapers was not 'self-explanatory', which is a violation of the procurement rules.
“The BTRC had no pre-preparation regarding tender documents, no details of TORs (terms of reference), period of audit, how many mobile companies to be audited and no pragmatic methodology drawn to accomplish the work,” said the verdict of the panel.
The panel also found the evaluation method in the tendering process faulty.
Interior Watchdog Sees Potential Conflict in Suspended Biologist's Role Vetting Polar Bear Study
An Interior Department biologist potentially violated procurement rules when he helped another scientist prepare a proposal for an agency-funded study, according to a letter from Interior's inspector general.
Special Agent in Charge David Brown alleges that the biologist assisted Andrew Derocher in preparing a response to the government's request for proposal for a current study on polar bears. The sole-source contract was subsequently awarded to Derocher's employer, the University of Alberta in Canada.
Monnett was chairman of the Technical Proposal Evaluation Committee. By helping Derocher draft that proposal, Monnett essentially reviewed a document he helped write, according to the IG letter.
But Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a group that aids government whistle-blowers, argues that Monnett had no authority to commit the government to contracts and was encouraged by the contracting officer to share information with the University of Alberta.
No comments:
Post a Comment