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)

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

If not centralization, at least uniformity: Australia

The rules of public buying have changed
The old guidelines applied to all Financial Management and Accountability Act agencies and to certain Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act bodies.
Since those guidelines were introduced, the Finance Department has noted that a ''wide range of procurement approaches'' have been used across agencies. This has proven both complex and unwieldy. A lack of clarity in the guidelines resulted in the use of different practices across otherwise similar procurements.

The Finance Department recently revised the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines. The Commonwealth Procurement Rules, which replace the guidelines, came into effect this week, on July 1.

These new rules are intended to update and clarify the old guidelines, and streamline procurement procedures for Commonwealth agencies. The rules also focus on whole-of-government arrangements, notably coordinated procurement. While the core framework remains largely unchanged, the rules clarify requirements for the conduct of agency procurements.

The rules emphasise that agencies must use whole-of-government coordinated procurement panels where they exist. Exemptions to using these panels are limited

Finance has changed the terms that the guidelines used to describe methods of procurement, from ''select tender'' to ''pre-qualified tender'', and from ''direct source'' to ''limited tender'' (the term ''open tender'' remains unchanged). The new terms are also defined in more detail and align with the emphasis on value for money and ''economical'' use of Commonwealth resources.

Officials must maintain appropriate documentation for each procurement and retain those documents in accordance with the Archives Act. Agencies must also have appropriate documentation with the supplier (such as a contract).
All contracts and amendments must be reported on AusTender within 42 days of entering into (or amending) contracts if they are worth $10,000 or more for FMA Act agencies. All standing offers, regardless of value, must be reported.


The rules specify that the request documentation ''must include a complete description of the procurement, the conditions for participation, the minimum form and content requirements and all evaluation criteria'' (paragraph 10.6). Thus, it will not be possible to ''hide'' evaluation criteria or develop criteria during the evaluation process.
This is supported by the requirement in paragraph 10.8 that agencies must ensure that tenderers are dealt with fairly and in a non-discriminatory manner.

The shift in emphasis from guidelines to rules suggests the government is serious about maintaining its reputation as a ''respected, transparent and accountable procurer''.

Read more at article link above.

No comments: