That process is undermined, and the integrity of the system compromised, when competitors attempt to influence the evaluation. I consider that to be a capital offense, requiring the offending competitor's bid to be thrown out. It should also be grounds for suspension or disbarment.
Consider this from an article from India:
NATO ‘letter missiles’ target American Seahawk copter; European consortium writes to Antony against rival US firm
Over $1-billion Indian naval deal for 16 multi-role helicopters is being dragged into a controversy by a European consortium by taking an unusual step of “directly writing” to Defence Minister AK Antony sometime back against its American rival.
The Tribune has accessed the copy of a confidential letter written to Defence Minister AK Antony by NHI’s managing director D Vaccari, who has claimed that Sikorsky’s S-70B helicopter could not have cleared the recently concluded field evaluation trials, at least, in eight specific areas, had the naval staff requirements been strictly examined and adhered to.
it also wrote to the Defence Secretary in December 2011. The defence and naval authorities are reportedly upset over these “letter missiles”. The NHI has charged that “Sikorsky has made doubtful claims about its machine’s compliance”.
The NHI claims that it wrote to Antony as it did not receive any response to an earlier letter sent by its senior vice-president G Saponaro to Defence Secretary SK Sharma on December 15, 2011.
When this correspondent contacted Seahawk manufacturer for a reaction on the NHI allegations, Subir Moitra, director, communications, United Technologies Corporation, India, e-mailed back to say: “We had a discussion internally...We have decided not to make any comment on this matter.”
Sources familiar with the global functioning of the UTC-Sikorsky, said as a policy, they do not comment on competitor-related issues as they believe that it is against their code of ethics and that they believe in buyer country’s technical evaluation and procurement process.
The appropriate time and manner to contest the responsiveness of a competitor's product is in the formal protest process. The method evidently undertaken here smacks of trying to influence the judge outside the courtroom.
No comments:
Post a Comment