A direct consequence of the post Connaught / ROK era, public sector clients in particular remain fraught with challenges almost unimaginable four or five years ago. I agree largely with Neil [thread above posted @ 2:29pm] although profess that public sector clients must take some responsibility due to their demonstrable [and some would say complicit] behaviour by way of the acceptance of abnormally / low tender submissions. Any prudent procurer should of course demonstrate further viability of such tenders by way of ‘independent’ risk assessments, akin to that deployed as part of any due diligence process. Some still refer to the ‘most economically advantageous tender’ [M.E.A.T]; as being the route to success and though subjective as to what actually constitutes the ‘M.E.A.T’, there have been notable successes that embrace price and quality [including both socio-economic and Equality & Diversity deliverables].
Indeed, the Public Contracts Regulations 2006, to which public sector [procuring] bodies are duty bound, presents a myriad of challenges for procurement departments. The proposed EU reform by way of seeking to ‘regulate’ abnormally low tenders is awaited with much interest. In light of the above trend[s] against an acutely cautionary client environ, the only real ‘losers’ are the tenants [by way of sub-standard performance] and dare I say it, the tax payer [through the denigration of any tangible ‘added-value’, as disclosed within bids of this genre].