Because the threshold for tenders is each year lower, we will face increasingly more often large bidbooks. Remarkably, these are often written by outside consultants, who apparently are being paid per page. Relatively simple projects with at end small commissions sometimes deliver more than 100 pages! And beside the specifications there are also the conditions under which the contract is done. So I estimate activities at both sides costs more than ever can be saved.
Costs precede benefits
Subsequently, at least 3 but most often 5 companies are going to make costs in a bid. As I am not 'Superman' a team is required to answer within the timeframe allowed. Unfortunately this often means working late hours to get the final result and only the winner has an opportunity to recoup these costs. Or perhaps there are, equal to (Dutch) construction industry in the past, collusions so other bidders are paid for their efforts by the ‘winner’. In any case, there is already an inequality because the small players can no longer participate in these tenders. It is therefore doubtful whether the goal of procurement is actually achieved.
Little innovation
When these thick bidbooks are brought back to what's ultimately required I often notice that it is written to a specific solution. Otherwise the award criteria make clear which provider has the best opportunities to win the deal. The most economically advantageous tender simply means 'uniformity’ and is only about price. Some bidders play it smart by aiming at project changes so a remarkably number of government projects finally cost twice what is budgeted at the end. This outcome is most likely due the fact bidbooks are thick but not really clear.
The stupid citizen
That the government misled the people is shown by: www.rijksictdashboard.nl where no project is yellow or red. While a publication by Elsevier (May 14, 2011) talks about a waste of 1.2 billion euros in ICT project of the government in three years suggests otherwise. And this figure is most likely even higher because this report is only for large projects. Of course, in the 'real world' things go wrong also but these error are not always applied to the taxpayer. So governmental procurement is not about the marbles but keeping up appearances.
Subsequently, at least 3 but most often 5 companies are going to make costs in a bid. As I am not 'Superman' a team is required to answer within the timeframe allowed. Unfortunately this often means working late hours to get the final result and only the winner has an opportunity to recoup these costs. Or perhaps there are, equal to (Dutch) construction industry in the past, collusions so other bidders are paid for their efforts by the ‘winner’. In any case, there is already an inequality because the small players can no longer participate in these tenders. It is therefore doubtful whether the goal of procurement is actually achieved.
Little innovation
When these thick bidbooks are brought back to what's ultimately required I often notice that it is written to a specific solution. Otherwise the award criteria make clear which provider has the best opportunities to win the deal. The most economically advantageous tender simply means 'uniformity’ and is only about price. Some bidders play it smart by aiming at project changes so a remarkably number of government projects finally cost twice what is budgeted at the end. This outcome is most likely due the fact bidbooks are thick but not really clear.
The stupid citizen
That the government misled the people is shown by: www.rijksictdashboard.nl where no project is yellow or red. While a publication by Elsevier (May 14, 2011) talks about a waste of 1.2 billion euros in ICT project of the government in three years suggests otherwise. And this figure is most likely even higher because this report is only for large projects. Of course, in the 'real world' things go wrong also but these error are not always applied to the taxpayer. So governmental procurement is not about the marbles but keeping up appearances.
No comments:
Post a Comment