Plebgate - An interesting new twist
Discussion
V8 Fettler said:
Public sector procurement doesn't mean that the lowest tender has to be accepted, there is a balance to be struck quality/price
The way it worked was that the specifications are drawn up and then tenders invited. If those submitting bids met the criteria then the only choice is which colour, because the cheapest is the one that wins. Quality standards are in the spec. If the spec chosen favours one particular company or one specific type of company then those excluded from bidding can claim 'unfair' and defending this costs. So if one specific company is the only one which fits the criteria and there are other companies which can provide an equal service but via another method then, I was told, the bid has to be changed as the original was partial.
This does not, of course, apply the the government which can pick who it wants depending on a variety of criteria.
In the specific case I was talking about, the preferred bidder was more costly than the chosen one. The fears for the system were allayed by the company by showing that other installations worked to the standards of the other, more expensive, bidder. We did not have the money available to research the system and as there were penalty clauses should the system prove insufficient for the demands then we had no grounds to exclude them from the bidding process.
We were misled about the usefulness of penalty clauses.
The problem was that there were few companies who could bid for the contract, the cost of which required the force to put it out to tender.
It is a nice thought that the police could pick and choose but I'm afraid that not what is allowed.
Derek Smith said:
V8 Fettler said:
Public sector procurement doesn't mean that the lowest tender has to be accepted, there is a balance to be struck quality/price
The way it worked was that the specifications are drawn up and then tenders invited. If those submitting bids met the criteria then the only choice is which colour, because the cheapest is the one that wins. Quality standards are in the spec. If the spec chosen favours one particular company or one specific type of company then those excluded from bidding can claim 'unfair' and defending this costs. So if one specific company is the only one which fits the criteria and there are other companies which can provide an equal service but via another method then, I was told, the bid has to be changed as the original was partial.
This does not, of course, apply the the government which can pick who it wants depending on a variety of criteria.
In the specific case I was talking about, the preferred bidder was more costly than the chosen one. The fears for the system were allayed by the company by showing that other installations worked to the standards of the other, more expensive, bidder. We did not have the money available to research the system and as there were penalty clauses should the system prove insufficient for the demands then we had no grounds to exclude them from the bidding process.
We were misled about the usefulness of penalty clauses.
The problem was that there were few companies who could bid for the contract, the cost of which required the force to put it out to tender.
It is a nice thought that the police could pick and choose but I'm afraid that not what is allowed.
I only have to look at our vehicles, computers, printers, software systems and uniform to realise that procurement is an absolute joke. Anything we get has clearly been selected by someone who will only have to pay for it and never use it. Cheapest bud wins....regardless of quality it would seem.
ClaphamGT3 said:
If that was genuinely the case then your procurement team want firing; that is poor quality procurement management, full stop. For reference, the same EU procurement legislation applies to the police and 'the government'.
It is a shame, therefore, that no one tried to argue for our preferred option, that we didn't take it back to the procurement team with a demand to go for the more expensive option, that we didn't argue that hard-wiring would be best because we preferred it. Shame we didn't do all that. Mind you, I have a sneaking suspicion that had we done so we would have been told that, essentially, as we had no proof that the cheaper option would not be as efficient at the preferred option, and that all we were really going by is that the one we had worked, then we had to follow the (then?) regs, that it was public money and paying more just because we wanted to was not really on. So I would assume that had we said we wanted our preferred option, we'd have been told 'tough'.
Had we known at the time the procurement team was poor quality we could have fired them, hired another and then been told that we could ignore the regulations and spend public money how we wanted. But we didn't.
Derek Smith said:
It is a shame, therefore, that no one tried to argue for our preferred option, that we didn't take it back to the procurement team with a demand to go for the more expensive option, that we didn't argue that hard-wiring would be best because we preferred it. Shame we didn't do all that.
Mind you, I have a sneaking suspicion that had we done so we would have been told that, essentially, as we had no proof that the cheaper option would not be as efficient at the preferred option, and that all we were really going by is that the one we had worked, then we had to follow the (then?) regs, that it was public money and paying more just because we wanted to was not really on. So I would assume that had we said we wanted our preferred option, we'd have been told 'tough'.
Had we known at the time the procurement team was poor quality we could have fired them, hired another and then been told that we could ignore the regulations and spend public money how we wanted. But we didn't.
So in a nutshell, you could have done it better, could have argued better, could have possibly got the right result, but didn't ...because you presumed, assumed and pre-judged that it wasn't worth your effort. Easy to see why when your default position is to blame everyone else..Mind you, I have a sneaking suspicion that had we done so we would have been told that, essentially, as we had no proof that the cheaper option would not be as efficient at the preferred option, and that all we were really going by is that the one we had worked, then we had to follow the (then?) regs, that it was public money and paying more just because we wanted to was not really on. So I would assume that had we said we wanted our preferred option, we'd have been told 'tough'.
Had we known at the time the procurement team was poor quality we could have fired them, hired another and then been told that we could ignore the regulations and spend public money how we wanted. But we didn't.
Ask any private sector procurement team and they will tell you that lively, evidenced based debate is a regular occurence. People fight for the right solution.
Talking about evidence, have you found any of that evidence that you said points to Mitchells guilt yet? You did say ALL the evidence points to it, so it MUST be possible to provide SOME of it?????
Derek Smith said:
It is a shame, therefore, that no one tried to argue for our preferred option, that we didn't take it back to the procurement team with a demand to go for the more expensive option, that we didn't argue that hard-wiring would be best because we preferred it. Shame we didn't do all that.
Mind you, I have a sneaking suspicion that had we done so we would have been told that, essentially, as we had no proof that the cheaper option would not be as efficient at the preferred option, and that all we were really going by is that the one we had worked, then we had to follow the (then?) regs, that it was public money and paying more just because we wanted to was not really on. So I would assume that had we said we wanted our preferred option, we'd have been told 'tough'.
Had we known at the time the procurement team was poor quality we could have fired them, hired another and then been told that we could ignore the regulations and spend public money how we wanted. But we didn't.
You keep using the term "cheaper option" when what you are saying is not a cheaper option but a different option. Some body obviously got a quote for this different option maybe thinking like if we cant get a mondeo we'll get a fiesta.Mind you, I have a sneaking suspicion that had we done so we would have been told that, essentially, as we had no proof that the cheaper option would not be as efficient at the preferred option, and that all we were really going by is that the one we had worked, then we had to follow the (then?) regs, that it was public money and paying more just because we wanted to was not really on. So I would assume that had we said we wanted our preferred option, we'd have been told 'tough'.
Had we known at the time the procurement team was poor quality we could have fired them, hired another and then been told that we could ignore the regulations and spend public money how we wanted. But we didn't.
What should have happened is somebody should have got three quotes for hard wired systems.
Greendubber said:
Anything we get has clearly been selected by someone who will only have to pay for it and never use it. Cheapest bud wins....regardless of quality it would seem.
Your previous comment about stab vests was a bit worrying. It's not a good thing to think of all of the possible scenarios that could lead to someone, whether sane or not, pulling out a knife on a lone officer and the body armour possibly not performing as it should.In my first job we supplied some stuff to a customer that possibly wasn't up to scratch and myself and colleague got in a car made a 250 mile journey and spent a day onsite checking and rectifying the stuff we supplied. I can't remember how serious the issues were but if we did it in a day it may have been to show willing and take their complaint seriously.
Edited by carinaman on Friday 6th June 15:52
NoNeed said:
You keep using the term "cheaper option" when what you are saying is not a cheaper option but a different option. Some body obviously got a quote for this different option maybe thinking like if we cant get a mondeo we'll get a fiesta.
What should have happened is somebody should have got three quotes for hard wired systems.
Brilliant! What should have happened is somebody should have got three quotes for hard wired systems.
I wonder why no one put the whole thing out to tender according to the regulations. Oh! Hold on a moment, I thought that was what we did. And not only that, I pointed out early on that it was put out to tender. We approached one firm and they refused to put in a bid, saying that it wasn't worth their while. Another felt that the previous installer would have an advantage so they too didn't bother.
What on earth do you think we did? We followed the rules. That's what we were required to do and we did. Yet this, it seems, means that we didn't really try. And I can tell you, try we did. But the regs are clear enough.
andymadmak said:
So in a nutshell, you could have done it better, could have argued better, could have possibly got the right result, but didn't ...because you presumed, assumed and pre-judged that it wasn't worth your effort. Easy to see why when your default position is to blame everyone else..
Ask any private sector procurement team and they will tell you that lively, evidenced based debate is a regular occurence. People fight for the right solution.
Talking about evidence, have you found any of that evidence that you said points to Mitchells guilt yet? You did say ALL the evidence points to it, so it MUST be possible to provide SOME of it?????
In a nutshell, that's your words and not mine. Your summary bears no relationship to what I posted. We did indeed put forward strong arguments and they were not so much as ignored and generated a requirement to conform to the regs.Ask any private sector procurement team and they will tell you that lively, evidenced based debate is a regular occurence. People fight for the right solution.
Talking about evidence, have you found any of that evidence that you said points to Mitchells guilt yet? You did say ALL the evidence points to it, so it MUST be possible to provide SOME of it?????
You suggest we didn't care, but there's nothing in what I posted to suggest that. You made it up. You suggest that we didn't fight for what we wanted when I quite clearly pointed out that we did fight.
It certainly wasn't worth trying to change the regulations.
Why do you people assume that the default position of the police is can't be arsed. There were a number of meetings but we could no go against the regs.
Jesus.
I tell you what is a waste of effort: trying to suggest something on here which goes against other posters' prejudices. Do you want to know what goes on in the service? Well, no you obviously don't. So what is the point of me pointing out the problems if all you are going to do is make things up?
Let's explain the basics to you. There were a limited number of companies supplying what we wanted. Many of these companies were expanding rapidly because of the sudden demand for their skills. Some companies were undercharging in order to get the experience. Other companies were bidding for private contracts where they were not obliged, like the police were, to opt for the cheapest option. So we put out a tender when companies were struggling to find staff to complete the contracts, as they were for some time after as well. So those companies that were working to near full capacity were not interested in bidding for a contract where margins would be slight.
Am I managing to get over to you some of the problems yet?
Further, the system we needed was not your basic set-up. There would be research involved so most were not interested. Further, whilst we wanted one particular style of installation, we had no real grounds for demanding this because the industry suggested that both would give more or less equal performance for the majority of the time.
D'you see where we're heading now, and what our difficulties were?
I feel sure that some on here would be the first to moan when they read in the DM that the police were wasting £000s on a gold-plated system when they could have bought something much cheaper that would have been just as effective. I bet some posters' fingers were twitching at the thought of that.
Let's put it nice and simple: if the industry reckoned that both systems could perform adequately and we wrote a spec that limited tenders from those who could supply just one then that would be wrong and no doubt challenged. Have I got it over yet?
The only prejudice we could be accused of, and we would have done, was wording the tender to exclude all but one type of system.
There is a certain irony to be accused of prejudice in this matter.
As we're back on MITCHELL. I didn't realise until this week that Alastair CAMPBELL's mental illness was before the Dodgy Dossier. I find the 'I'm a mental ill health survivor' card a bit hard to stomach given the Dodgy Dossier and accompanying bullying and not to mention it not exactly being good news for many Iraqis. Didn't the main player GAUNT in this MITCHELL stitch up suffer some employment bullying and come back from that?
I'm just wondering how much their background and whatever they've come back from has influenced the way CAMPBELL and GAUNT operate?
Or they're just common or garden bullies using any bit of dirt to get their way?
I suppose such a thought could be further influenced by this Farr chap playing footsie with Theresa May's Spin Doctor Fiona Cunningham?
It could seem those we elect aren't pulling the levers of power more their hidden backroom boys, girls and bullies?
GAUNT drove the police federation like he stole it?
I'm just wondering how much their background and whatever they've come back from has influenced the way CAMPBELL and GAUNT operate?
Or they're just common or garden bullies using any bit of dirt to get their way?
I suppose such a thought could be further influenced by this Farr chap playing footsie with Theresa May's Spin Doctor Fiona Cunningham?
It could seem those we elect aren't pulling the levers of power more their hidden backroom boys, girls and bullies?
GAUNT drove the police federation like he stole it?
Edited by carinaman on Friday 6th June 16:37
Derek Smith said:
A load of baloney
Really. Just nonsense. Either you wanted a wired system or you didn't. If you wrote a spec for the wired system why did you allow wireless proposals? If you accepted a wireless proposal why did you not check the specs of that proposal? Its not rocket surgery! ( sic)
Dont come bleating that you did not know what you were doing tech- wise... Thats the whole point of picking the RIGHT team to prepare the tender spec document! Which clearly you did not.
The price, whatever it was, should have been against the CORRECT specification. If you cannot get the correct spec in the budget offered then you do not simply buy the thing you THINK might do the job! Instead you go back to the budget people and ask them to either revise the budget based on the feedback from the market or revise the spec to allow the lower budget to apply!
Everything else you posted is just the usual self serving nonsense
And where is that bloody Mitchell evidence that you refer to with such great certainty! ?
andymadmak said:
Derek Smith said:
A load of baloney
Really. Just nonsense. Either you wanted a wired system or you didn't. If you wrote a spec for the wired system why did you allow wireless proposals? If you accepted a wireless proposal why did you not check the specs of that proposal? Its not rocket surgery! ( sic)
Dont come bleating that you did not know what you were doing tech- wise... Thats the whole point of picking the RIGHT team to prepare the tender spec document! Which clearly you did not.
The price, whatever it was, should have been against the CORRECT specification. If you cannot get the correct spec in the budget offered then you do not simply buy the thing you THINK might do the job! Instead you go back to the budget people and ask them to either revise the budget based on the feedback from the market or revise the spec to allow the lower budget to apply!
Everything else you posted is just the usual self serving nonsense
And where is that bloody Mitchell evidence that you refer to with such great certainty! ?
Derek, why do you bother. You're never going to get anywhere with the know it alls on the internet. They're not interested in what you write, they're interested in making the point they want to make. These are perfect people you're up against. There is nothing a serving or ex-police officer can offer this forum. It's for haters and awesome keyboarders to score points at every opportunity. Leave them to it.
TheBear said:
Derek, why do you bother. You're never going to get anywhere with the know it alls on the internet. They're not interested in what you write, they're interested in making the point they want to make. These are perfect people you're up against. There is nothing a serving or ex-police officer can offer this forum. It's for haters and awesome keyboarders to score points at every opportunity. Leave them to it.
What the hell has being a police officer got to do with an IT tender, and getting it right? Clearly nothing if Dereks post is anything to go by. Typical public sector nonsense...its everyone elses fault when they screw up
He's made a statement but repeatedly ignored requests to prove what he's saying.
Greendubber wishes to be insulting when I point this out.
I notice that the response to "Derek's talking b
ks" is to call people police haters rather than to address the issue.
If Derek wishes to claim moral superiority, let him back up his statement rather than quietly disregarding it & insulting those who disbelieve him.
I ask again- where is this alleged evidence proving Mitchell naughty, bearing in mind that he's about the only person in the Plebgate saga that hasn't been shown to be a liar?
"Evidence"- from the latin meaning that which is seen.
Greendubber wishes to be insulting when I point this out.
I notice that the response to "Derek's talking b
ks" is to call people police haters rather than to address the issue.If Derek wishes to claim moral superiority, let him back up his statement rather than quietly disregarding it & insulting those who disbelieve him.
I ask again- where is this alleged evidence proving Mitchell naughty, bearing in mind that he's about the only person in the Plebgate saga that hasn't been shown to be a liar?
"Evidence"- from the latin meaning that which is seen.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff