We were very pleased to see a positive outcome to this case.
As ever what is demoralising is that it needed to go this far before “common sense”, as Rifat Mushtaq puts it, finally prevailed.
It was obvious to the LSC, from the start, that something was not four square with this bid; furthermore they had a legitimate, early opportunity to clarify information, which was already in their knowledge in any event. Like this case it demonstrates an astounding level of blinkered, bureaucratic intransigence on their part.
Of course not every firm has the wherewithal or perseverance to take matters to JR. We are assisting in another matter of similar, if less extreme, nature at the moment. We and the client agree with the initial advice, which predicts a similar outcome, however the risks involved are probably too great.
As for this:
An LSC spokesman said the commission has an obligation to treat every bidder equally
Yet in this bid round firms who completely missed the initial PQQ deadline were given, quite rightly in our view, a second chance. However firms who met all deadlines but fell foul of an obvious IT related problem in the ITT have been afforded no such opportunity. This is an interesting definition of “equal treatment”.
In the light of this, and the UPOA post below, is now not the time to start doing the right thing?
