The Minister claims "Under EU law, public contracts above a certain values must be advertised EU-wide and awarded to the most competitive tender in an open and objective process. The aim is to promote an open, competitive and non-discriminatory public procurement regime which delivers value for money. It would be a breach of the rules for a public body to favour or discriminate against particular candidates on grounds of location or nationality and there are legal remedies which may be used against any public body infringing these rules."
This is a convenient reply to excuse an appalling tendering policy. Ireland and Luxenberg among the EU family issue between 14 -18% of tenders to outside interests. France and Poland as an example of two of the bigger economies within the EU family issue 1%
It seems to me the Minister would serve his public better if he explained why a small nation like Ireland, in bailout, with small businesses crying out for business is excessively worried about legal redress when big economies like France and Poland who
per capita of population have to be issuing "bigger" tenders decree that their tax paying money stays within their own economy to recycle.
While the Minister is at it he can explain the following: a recent tender for library supplies was issued to an out-side business - over a difference of 7K compared to the Irish businesses who tendered. In Ireland these businesses only tender - and they buy their supplies from the company the State gave the tender to.
As a consequence of the State's decision on this tender 6 Irish jobs were lost at a cost to the taxpayer of 6 x 30K = 180K of a current and future
cost to the exchequer.
The out-side company who was granted the tender is unlikely to be returning to the Irish exchequer so that is an additional cost to the exchequer. The removal of the Irish businesses by a supplier of theirs effects "competition" and costs to the State into the future.
In summary a saving claimed by the minister's department of 7K cost the exchequer 180K. That means by saving 7K it cost us 180K plus in year one. After year one the saving is gone but the cost at 180K plus is highly likely to continue year on year.
Nowhere even in dreamland can this be claimed to be a saving.
The Minister's and his department's basic grasp of what is actually happening in the marketplace is woefully lacking in understanding and displays a lack of proper risk assessment of all pertinent facts.
Anne Frawley
Posted on 24 Apr 2013 12:45 am
The Minister claims "Under EU law, public contracts above a certain values must be advertised EU-wide and awarded to the most competitive tender in an open and objective process. The aim is to promote an open, competitive and non-discriminatory public procurement regime which delivers value for money. It would be a breach of the rules for a public body to favour or discriminate against particular candidates on grounds of location or nationality and there are legal remedies which may be used against any public body infringing these rules."
This is a convenient reply to excuse an appalling tendering policy. Ireland and Luxenberg among the EU family issue between 14 -18% of tenders to outside interests. France and Poland as an example of two of the bigger economies within the EU family issue 1%
It seems to me the Minister would serve his public better if he explained why a small nation like Ireland, in bailout, with small businesses crying out for business is excessively worried about legal redress when big economies like France and Poland who
per capita of population have to be issuing "bigger" tenders decree that their tax paying money stays within their own economy to recycle.
While the Minister is at it he can explain the following: a recent tender for library supplies was issued to an out-side business - over a difference of 7K compared to the Irish businesses who tendered. In Ireland these businesses only tender - and they buy their supplies from the company the State gave the tender to.
As a consequence of the State's decision on this tender 6 Irish jobs were lost at a cost to the taxpayer of 6 x 30K = 180K of a current and future
cost to the exchequer.
The out-side company who was granted the tender is unlikely to be returning to the Irish exchequer so that is an additional cost to the exchequer. The removal of the Irish businesses by a supplier of theirs effects "competition" and costs to the State into the future.
In summary a saving claimed by the minister's department of 7K cost the exchequer 180K. That means by saving 7K it cost us 180K plus in year one. After year one the saving is gone but the cost at 180K plus is highly likely to continue year on year.
Nowhere even in dreamland can this be claimed to be a saving.
The Minister's and his department's basic grasp of what is actually happening in the marketplace is woefully lacking in understanding and displays a lack of proper risk assessment of all pertinent facts.