Written answers
Tuesday, 19 February 2019
Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine
Public Procurement Contracts Data
Niall Collins (Limerick County, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
495. To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the number of State contracts that were not awarded to the lowest tender or bid in each year since 2011 to date in his Department or bodies under the aegis of his Department; the reason the lowest tender or bid was not chosen; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8799/19]
Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Procurement in my Department is governed by EU rules and regulations as well as guidance from the Departments of Finance and of Public Expenditure & Reform. The type of competitive process to be followed can vary depending on the size and characteristics of the contract to be awarded but the objective is always to achieve the best outcome for the taxpayer.
All evaluations of tenders are carried out on the basis of the Most Economically Advantageous Tender process which takes into account important factors in addition to cost. While price is a critical factor, other facets may also be essential and the selection process takes these into account. For instance, the lowest bidder may have been less able to demonstrate its capacity to fulfil the contract or its understanding of the project than some (or all) of the other bidders. In some cases, the lowest bidder chooses to withdraw their tender following discussions with the evaluation team on the details of the work required. Alternatively, the successful bidder may have been more able to demonstrate that the organisation, qualification and experience of staff to be assigned to perform the contract could have a significant impact on the performance of the contract. Frequently, it is a combination of all the required factors and the different bidders may have been strong in some areas and weak in others making it inaccurate to state that there was a particular or single reason why the lowest bidder was not awarded the contract.
As regards the twelve State Bodies under the aegis of my Department, the information requested is an operational matter for the State Bodies themselves. I have referred the Deputy’s question to the Agencies and have requested that a response should issue within 10 days.
The number of contracts that were not awarded to the lowest tender or bid in each year from 2011 to date, and the reasons, can be found in the following tables.
2011
| Number of Projects | Reason the lowest tender/bid was not chosen |
|---|---|
| Nil |
2012
| Number of Projects | Reason the lowest tender/bid was not chosen |
|---|---|
| 1 | Selection was based on the Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT) and the cheapest tender did not score as high as the selected contractor in award criteria other than cost. |
| 1 | The lowest value tender received did not meet the award criteria of being the most economically advantageous tender following tender assessment. |
2013
| Number of Projects | Reason the lowest tender/bid was not chosen |
|---|---|
| 7 | Tender evaluation conducted using the MEAT (Most Economically Advantageous Tender) principle. |
| 1 | The lowest tender received was deemed to be non-compliant. |
2014
| Number of Projects | Reason the lowest tender/bid was not chosen |
|---|---|
| Nil |
2015
| Number of Projects | Reason the lowest tender/bid was not chosen |
|---|---|
| 1 | Tender evaluation conducted using the MEAT (Most Economically Advantageous Tender) principle. |
| 2 | The lowest value tender received did not meet the award criteria of being the most economically advantageous tender following tender assessment. |
| 1 | The lowest tender received withdrew their tender prior to award of tender; this withdrawal occurred subsequent to post tender meetings with that tenderer regarding their significantly low tender price. |
2016
| Number of Projects | Reason the lowest tender/bid was not chosen |
|---|---|
| 1 | This contract was awarded following a public procurement process. The award was based on the most economically advantageous tender submitted (specifying, in addition to price, various other criteria including, 1. Demonstration of understanding of projects requirements, 2. Quality & technical merit of the methodological approach proposed for delivery of service, 3. Quality and technical merit of the team to deliver the service.) |
| 2 | Tender evaluation conducted using the MEAT (Most Economically Advantageous Tender) principle. |
| 1 | Lowest bidder withdrew their tender. |
2017
| Number of Projects | Reason the lowest tender/bid was not chosen |
|---|---|
| 1 | The winning team demonstrated the best balance between scientists, advisors and local experience and were chosen based on marks awarded for many criteria, including cost. |
| 2 | Tender evaluation conducted using the MEAT (Most Economically Advantageous Tender) principle where the cost contribution was 35% of total available marks. |
| 2 | The lowest value tender received did not meet the award criteria of being the most economically advantageous tender following tender assessment. |
| 1 | Contract not awarded. |
| 1 | Lowest bidder withdrew their tender. |
2018
| Number of Projects | Reason the lowest tender/bid was not chosen |
|---|---|
| 2 | The Service Contract was awarded on the basis of the most economically advantageous tender, using the following criteria: - Understanding of the Clients Requirements - Quality and Technical Merit of the methodological approach - Quality of the proposed team including management structure and team members’ resources - Cost DAFM did not bind itself to accept the lowest or any tender submitted. The successful tenderer scored higher overall, when assessed across all of the criteria above. |
| 1 | This was an OGP run mini competition from the OGP contract cleaning framework. The tenders were evaluated under 5 criteria, Implementation and Mobilisation Plan, Technical Resources, Staff and Equipment, Ongoing Operational Proposal, Customer Relationship Services and finally Price. The winning tender scored so highly on the first four criteria that even though theirs was not the lowest price, when the scoring matrix was completed it was the winning tender. |
| 1 | Following evaluation by the selection committee of the tenders received, the project management scientific and advisory elements of the winning group were assessed to be much superior to those of other applicant groups and they were chosen based on marks awarded for many criteria, including cost. |
| 2 | Tender evaluation conducted using the MEAT (Most Economically Advantageous Tender) principle where the cost contribution was 30% of total available marks. |
| 1 | The lowest value tender received did not meet the award criteria of being the most economically advantageous tender following tender assessment. |
2019 to date
| Number of Projects | Reason the lowest tender/bid was not chosen |
|---|---|
| Not applicable |
No comments