Absurd tendering requirements

Some time ago, public tenders were required to be submitted as one package containing all information, whether technical or commercial. This usually led to the tender being awarded to the tenderer who submitted the cheapest offer even if a technically better tender was submitted at a higher price.

In order to avoid this pitfall and avoid litigation with tenderers, it was decided to opt for the fairer "three-envelope" tender, where each tenderer had to submit his bid bond in envelope 1, his technical offer in envelope 2 and his commercial offer (price) in envelope 3.

In this way, envelope 1 was initially opened and those tenderers who had submitted their bid bond incorrectly or did not submit the proper amount would be disqualified and their tender would not be processed further. In the same way, if a tenderer does not submit the required technical information to enable the adjudicators to identify what the tenderer is providing, the tender will be disqualified. Only when all this process is done is the financial aspect adjudicated.

Thus, the cheapest offer will always theoretically be selected from among those which are technically correct. Unfortunately, as in all competitive matters, ways are found to eliminate competitors on irrelevant technicalities. Thus, for example, a tenderer would be disqualified if the sample of waterproofing membrane provided is smaller or bigger than what was stated in the Instructions to Tenderers.

This requirement of providing samples has been carried to extremes that only a bureaucracy such as ours can be capable of providing. I have just been involved in a tender where tenderers are required to provide samples of the wash-hand basins and water closets to be used in the building. With a building containing 14 toilets, it's quite likely that the organisation issuing the tender will be getting their toilets free of charge!

Similarly, tenderers are required to provide a "1.2 m sample of a steel canopy structure complete with rainwater gutter and downpipe". Can you imagine fitting this into the tender box!

I know one tenderer who was disqualified because he did not comply with such absurd requirements! I suppose enough has been said and hope that someone in authority who will read this would do something to stop this absurdity.