Latest news with #publicprocurement
Yahoo
20-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
CMA launches market study on road and railway infrastructure in UK
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has launched a market study into the design, planning, and delivery of road and railway infrastructure across the UK. This comes at a crucial time as the government outlines its long-term infrastructure plans and legislative reforms. The study aligns with the CMA's commitment to 4Ps, notably pace, predictability, proportionality, and enhanced process. The study aims to identify opportunities to improve collaboration between the public sector and industry, focusing on public procurement improvements. While it may lead to recommendations for the government, the CMA lacks direct intervention power. According to the calculations of the Office for National Statistics, the civil engineering sector contributed £23bn to the UK economy in 2023, and this study could enhance productivity and reduce barriers. The National Infrastructure Commission estimates that an increase in public and private investment ranging from 30% to 50% over the next decade is necessary for complex infrastructure. It also suggests that system-wide improvements could save 10% to 25% on infrastructure projects. Road and railway projects account for approximately 70% to 75% of government spending on economic infrastructure. The review will focus on ensuring public authorities access the right information for decision-making, assessing regulatory barriers, and examining changes to incentivise civil engineering companies. The CMA will consider national and regional perspectives to form a comprehensive view and make recommendations for market improvements. CMA chief executive Sarah Cardell stated: 'There's no question that reliable, high-quality infrastructure is critical in accelerating economic growth. To achieve this, public authorities and the civil engineering sector must be able to work together to deliver projects on time, within budget and to high standards. 'This review is a crucial step in identifying barriers holding back the sector - supporting the drive to get Britain building and ensuring every penny spent is delivering value for taxpayers.' The CMA seeks input from businesses involved in infrastructure design and supply chain activities. The study will adhere to the CMA's '4Ps' commitments, aiming to complete the work in ten months and provide a clear roadmap for business engagement. The UK's Chief Secretary to the Treasury Darren Jones remarked: 'Upgrading the country's economic infrastructure is essential for unlocking growth across the country and delivering our Plan for Change.' The study will support the government's ten-year infrastructure strategy, covering the full lifecycle of roads and railways, excluding privately procured roads and minor maintenance activities. HS2 is also excluded due to previous reviews. Civil Engineering Contractors Association chief executive Alasdair Reisner expressed support for the study, emphasising the importance of productive delivery in civil engineering. The CMA plans to publish an interim report with initial findings in November. "CMA launches market study on road and railway infrastructure in UK" was originally created and published by World Construction Network, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.
Bloomberg
20-06-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
EU to Restrict China's Access to Medical Device Procurements
The European Union will restrict the ability for Chinese medical device manufacturers to access public procurement contracts worth more than €5 million ($5.7 million). The move will restrict Chinese companies from accessing around 60% of the public spending in this field, or around €150 billion, according to an EU official familiar with the plans. The EU will also allow no more than 50% of inputs from China for successful bids.
Mail & Guardian
11-06-2025
- Business
- Mail & Guardian
Tender times: Navigating the public procurement landscape
Compliance is only part of public procurement. Credibility and integrity carry just as much weight. We're living in tender times, and no, not Otis Redding's soft-hearted kind. We're talking about a procurement landscape where being on the treasury's restricted suppliers list (even temporarily) can be costly for your business (if you are a bidder). Disqualification of a bidder from a tender can happen without an acknowledgment of non-compliance or wrongdoing on their part and failure to comply with tender validity periods can be detrimental to an organ of state's procurement of goods and services needed for public service delivery. A recent decision by the supreme court of appeal (SCA) in the case, encapsulates this. In this case, Aventino — which submitted bids in response to tenders advertised by the department of roads and transport — was excluded, despite being scored the highest by the bid evaluation committee. Aventino challenged its exclusion on two fronts. First, it alleged that the extension of the bid validity period had not lawfully taken place and, because of this, the department's tender had expired. Second, the unlawfulness of their disqualification from the tender on allegedly 'unfounded allegations', even though it was the highest scoring bidder. Validity of bid period A bid validity period refers to the time during which a bidder, having submitted a bid in response to an advertised tender, remains committed to that bid. During this period, the bidder cannot modify or withdraw their offer and their offer remains valid only for that bid validity period. A bid validity period is granted so that the procuring entity can evaluate and identify their preferred bidder and award it accordingly. This period can be extended in accordance with the legal prescripts in applicable supply-chain management legislation or a procuring entity or institution's policy. The first argument posited by Aventino was that, if a bidder failed to respond to an invitation to extend the validity period of the tender, the department could not disqualify that bidder and then proceed to consider the bids of those who agreed to the extension ('the disqualification challenge'). The tenders lapsed because the department failed to extend the bid validity periods in time (prior to the lapse thereof), and therefore any award made after the expiration of the bid validity period, were invalid. But the court rejected this. The court found that the 'disqualification challenge' cannot prevail because the exclusionary stipulation in clause 4.14 of the department's supply-chain management policy created a regime that permitted the department to exclude bids from further consideration in the event that a bidder either declined to extend the bid validity period or failed to respond to the department's invitation to extend. All bidders must be invited to extend the period Aventino attempted another argument, claiming that to validly extend the bid validity period, all bidders must be invited to extend the period. But the SCA rejected this argument, finding that the supply-chain management policy did not require unanimous consent, it only required that the proper process be followed, which it was. Paragraph 4.14 of the supply-chain management policy stated that '[b]idders may either accept or reject the extended validity period and those who do not wish to extend the validity period would be regarded as non-responsive and would be excluded from further assessment'. In other words, the supply-chain management policy simply allows bidders to accept or reject an extension individually. Those who reject the extension of the validity would be excluded from the tender process on the basis of being 'non-responsive', but the procurement process could continue for those who agree. As such, the attempt by Aventino to have the tender award set aside based on the grounds relating to the validity of the bid was rejected by the SCA. Disqualified due to prior misconduct The real crux of the case was Aventino's disqualification from being awarded the tender. Despite being ranked first by the bid evaluation committee among all the bidders, the department's bid adjudication committee decided to exclude the company from further consideration based on findings made by the Special Investigating Unit. This recommendation ultimately led the Department to decide not to award the tender to Aventino. The Special Investigating Unit found that Aventino had made misrepresentations in securing a contract related to a Limpopo housing project, particularly by falsely claiming to have assembled a qualified professional team for the project. The matter was subsequently referred to the Special Tribunal. Aventino eventually settled the case without admitting guilt. However, the settlement included a consent order declaring the contract unlawful and void due to evidence against Aventino of misrepresentations to secure a tender, as well as an agreement to repay all money earned under the contract. Although Aventino did not explicitly admit to any wrongdoing, the terms of the settlement were, in and of itself, damning. Aventino was subsequently placed on the treasury's restricted supplier database but this listing was later removed on procedural grounds. Underlying misconduct that gave rise to the listing The bid evaluation committee flagged these findings for the bid adjudication committee, which in turn made it clear that its reasoning for not recommending Aventino was not solely based solely on the company's listing on the treasury's restricted supplier database. Rather, it was the underlying misconduct that gave rise to the listing. This track record raised concerns about Aventino's integrity and the bid adjudication committee was not prepared to recommend awarding a tender to a company implicated in credible allegations of dishonesty — even though the bid evaluation committee had ranked Aventino in first position. The SCA agreed with the bid adjudication committee's reasoning, holding that it was entitled to consider the evidence of serious misrepresentations even in the absence of a formal finding of guilt or a completed listing process. On this basis, the court found the bid adjudication committee's decision to be reasonable, lawful and justified in the circumstances. Credibility and integrity carry as much weight The Aventino case is a reminder that in the world of public procurement, compliance of procurement prescripts is only part of the equation. Credibility and integrity carry just as much weight. Even the highest-ranked bidder can find themselves disqualified if their past conduct casts doubt on their trustworthiness to render public services at the cost of the public purse. In an era of heightened scrutiny and accountability, bidders must not only tick the right procurement compliance boxes but also maintain a clean track record if they wish to secure public contracts. In the arena of procurement, these are tender times, indeed. Roberto Oktober is a candidate attorney and Jaime-Lee Jacobs is a director at Herold Gie Attorneys.
Irish Times
03-06-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
Losing SEAI retrofit services bidder challenges refusal to disclose pricing structure of winning bid
A losing bidder for a €75 million contract to provide surveys for the retrofitting of hundreds of thousands of properties is appealing a High Court refusal to order the winning bidder to disclose its lower and confidential pricing structure. The contract, awarded by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI), is set to last up to five years and is estimated to be worth €75 million. The services include supplying building energy ratings (BERs), surveys and inspections. The contract is currently held by Kerrigan Sheanon Newman Unlimited Company which has been supplying the services to the SEAI since 2012. The company lost out in the public procurement process when a new contract was publicly offered for tender. That tender was won by Abtran. READ MORE Kerrigan Sheanon Newman then brought High Court proceedings against the SEAI, with Abtran as notice party, challenging the award. It claimed the Abtran tender was too low, pointing out that it was 30 per cent lower than the price currently being paid to it for the service. The SEAI disputes Kerrigan Sheanon Newman's claims. In a pretrial application, Kerrigan Sheanon Newman sought discovery of documents and materials from the SEAI in relation to the Abtran tender. Last February, the High Court refused to grant discovery, saying Kerrigan Sheanon Newman did not provide compelling arguments to justify the 'very significant encroachment on the confidentiality of a winning tenderer's bid'. On Tuesday, Jonathan Newman SC, for Kerrigan Sheanon Newman, told the court his client has brought an appeal over that decision. While there had been certain agreed discovery between the parties, the High Court decision went against 'the run of case law' in discovery. An appeal date had been set in July and the parties were agreeable to a hearing of the matter in December, he said. Mr Justice Mark Sanfey said it was clearly a very urgent matter and he would list it for hearing for four days in December.
Bloomberg
03-06-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
Chinese Firms Warn EU Procurement Curb Could Hurt Trade Ties
A Chinese business lobby group warned that EU actions to curb access of the country's medical device makers to government contracts in the bloc will hurt trade ties. The China Chamber of Commerce to the EU expressed 'profound disappointment' over the EU's use of a trade tool to limit Chinese companies' participation in public procurements, according to a Monday statement from the Chinese group.
