Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
(finally figured out how the reply function works)
Agreed that cancelling the whole tender is overkill.
The procurement owner may need to add a layer of review before releasing any future communication to external parties.
(reply to Diana’s comment #34823 and Donalyn’s comment #34844)
Your points make a lot of sense and highlight a missing layer of contract management in many organizations. From my experience, there has always been lack of prioritization for Contract Management activities post award. Organizations must invest in contract management to ensure adherence and compliance at the highest level.
However, for curiosity, would the cost to contract manage be higher than cost of non-compliance? To me, ensuring trust and confidence in a public procurement process is considered an investment.
(reply to Diana’s comment #34827 and Donalyn’s comment #34845)
Your point about shared liability and the possible power dynamic between GC and SC is interesting and go together really well.
This could be a significant aspect for the court to consider and if the SC can prove they were pushed to ignore safety hazards, the liability could fully shift to the GC.
(unable to figure out how the reply function works. Responding to Manal’s comment #34731 and Donalyn’s comment #34761).
Agree that CAFTA was breached by not evaluating bids as described in the RFP. It highlights how even human error in calculation could cost the integrity of an entire process.
With public procurement involving significant administration and complex process navigation, I wonder what can done to reduce human error in a procurement process?
I agree with Donalyn’s response about Finance picking up on contract discrepancies.
A lot of these challenges stem from the lack of resources assigned to contract management post contract award.
Having a Contract Management function (with KPIs such as Contract Compliance) would have definitely helped avoid fraudulent occurrences including over-billing.
This is an insightful case of workplace safety and liability that construction worksites may experience. This worksite may not have followed several requirements laid out in the permitting and licensing process for construction which includes on-site Occupational Health and Safety Officers/Personnel, endangering people and property for the sake of profit.
1. Build a performance review plan/schedule into the contract. Regular and timely communication of contract progress. This keeps both parties accountable ensuring minimal contract non-compliance.
2. Allocate resources and KPIs for contract management responsibilities to the owner.
3. Add invoice signatory authorities to attach responsibility and accountability to the owner.
4. Get attestation from the contractor/proponent at the time of award that they will act in good faith throughout the contract period.
Mantario Housing failed to follow the evaluation process they created. Agree with you that such errors negatively impacts trust in public procurement processes. Mantario Housing must admit to the error in court and seek direction from the court for corrective action.
E.G. Spence ought to be reasonably compensated for legal costs pertaining to their complaint reviewed by the court.
Both the General Contractor (GC) and Sub Contractor (SC) are liable since the hazards were brought to light and both carried on working without taking steps to fully mitigate the hazard. Worksafe BC (and other Health & Safety organizations) have highlighted steps for employers and workers to navigate unsafe working conditions: https://www.worksafebc.com/en/health-safety/create-manage/rights-responsibilities/refusing-unsafe-work.
1. The worker has the legal right to refuse unsafe work.
2. The worker must immediately stop the work and report the unsafe condition to their employer or supervisor.
3. As an employer or supervisor, you must investigate the matter and fix it if possible. If you do not agree with the worker that the condition is unsafe, report back to the worker.While the WorksafeBC directive pertains to an employer-employee setting, the same logic can be applied in the GC-SC context with liability shared between both parties. However, parties can dispute the share of liability in court depending on contract value, contract terms, risk to property, body, infrastructure, etc.
I agree that conducting the procurement within Contract A paradigm was a good decision given the political and public scrutiny for such a large procurement and complex procurement, the evolving nature of technology and the involvement of public safety.
Tech procurement can be challenging given the complexity of the product/service and the speed of innovation.
I found that securing user buy-in early in the process before the procurement was approved to be one of the most interesting aspects of this procurement given how difficult it is for users to provide their buy-in early in tech related projects. Collecting user buy-ins early can be a blessing and a north-star when procuring complex technology products/services that go through plenty of iterations before reaching Minimum Viable Product (MVP).
1. By defining outcomes, wherein, an RFP can be drafted to list out outcomes/results instead of tasks. For example, maintaining a facility with customer satisfaction scores of xx % or more throughout the term of the contract.
2. Allowing the service provider to decide/design how the outcomes can be achieved. This would enable the service provider/contractor to innovate, enabling them to meet the service level expected.
3. Building various measurable KPIs within the contract. Examples, scores, ratings, etc. These KPIs would ensure procurement objectives and all areas of the contract performance requirements are met.
4. Incentive based pricing/compensation. Example bonuses, future vendor prioritization, etc. This would compensate service providers for minimum and maximum incentives based on the quality of work performed and outcomes achieved.
5.Shared governance with the service provider. By partnering with the service provider, outcomes become more realistic, problem-solving becomes easier and innovation/improvements are continuous.
However, in exceptional circumstances such as Alternative Procurements, Vested outsourcing can be a challenge given the limited availability of suppliers to create leverage.
Agree with the need for Fair Trade. Trade should, without an option, be fair for all players in a supply chain. Fair Trade policies allow more of the benefits when supplying to a stronger/wealthier market to reach those upstream (supply markets) in the value chain. The ones who we can’t see while consuming an expensive chocolate bar or coffee, etc.
Fair Trade also benefits players operating in a consumption market through strong labour practices, better wages and working conditions, etc. An example being the UK store chain “Co-op” known for some of the best working conditions.
Excellent discussion. Incredible points. Fully agree with everyone’s approach to outcomes based commissioning (OBC). From waste management to jobs placement, business funding and long-term care, OBC ties the service provider to measurable/quantifiable outcomes for maximum impact and value.
With growing deficits and many categories of spending being unavoidable, OBC could set a foundation on how spending can deliver the most value for tax payers and the community.
I’m curious to see how a program will be managed via OBC as Linza noted above. How contracts are managed? What happens if outcomes aren’t met.
Another concern is how this would dictate market competitiveness? Could vendors consolidate when spend grows? Would this create a monopoly, if so, how can that be avoided? How can every OBC guarantee multiple vendors in small/emerging markets etc.
