RayC

Imo the context will make it intuitively obvious whether the subject under discussion is in the past or the future, so adding "up to this point" seems rather superfluous. However, as you wish, I will try to remember to add the phrase - if appropriate - in any future exchange with you. But that still doesn't answer my question. If now is too soon to judge the success of Brexit, what are the circumstances whereby a government would draw a line in the sand and say, 'Right, has Brexit been a success? What do we need to change?' (Note: The outcome will not be perfect. Surely even the most ardent Brexit supporter will accept that?). You say that you don't reject the idea of evaluations. Fair enough, but an evaluation for its' own sake is a waste of time. It must have a 'raison d'etre' i.e. what actions might improve the current situation. In the case of Brexit, rejoining the Customs Union and/or the Single Market or the EU itself would be possible options.

No point discussing this further. We have completely different opinions and are poles apart. At least two major assumptions there, namely that 1) the sunny uplands actually exist (there hasn't been a sighting of them yet) 2) Even if they do exist, we need to get out of the quicksand we're currently in pdq. We're in danger of going under anytime soon.

Notwithstanding the ambiguity in writing 'Cheapest/ Best', that wasn't your original position. Your post from p.95: "It was E.U rules that stated that the UK must be give the contract to make the passports to the lowest bidder and that low bid came from Poland and so the UK was forced to give the contract to Poland for the PP's to be made there" As others have pointed out that is simply not true. Choosing the best bid seems to be quite sensible Even if the UK had to follow these (undefined) EU rules, do you not think that if the UK government was determined to award this contract to a UK company, it would have done so by ensuring that (some of) the requirements in the specification were such that they would increase the cost for foreign companies and thus prevent them from making a bid? For example, a requirement that the company winning the bid would need to attend weekly progress meetings in person in London would have significantly increased costs for overseas companies. (Before you jump on my last comment, I am not saying that this happened; I have no knowledge of the requirements associated with this contract. It is simply an example of how requirements can be written to discourage unwanted bids).

Thanks for posting (seriously). However, this does not support the contention that the cheapest bid has to be chosen. In fact, it proves that it is not necessarily the case. Under the section entitled 'Evaluation criteria': "The contracting authority must award the contract to the bidder with, in its view, the most economically advantageous tender. This must be determined by reference to price or cost alone, OR (my caps) the best price-quality ratio assessed on the basis of criteria that are linked to the subject matter of the contract. These may include qualitative, environmental or social aspects."

Deleted. Covered by another post.

Good. Not that I disbelieve you but nevertheless, I'd find the name/ number of the Directive/ Regulation useful for future reference, so I'd still be grateful if you could provide it. Thanks.

Yes, paying a bloke a fiver to do a job is better than paying another bloke a tenner to do the same job ...... unless, of course, the bloke charging a fiver doesn't know what he doing and the £10 bloke does. I must have caught this bug off you, Mac. I've no idea what this post has to do with anything.

No. But why would I? I'm not the one claiming that "the Gov followed E.U law and choose the cheapest price offered" You didn't make it up, did you?

Which EU directive/ regulation states that governments of member states must choose the cheapest bid?

I never thought that I would ever say this but I regret the fact that Johnson is no longer PM. Given that 2/3rds of the electorate think another referendum is a good idea, Johnson's need for public approval would mean that it would be held in double quick time!

You are digging an ever deeper hole for yourself. "Best offer" means exactly what it says. "Lowest/best offer" is ambiguous.

So no evaluation of events? No reversing bad decisions in any circumstances? Very rational.

I am confused. In order for the UK to consider rejoining the EU, surely there has to be an evaluation of the effects caused by our leaving the EU in January 2020 beforehand? One possibility is to pick a date e.g. 2035. I would suggest that 15+ years is ample time to gauge the effects and have a better idea of what the post-Brexit future would hold. However, you reject this idea. In that case, the only other alternatives are either 1) some other set of characteristics/ conditions/ events which trigger the evaluation. (What would these be?) or 2) no evaluation ever takes take. If things continue on the same trajectory as currently - and there is no indication that things are likely to improve - that doesn't seem to be the best course of action. (I agree that to be absolutely grammatically correct, any opinion should be sufficed by "up to this point in time", however - as some Brexiters continually remind Remainers - no one can predict the future, so doing so seems rather unnecessary)

So what defines the moment when we can turn around and say, "Ok, has Brexit been a success or a failure?" or does that day never come?

If it it's an EU law then it applied in all the 28 member states (as was), and its' aim would not simply has been to avoid discrimination against non-UK companies. Presumably, the objective of the law was to try avoid al types of bias, not just national bias.

Agreed. Almost certainly price would be one of the criteria used in most tender evaluations. This doesn't follow logically or in practice. Factors such as time and quality are important. A bid deemed to offer better potential performance might be selected over a bid with a lower price. It depends on how the various criteria are weighted. I wouldn't say that because on first reading I couldn't understand it. Having understood it, I wouldn't say it because it is completely nonsensical. That seems to be the case in this particular instance Indeed they are

How does that disprove my point that "EU rules had no effect on the Tender Evaluation criteria. They would have been decided by the UK Home Office."?

EU rules had no effect on the Tender Evaluation criteria. They would have been decided by the UK Home Office.

As a rule of thumb, the larger the sample size the more confident one can be in the results. However, a sample size of 1000 might be sufficient to draw conclusions. It depends what was the hypothesis and on factors such as confidence intervals and standard error. Not sure what I'm meant to be 20% out on (Presumably, the number of EU citizens in the UK?)? Whether true or not, it doesn't negate my points.

As there have not been any articles suggesting that the tender evaluation process was flawed and/or that there was any corruption, then the only logical conclusion is that Gemalta were awarded the contract because theirs was the best bid. It's as simple as that.

See @Bluespunk post. Do you not recognise that there is a fundamental difference between "lowest" and "best"? If you want to engage in debate, fine. However, your continual posting of misinformation, followed by your constant changing of the meaning and/context of posts when challenged, and your refusal to admit any error, is extremely irritating. Perhaps, you view that as a success? Please don't try to "explain" anything else to me. __--_-----_--------------- Following pasted in error. Can't seem to delete @Bluespunk

Here we go again! Completely changing the meaning of a post. "Lowest" now becomes "best". Of course, price would almost certainly be a considerable in any tender evaluation. It would be strange if it wasn't.

Once again, that is absolute nonsense. So a company, whose bid did not meet all the requirements in the Tender documentation, would none the less have to be awarded the contract if their bid was the lowest? Please think about what you are writing. How else to interpret this? "It was E.U rules that was the reason for UK (blue) passports being made in Poland"

Anyone with a passing knowledge of statistics (sampling/ survey design) will know that you cannot possibly draw any conclusions from a (non-randomised) sample size of 4 when the total population - # of EU nationals living in the UK - is 3.9million!

That is misleading. EU rules didn't dictate that UK passports had to be produced in Poland. As the UK hadn't left the EU at the time of the tender (2017), it was bound by its' rules on procurement i.e. that any tender had to be open to companies in all the member states. The tender was awarded to a French-Dutch company, whose production facilities are in Poland, by the UK Home Office. Do you deliberately set out to deceive? It's becoming extremely tedious having to correct your stream of factually incorrect anti-EU postings.