Why is the UK struggling more than other countries?

[Mac Mickmanus]

9 minutes ago, RayC said:

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?

I didn't make it up  ,  no 

 

 

 

[RayC]

48 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Yes, but the lowest offer is very often the best offer , unless the higher offer offers something extra .

   

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.

[Kwasaki]

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

EU regulations at the time allowed countries to award passport production contracts rather than put up for tender.
 

Hence France doing so. 
 

“French passports are made by Imprimerie Nationale, the state-run French printing organisation, with the French government having made the decision not to put the job out to tender, as allowed under EU rules”

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/22/contract-to-print-uk-passports-abroad-will-save-120m

 

That may no longer be the case but it was when the U.K. govt chose to put the current contract out for tender. 

Why arn't you having a beer this time of night. ????????

[Bluespunk]

Just now, Kwasaki said:

Why arn't you having a beer this time of night. ????????

I don’t drink alcohol. 

[RayC]

Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

I didn't make it up  ,  no 

 

 

 

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.

[metisdead]

A baiting troll post and the replies have been removed.

[Mac Mickmanus]

29 minutes ago, RayC said:

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.

My answer is still the same as when you asked that question ten minutes previously and if you ask that question again, my answer will still be the same again . 

[placeholder]

47 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

My answer is still the same as when you asked that question ten minutes previously and if you ask that question again, my answer will still be the same again . 

From the landing page of the World News Forum:

"Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source."

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

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.

I believe he found that factoid in The Journal of Because I Said So

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

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.

All the information is here .

 

https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/public-procurement-law-the-basics

[RayC]

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

My answer is still the same as when you asked that question ten minutes previously and if you ask that question again, my answer will still be the same again . 

Deleted. Covered by another post.

Edited January 2, 2023 by RayC

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

All the information is here .

 

https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/public-procurement-law-the-basics

Really? So you just link to any text no matter of what size and claim that it's there? Where exactly is it? You must know. Otherwise you couldn't legitimately claim that it's there.

[Kwasaki]

2 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

I don’t drink alcohol. 

Respect fair call, no wonder why we find it difficult to agree. ????

[RayC]

18 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

All the information is here .

 

https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/public-procurement-law-the-basics

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."

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, RayC said:

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."

Yes, that is the reason why I have previously written Cheapest/Best and cheapest contributes to it being the best .

   My point always has been that the UK Government couldn't use a UK passport printer to print the passports , they had to choose the best/cheapest  option under E.U rules and the best/cheapest off came from a company that prints the passports in Poland because its the cheapest/best option.

   Had the UK not had to follow E.U rules, they could have chosen a UK based printer to make the passports 

[Scott]

A troll post has been removed. 

 

[placeholder]

38 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Yes, that is the reason why I have previously written Cheapest/Best and cheapest contributes to it being the best .

   My point always has been that the UK Government couldn't use a UK passport printer to print the passports , they had to choose the best/cheapest  option under E.U rules and the best/cheapest off came from a company that prints the passports in Poland because its the cheapest/best option.

   Had the UK not had to follow E.U rules, they could have chosen a UK based printer to make the passports 

The quote from RayC establishes absolutely nothing about EU rules and in no way supports your contention. 

[Mac Mickmanus]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The quote from RayC establishes absolutely nothing about EU rules and in no way supports your contention. 

Do you realise that 'in its view, the most economically advantageous tender". means the cheapest ?

[RayC]

2 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Yes, that is the reason why I have previously written Cheapest/Best and cheapest contributes to it being the best .

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"

 

2 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

   My point always has been that the UK Government couldn't use a UK passport printer to print the passports ,

As others have pointed out that is simply not true.

 

2 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

they had to choose the best/cheapest  option under E.U rules

Choosing the best bid seems to be quite sensible

 

2 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

 and the best/cheapest off came from a company that prints the passports in Poland because its the cheapest/best option.

 

2 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

   Had the UK not had to follow E.U rules, they could have chosen a UK based printer to make the passports 

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).

Edited January 2, 2023 by RayC
Clarification

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, RayC said:

 

 

As others have pointed out that is simply not true.

 

 

Yes , I didnt make myself clear enough again , what I meant was that the Government couldn't have Chosen John Smiths passport printers from Plymouth to print the passports or any other UK based printer specifically , the UK Gov had to advertise the contract and then pick whomever gave the cheapest/best offer and the Gov would then have to state their reasons as to why they gave the contract to whomever they did .

   Also as the bids were submitted anonymously , the Gov couldn't have chosen the British company , because they wouldn't have know which of the companies was British .

   I cannot explain any more than that 

   

[Mac Mickmanus]

12 minutes ago, RayC said:

Notwithstanding the ambiguity in writing 'Cheapest/ Best', that wasn't your original position. Your post from p.95:

 

Yes, I have explained about three times already .

No point in explaining again 

[Mac Mickmanus]

15 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

 

Not that I accept your argument but even if the UK had to follow these (undefined) rules, but on a practical level, do you not think that if the UK government was determined to award this contract to a UK company it could have framed the requirements in such a way that it would prevent foreign companies 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).

There are strict rules put in place to stop those practices and the E.U rules are put in place to stop Governments giving contracts to preferred bidders .

  Having a cunning plan to get around those rules could lead to legal action taken against the Government for descrimatory practices 

[Mac Mickmanus]

3 hours ago, RayC said:

 

 

Choosing the best bid seems to be quite sensible

 

I would prefer it if the UK Gov could choose to have UK passports made in the UK , rather than going with the cheapest/best offer and getting the PP's printed in Poland , like its not as if we get out passports any cheaper ourselves 

[stevenl]

6 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Yes , I didnt make myself clear enough again , what I meant was that the Government couldn't have Chosen John Smiths passport printers from Plymouth to print the passports or any other UK based printer specifically , the UK Gov had to advertise the contract and then pick whomever gave the cheapest/best offer and the Gov would then have to state their reasons as to why they gave the contract to whomever they did .

   Also as the bids were submitted anonymously , the Gov couldn't have chosen the British company , because they wouldn't have know which of the companies was British .

   I cannot explain any more than that 

   

As has been pointed out to you already, UK could have kept it in house and not offered a EU tender, just as France did 

[Mac Mickmanus]

30 minutes ago, stevenl said:

As has been pointed out to you already, UK could have kept it in house and not offered a EU tender, just as France did 

As already replied , the French kept it"in house" because they signed their deal in 2017 and new rules came into effect in 2018 and that's the reason why the UK couldn't keep it "in house" , because we signed our new deal in 2018 after the new rules came into effect 

[stevenl]

26 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

As already replied , the French kept it"in house" because they signed their deal in 2017 and new rules came into effect in 2018 and that's the reason why the UK couldn't keep it "in house" , because we signed our new deal in 2018 after the new rules came into effect 

So stop moaning about eu rules. It was the UK's choices and planning.

[Mac Mickmanus]

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So stop moaning about eu rules. It was the UK's choices and planning.

It wasn't though . 

E.U rules stated the U.K had to put the passport printing contract out on offer and the UK Government had to choose the most cost effective offer and that is why UK passports are being printed in Poland , they can print them cheaper than the UK can .

   Those are the E.U's rules  

[Credo]

49 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

As already replied , the French kept it"in house" because they signed their deal in 2017 and new rules came into effect in 2018 and that's the reason why the UK couldn't keep it "in house" , because we signed our new deal in 2018 after the new rules came into effect 

You should have kept it in house anyway.  What's the worst that could happen, they kick you out of the EU?????

[stevenl]

32 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

It wasn't though . 

E.U rules stated the U.K had to put the passport printing contract out on offer and the UK Government had to choose the most cost effective offer and that is why UK passports are being printed in Poland , they can print them cheaper than the UK can .

   Those are the E.U's rules  

1. Bad planning, the rules change was no surprise.

2. Could have kept it in house anyway, citing security issues.

3. You keep on claiming the chosen offer had to be chosen, which is doubtful at best and for which you have not shown any form of proof.

4. You're still confused between best and cheapest.

[Mac Mickmanus]

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

1. Bad planning, the rules change was no surprise.

2. Could have kept it in house anyway, citing security issues.

3. You keep on claiming the chosen offer had to be chosen, which is doubtful at best and for which you have not shown any form of proof.

4. You're still confused between best and cheapest.

1 . It was the remainers who caused the delay in the UK assigning contracts for PP printing as we wasn't sure whether we needed to write "European Union " on the front of the PP's or not .

2. The Polish printing Company had adequate security measures in place .

3 . I posted a link previously showing that what was required .

4 I have previously stated the difference between best and cheapest .

 

   You haven't been following this thread, have you , because all the info in this post has previously been posted by myself