1 minute ago, RayC said:

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

They did . 

Here , from Wiki

 

Following open tender under EU public procurement rules in 2018, the Franco-Dutch security firm Gemalto was selected over British banknote and travel document printer De La Rue. The result of the tender proved highly controversial, as it saw the production of British passport blanks moved from Gateshead in the UK to Tczew, Poland

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_passport#:~:text=The result of the tender,it being more cost efficient.

 

4 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

They did . 

Here , from Wiki

 

Following open tender under EU public procurement rules in 2018, the Franco-Dutch security firm Gemalto was selected over British banknote and travel document printer De La Rue. The result of the tender proved highly controversial, as it saw the production of British passport blanks moved from Gateshead in the UK to Tczew, Poland

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_passport#:~:text=The result of the tender,it being more cost efficient.

 

The U.K. bid was put up for tender in 2017.
 

The U.K. govt could have ignored the tender process at the time and chosen to award it to a U.K. company.

 

Let’s not forget this all happened after brexit vote.

 

The U.K.s passports are produced in Poland because of U.K. govt decisions and not eu rules. 

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

 

Do you not recognise that there is a fundamental difference between "lowest" and "best"?

When you are deciding whether to give a contract out to various bidders , deciding which one was the best offer would include taking the price into consideration and the lowest price would be cindered to be the best offer .

   Or are you saying that the worst offer would be the lowest price and the best offer would be the most expensive , if two companies were offering the same thing .

   The company that won the contract offered the lowest price and that was considered to be the best offer.

  Lowest and best in the same sentence there 

8 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Each company would submit their application detailing what they can provide and the cost and the UK Gov would make a decision  based on what is offered  and price would be a major factor in that .

   Point being that the UK Gov couldn't give the contract to a UK company on the basis the PP's would get printed in the UK , bids were submitted anonymously and the name of the company or where the PP's would get made wasn't on the info submitted in the applications 

"where the PP's would get made wasn't on the info submitted in the applications" 

What do you base this conclusion on?

 

"the UK Gov would make a decision  based on what is offered  and price would be a major factor in that ."

Which is far from the same as your earlier claim "the UK must be give the contract  to make the passports to the lowest bidder".

11 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

They did . 

Here , from Wiki

 

Following open tender under EU public procurement rules in 2018, the Franco-Dutch security firm Gemalto was selected over British banknote and travel document printer De La Rue. The result of the tender proved highly controversial, as it saw the production of British passport blanks moved from Gateshead in the UK to Tczew, Poland

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_passport#:~:text=The result of the tender,it being more cost efficient.

 

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."?

10 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

When you are deciding whether to give a contract out to various bidders , deciding which one was the best offer would include taking the price into consideration

Agreed. Almost certainly price would be one of the criteria used in most tender evaluations.

 

10 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

 

 and the lowest price would be cindered to be the best offer .

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.

 

10 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

   Or are you saying that the worst offer would be the lowest price and the best offer would be the most expensive , if two companies were offering the same thing .

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.

 

10 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

   The company that won the contract offered the lowest price and that was considered to be the best offer.

That seems to be the case in this particular instance

 

10 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

  Lowest and best in the same sentence there 

Indeed they are

12 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

The U.K. bid was put up for tender in 2017.
 

The U.K. govt could have ignored the tender process at the time and chosen to award it to a U.K. company.

 

Let’s not forget this all happened after brexit vote.

 

The U.K.s passports are produced in Poland because of U.K. govt decisions and not eu rules. 

Actually, the rules at the time meant the UK government did not know the identity of the bidders.

 

It was an EU law supposedly aimed at avoiding discrimination against non UK companies.

Edited January 2, 20233 yr by youreavinalaff

12 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

When you are deciding whether to give a contract out to various bidders , deciding which one was the best offer would include taking the price into consideration and the lowest price would be cindered to be the best offer .

   Or are you saying that the worst offer would be the lowest price and the best offer would be the most expensive , if two companies were offering the same thing .

   The company that won the contract offered the lowest price and that was considered to be the best offer.

  Lowest and best in the same sentence there 

I’m wondering if you’ve ever actually undertaken a bid assessment.

7 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Actually, the rules at the time meant the UK government did not know the identity of the bidders.

 

It was an EU law supposedly aimed at avoiding discrimination against non UK companies.

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.

9 minutes ago, RayC said:

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.

Indeed. However, as the subject matter is UK and it was UK making a decision, I used discrimination against non UK companies as the example. I know how you like to keep on topic.

24 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Actually, the rules at the time meant the UK government did not know the identity of the bidders.

 

It was an EU law supposedly aimed at avoiding discrimination against non UK companies.

Nonetheless, the uk govt CHOSE to use the open tender bidding at a time when they could have CHOSEN a uk company to produce their passports.

 

The fact that uk passports are now produced in Poland is a result of that CHOICE, not EU rules.

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

Actually, the rules at the time meant the UK government did not know the identity of the bidders.

 

It was an EU law supposedly aimed at avoiding discrimination against non UK companies.

And since leaving the EU the Government has been handing contracts worth £Billions to people they definitely know the identifyof, often without any competitive bidding at all and frequently with few of any useful goods or services being delivered for the price paid.

 

 

 

Edited January 2, 20233 yr by Chomper Higgot

23 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And since leaving the EU the Government has been handing contracts worth £Billions to people they definitely the identify, often without any competitive bidding at all and frequently with few of any useful goods or services being delivered for the price paid.

 

So now we know why UK is struggling handing out contract willy nilly and blue passports.

Next thread. 

48 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Nonetheless, the uk govt CHOSE to use the open tender bidding at a time when they could have CHOSEN a uk company to produce their passports.

 

The fact that uk passports are now produced in Poland is a result of that CHOICE, not EU rules.

I believe UK were still in EU in 2017. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

3 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

I believe UK were still in EU in 2017. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I also know, repeat know, they could have chosen to award the passport contract to a British company, under EU rules as they stood at the time.

 

They chose, voluntarily, to use the EUs open tender system. 

 

The result of this choice is that uk passports are now produced in Poland.

 

No EU rules at the time compelled the UK govt to make this choice.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And since leaving the EU the Government has been handing contracts worth £Billions to people they definitely know the identifyof, often without any competitive bidding at all and frequently with few of any useful goods or services being delivered for the price paid.

Yep, they know the identity very well indeed as often they were friends or relatives. The PPE scandal will come out in time as one of the biggest corruption / fraud scandals in UK history. How things would have been under an EU open tender initiative.....

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

Nonetheless, the uk govt CHOSE to use the open tender bidding at a time when they could have CHOSEN a uk company to produce their passports.

 

The fact that uk passports are now produced in Poland is a result of that CHOICE, not EU rules.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1245892/brexit-news-blue-passport-poland-theresa-may-boris-johnson-priti-patel-spt

 

https://www.cips.org/supply-management/news/2018/march/eu-rules-behind-uk-blue-passport-contract-decision/

 

Just 2 for you to peruse.

Edited January 2, 20233 yr by youreavinalaff

1 hour ago, Kwasaki said:

So now we know why UK is struggling handing out contract willy nilly and blue passports.

Next thread. 

A corrupt in 

effective Government is a significant part of the UK’s problems.

 

Next failure, corrupt scandal, lettuce …!

14 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1245892/brexit-news-blue-passport-poland-theresa-may-boris-johnson-priti-patel-spt

 

https://www.cips.org/supply-management/news/2018/march/eu-rules-behind-uk-blue-passport-contract-decision/

 

Just 2 for you to peruse.

Doesn't change the fact it was the uks decisions that led to passports being produced in Poland, not eu rules.

 

They did NOT have to put the contract up for tender but could have chosen to award the contract to a UK company.

 

The French did the so for French passports.

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

A corrupt in 

effective Government is a significant part of the UK’s problems.

 

Next failure, corrupt scandal, lettuce …!

Don't forget the cakes. 

4 hours ago, RayC said:

 

 

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.

 

Yes, that is why I said lowest/best offer , the lowest offer is usually the best offer, but there may be other factors involved where the lowest offer isnt always the best offer . I initially said "lowest offer", then I thought some one would be argumentative and say that the lowest offer isn't always the best offer , so I then changed that to myself saying "lowest/best offer to stop people making an argument .

  

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Yes, that is why I said lowest/best offer , the lowest offer is usually the best offer, but there may be other factors involved where the lowest offer isnt always the best offer . I initially said "lowest offer", then I thought some one would be argumentative and say that the lowest offer isn't always the best offer , so I then changed that to myself saying "lowest/best offer to stop people making an argument .

  

You are digging an ever deeper hole for yourself.

 

"Best offer" means exactly what it says. "Lowest/best offer" is ambiguous.

3 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

I also know, repeat know, they could have chosen to award the passport contract to a British company, under EU rules as they stood at the time.

 

They chose, voluntarily, to use the EUs open tender system. 

 

The result of this choice is that uk passports are now produced in Poland.

 

No EU rules at the time compelled the UK govt to make this choice.

If the UK had not placed the contract to open tender they would have been in breach of the EU and WTO agreements not to discriminate.

At the time approx 20% of UK passports were being produced outside the UK without any security risk being identified. This  limited the UK options , as they could not reasonable claim a security risk as a reason to not tender the contract.

Once placed to tender the Government has a duty to obtain the most economic benefit for the UK taxpayer.

 

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

 

"Best offer" means exactly what it says. "Lowest/best offer" is ambiguous.

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

   

6 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

If the UK had not placed the contract to open tender they would have been in breach of the EU and WTO agreements not to discriminate.

At the time approx 20% of UK passports were being produced outside the UK without any security risk being identified. This  limited the UK options , as they could not reasonable claim a security risk as a reason to not tender the contract.

Once placed to tender the Government has a duty to obtain the most economic benefit for the UK taxpayer.

 

Yes, the UK Gov had to accept the cheapest price offered and the cheapest price offered , offered that cheapest price because they got the passports printed in Poland .

   So the Gov didn't CHOOSE to get the PP's printed in Poland , the Gov followed E.U law and choose the cheapest price offered and that Company went to Poland and got the PP printed there 

5 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Yes, the UK Gov had to accept the cheapest price offered and the cheapest price offered , offered that cheapest price because they got the passports printed in Poland .

   So the Gov didn't CHOOSE to get the PP's printed in Poland , the Gov followed E.U law and choose the cheapest price offered and that Company went to Poland and got the PP printed there 

In context of Brexit , passports are moot.

Even outside Brexit , UK would have put the contract to open tender and chosen the best economic advantage to the taxpayer. This does not mean the lowest bid will be chosen automatically. Other criteria comes into play such as security, the ability of the company to deliver etc.

The question is should the UK choose to spend more public money than is necessary to perform a service. Knowing that in choosing only UK companies would adverse other companies wishing to bid for oversees public contracts.

11 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Yes, the UK Gov had to accept the cheapest price offered and the cheapest price offered , offered that cheapest price because they got the passports printed in Poland .

   So the Gov didn't CHOOSE to get the PP's printed in Poland , the Gov followed E.U law and choose the cheapest price offered and that Company went to Poland and got the PP printed there 

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

4 minutes ago, RayC said:

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

No idea, have you tried doing a google search asking the question ?

18 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

No idea, have you tried doing a google search asking the question ?

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?

Edited January 2, 20233 yr by RayC
Addition

1 hour ago, cleopatra2 said:

If the UK had not placed the contract to open tender they would have been in breach of the EU and WTO agreements not to discriminate.

At the time approx 20% of UK passports were being produced outside the UK without any security risk being identified. This  limited the UK options , as they could not reasonable claim a security risk as a reason to not tender the contract.

Once placed to tender the Government has a duty to obtain the most economic benefit for the UK taxpayer.

 

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. 
 

Edit: Other countries do so by citing security concerns I’m led to believe. Whether they are genuine or not they are cited…

Edited January 2, 20233 yr by Bluespunk