Literature Review

Although the basic idea of tendering is to choose the contractor based on the

tenders submitted during a formal tendering procedure, for various reasons

authorities may want to engage in discussions with firms after their bids have been

submitted and/or allow firms to revise their bids. For example, this may be done to:

! Clarify ambiguities in tenders;

! Allow amendments where tenderers have made errors, such as where there

are arithmetical mistakes or where they have misinterpreted the

specification, or for other reasons submitted a non-compliant tender;

! Suggest improvements to tenders which might meet the authority's needs

better; or

! Get firms to improve their offers if the authority feels they do not offer value

for money.

Some or all of these practices may be thought objectionable because they may (i)

undermine the transparency of the process, thus allowing authorities to give

opportunities to favoured firms to improve their offers to win the contract once the

authority knows the content of the other offers are known; and (ii) undermine the

principle of equal treatment by giving some firms the chance to improve their offers

which are not given to other participants. It is necessary to achieve a suitable

balance between these basic principles of equality and transparency and the need

(as outlined above) for some discussions or amendments if the authority is to

obtain the best possible value for money.

The current law on these issues is not very clear as the directives themselves

contain no express provisions dealing with the extent to which these practices are

permitted.