From Purple Mountain

According to PM, the tender process for the bike shop/hire, which had gone to Pace/CTC who I reckon would do an excellent job, is to be re-run, but Eurest, who won the courtyard cafe and already have the visitor centre cafe via their parent group, are safe.

Now if it were the other way round I could see some logic, but this is a joke.

Anyone know if it’s true?

‘Large public body relises it’s fecked up and goes into arse cover mode by starting the whole process again from scratch’

Clearly they realised something was wrong and are now tryign to rectify it before there’s court action.

‘Large public body relises it’s fecked up and goes into arse cover mode by starting the whole process again from scratch’

Clearly they realised something was wrong and are now tryign to rectify it before there’s court action.

From my experience of public sector procurement quite likely this (or something similar).

Alternatively the winning bidder may have got their sums wrong (or made some unfortunate and incorrect financial or operational assumptions) and wants to renegotiate terms having won the contract.*

*not suggesting that this is actually the case, just that this is an alternative scenario that has happened in the past with public sector procurement projects

There is a thread on here somewhere and I think it made the news on the front page

I think it made the news on the front page

wasn’t that when the original tender was won rather than the new ‘re-run’ thing?

and wants to renegotiate terms having won the contract

or what I’ve seen recently “well the buildings 80% complete if you want the other 20% get the cheque book out….again”.

I think there was something about the original tender not being as clear as it might have been that the interview was an important part of the process. PM started legal moves to get the whole thing reviewed. I suspect FC decided it would be a much cheaper/lower risk option to just rerun the tender than oppose the legal challenge. I also suspect that there’s unlikely to be a different result.

I wouldn’t mind Eurest being chucked out. They ran our works canteen into the ground.

But that ain’t going to happen.

From what I’ve seen, sounds like PM are alledging conflict of interest or some such, which is presumably around Pace if the Eurest part of the deal is still on. Given Pace’s involvement in the trails, maybe “undue influence” or something. Bit more here:

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/9616634.Forestry_commission_back_pedals_on_Dalby_Forest_contracts/r/?ref=twt

I would be unconcerned about Eurest were it not for the far more worrying reports that Jingilby Thorn is no more

About time Purple Mountain went….most useless bike shop ive ever encountered!

A mate of ours needed a new cassette n chain before setting off around dalby so decided to get one there only to be told they “don’t stock 9 speed as nobody uses it anymore”…………..apart from the 8 or 9 people in our group! he ended up having to borrow one of their badly maintained hire bikes!

wombat – Member

‘Large public body relises it’s fecked up and goes into arse cover mode by starting the whole process again from scratch’

Clearly they realised something was wrong and are now tryign to rectify it before there’s court action.

From my experience of public sector procurement quite likely this (or something similar).

Alternatively the winning bidder may have got their sums wrong (or made some unfortunate and incorrect financial or operational assumptions) and wants to renegotiate terms having won the contract.*

*not suggesting that this is actually the case, just that this is an alternative scenario that has happened in the past with public sector procurement projects

This, and public sector tenders have a window within which the losing party can challenge the award. Usually they don’t becuase the legals costs a fortune, but perhaps PM spotted a dead cert reason.

In fact they must have if the tender has to be re-run, the procurement costs alone will be 10’s of thousands, the lawsuit even more, so it’ll be cheaper to re run the tender.

public sector tenders have a window within which the losing party can challenge the award

*geek mode*

It’s called the Alcatel period, it’s a 10 day period following contract award in which unsuccessful bidders can challenge the award of a contract to a public body. It’s part of the european procurement regs. HTH

It’s interesting to note that PM are so “committed” to Dalby that they weren’t open over the Easter weekend.

perhaps they’re not allowed to be or they’d already made all the staff redundant after the initial loss of contract?

Oh, that wasn’t the impression I had when talking to someone about it in the forest on Sunday – but I think you’re right, so I withdraw my niggly comment!

It was on Pace’s facebook page a few weeks ago and basically is as per Jonathan says.

We’re going on Sunday for the trail building day and AGM in the courtyard behind PM. Adrian Carter owner of Pace cycles was at the last Dalby dig day, so we might find out more from him on Sunday, if he’s there.

wwaswas – Member
perhaps they’re not allowed to be or they’d already made all the staff redundant after the initial loss of contract?

It shouldn’t be – they should be comitted until a defined date which would have been in the Tender, so there will be 2 scenarios:

a) That date was reached and the new boys never moved in, due to the reasons above.

b) PM threw a strop and dudn’t go to the effort of opening, probably small protest to expose loss of revenue / unpopularity without the shop open by getting MTB’ers to moan about it on forums and therefore make it public on there behalf avoiding legal lssues themselves.

perhaps they’re not allowed to be or they’d already made all the staff redundant after the initial loss of contract?

They won’t have been able to make the staff redundant, they’ll have almost certainly been eligible to transfer to the new operator under TUPE.

Oh, that wasn’t the impression I had when talking to someone about it in the forest on Sunday – buy I think you’re right, so I withdraw my niggly comment!

From the link in the first post;

“…but our lease ran out at midnight on March 31st…

…As far as we know this will mean that there will be no bike hire or services etc at Dalby over the Easter period and beyond. We offered to provide services on a temporary basis but the Forestry Commission turned down the offer.”

wombat – Member
They won’t have been able to make the staff redundant, they’ll have almost certainly been eligible to transfer to the new operator under TUPE.

Not sure thats right? TUPE applies to public sector workers – are PM a public sector organisation? If not, as private sector they can do what they like with their staff.

If they are a public body then yes TUPE will apply and the staff would have the option to work for the new company or take a voluntary redunancy offer from PM.

Not sure thats right? TUPE applies to public sector workers – are PM a public sector organisation? If not, as private sector they can do what they like with their staff.

If they are a public body then yes TUPE will apply and the staff would have the option to work for the new company or take a voluntary redunancy offer from PM.

TUPE applies to all workers, public or private sector.

This is from the Pace facebook page on April 1st ironically.

The Forestry Commission (FC) has informed Pace that the recent tender process which Pace & CTC tendered for in competition with two other suppliers has been reviewed and amended therefore Dalby Bike Centre will need to be re-tendered for.

The tender process basically involves a written tender followed by an interview and Pace followed the FC criteria diligently and professionally and was awarded the contract earlier this month. However FC have stated that it was not made sufficiently clear as to what part the interview played in the assessment of tender bids nor that the interview was an integral and important part of the selection process, so clear additional guidance will be given in the next set of documents which make up the Invitation to Tender. The decision to re-tender has been made based solely on the interview part of the process.

Pace and CTC are happy to support FC in its decision to re-tender as the ethos of clear and transparent practice is one our organisations support and identify with and we see this as an opportunity to counter balance the mis-information and speculation surrounding Dalby Bike Centre and our partners.

Hopefully by mid to late May 2012 the tender will have again been awarded and a new and positive future will start for the Dalby Trail Centre.

TUPE applies to all workers, public or private sector.

It certainly does.
Looks like the consultant failed to make the terms clear enough. They will weight the scoring matrix to ensure the correct bidder wins though….