Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacks
Every government RFP I have seen, for many years now, has contained a clause stating that the contract will not necessarily be awarded to the lowest bidder. They also always have a clause stating that they may choose to reject all bids and reopen the tender process. They usually award to the lowest qualified bidder but not always. Generally on large contracts they pre-qualify the bidders to avoid problems like this, sounds like in this case there was a lot of political interference which is not surprising given what we have learned. If I had to guess it would be that the procurement folks were told to include that firm even though they didn't feel they were as qualified as the other bidders.
|
The original unaltered memo from the committee stated all bidders were qualified. Once that statement is made even with the clause you mention in place it would be tough to award otherwise.
Without seeing the rfp though you don't know. I think their are signs of interference here but no smoking gun to charge her. Based on available evidence their is a reasonable(not most) probability it's legit.
It should be investigated though.