The Missing Fleet Schedule, the Opened Envelope and a 31 July Deadline

No.

Mandatory requirements published as pass/fail are not scoring criteria that the panel may trade off against price. Waiving one after bids close does four things: it changes the rules after competitors have priced their offers; it treats bidders unequally, because a firm that incurred the cost of documenting its fleet is disadvantaged against one that did not; it removes the assurance the authority told the market it would rely on; and it is likely to be overturned on review, because a review body will ask what the published conditions were and whether they were applied to everyone.

The chair's view that the firm is 'clearly capable' is exactly the substitution of personal impression for the published test that probity rules exist to prevent.

Can we clarify? Only narrowly. A request for clarification may confirm a fact already in the bid or resolve an ambiguity or obvious clerical error; it may not introduce new material that would give the bidder an advantage it did not have at closing. If Northline holds a fleet schedule that simply was not attached, accepting it now is generally not permissible; at most the authority may ask whether a schedule exists so that the record is accurate, then determine the bid non-conforming.

Process

1. Record the panel's consideration of the omission and its decision in the evaluation report.
2. Notify Northline in writing that its bid is non-conforming, with the clause and the reason.
3. Evaluate the remaining conforming bids against the published scheme only.
4. Have the report and decision reviewed by the probity adviser and the delegate before any award; check whether the governing procurement rules require a standstill period before contract signature.

A sealed price envelope is the mechanism that keeps price from contaminating the assessment of capability, and keeps one bidder's pricing from reaching its competitors. Opening it early breaks both protections.

What has actually gone wrong

• Integrity of the evaluation: if panel members saw CareMove's price before scoring capability, their capability scores may be anchored. Even if they did not, the appearance is enough to damage the process.
• Confidentiality: the envelope was left on a table in a room others can enter. The authority cannot now assert that the price was not seen by a competing bidder.
• Chain of custody: the procurement records will not show who opened it, when, or why.

What to do

1. Preserve the evidence: secure the envelope and room, photograph, and record who had access.
2. Establish the facts in writing - who opened it, who was present, who saw the contents, and whether the contents were discussed.
3. Have the probity adviser assess whether the breach could have affected the outcome. Where it could have, the safe course is to reconstitute the panel with members who have not seen the price and re-score capability blind, or to exclude CareMove from this process and re-tender if the field is too thin.
4. Do not simply proceed and rely on the final ranking holding up; a debrief request has already been made and the evaluation records will be examined.
5. Fix the cause: price envelopes to be held by the tender box custodian, opened only at a minuted opening session, contents signed and dated.

The timetable is a constraint to be managed, not a licence to award a defective contract. Mobilisation risk is real, but so is the cost and delay of a re-run award, a review application or a contract that has to be terminated.

Options, in order of preference

1. Complete the compliant process and hold the timetable to the award only. Award by 30 June if the evaluation can be finished properly; signature and mobilisation can follow. Check whether the budget cycle genuinely requires signature or only a commitment, and whether a carry-forward is available.
2. Negotiate a short extension with the incumbent to cover the mobilisation gap. This is a variation of an existing contract, not a new procurement; it needs a written variation, a price that is demonstrably reasonable (benchmark against the tender prices), a defined end date, and documented approval within the delegate's limit. Extensions rolled over without limit become de facto contracts without competition.
3. A bridge contract for the interim period, run as a limited tender or under a standing offer arrangement if the rules allow, with a value below the relevant threshold and a written sole-source justification (continuity of patient transport, safety risk).
4. Re-tender if the defective bid handling cannot be cured.

Whatever is chosen: record the decision and the reasons, approve within delegation, tell unsuccessful bidders in writing with a debrief offer, and observe any standstill period before signing. Choosing speed over process here transfers the risk to the authority's patients and its budget.