Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council carried out a tender process. The Council confirms all bidders received the submission questionnaire on the same date. It also confirms the complainant passed this questionnaire. I do not consider an investigation will lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant who I shall call Ms X says the Council failed to follow the Public Contracts Regulation 2015. She says:
• she was not given access to the online tender portal until six days after the other tenderers. The Council extended the deadline for submission by four days but that still meant that she had six days less that the other tenderers which was unfair and placed her at a disadvantage.
• as she did not have access to the online tender portal and the suite of tender documents she could not raise any clarification questions; and
• the Council delayed in providing a copy of the supplier questionnaire and it is not clear whether all the tenderers put in one and whether it formed part of the evaluation process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X says she could not access the Council’s procurement portal and had all the documents for six days fewer than her competitors. She says this put her at a disadvantage.
6. The Council confirms it emailed the tender documents to Ms X when she reported problems accessing the portal, so she could start reviewing them.
7. Ms X is concerned that she could not access the submission questionnaire (SQ). The Council has confirmed the SQ was not uploaded to its portal and all potential bidders, including Ms X received it on the same day. The Council then extended the deadline for submitting the tenders.
8. Ms X wants us to confirm that all tenderers submitted an SQ, and these were used in the evaluation process. The Council confirms all bidders presented an SQ which were checked to confirm compliance.
9. The Council also confirmed the evaluation of the SQ was a pass or fail. It advised Ms X of the scores for her bid and the SQ was a pass.
10. It is unfortunate that due to a technical issue, Ms X did not have access to the portal. However, it sent her the relevant documents after two days to enable her to prepare her bid. It has confirmed that all bidders were missing the SQ, and this was sent to them all including Ms X at the same time. It also confirms Ms X passed the SQ.
11. The Council acknowledges that while its officer was trying to be helpful, they could have been giving mixed messages. However, it is confident Ms X was not disadvantaged and all bidders were evaluated according to the published methodology.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. Having, considered the information provided by Ms X. The Council has confirmed all bidders submitted an SQ, and that Ms passed this. I do not consider an investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman