Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 May 1996

Vol. 466 No. 2

Written Answers. - Boat Building Yards.

Peadar Clohessy

Question:

31 Mr. Clohessy asked the Minister for the Marine if he will assist Irish boat building yards in becoming more competitive by undertaking to provide the two yards with technical specifications, accepted by his Department, of the successful applicant Visser, in view of the fact that two Irish yards were unsuccessful in the tendering for a fisheries research vessel. [11078/96]

Robert Molloy

Question:

40 Mr. Molloy asked the Minister for the Marine if he will assist Irish boat building yards in becoming more competitive by undertaking to provide the two yards with technical specifications, accepted by his Department, of the successful applicant Visser, in view of the fact that two Irish yards were unsuccessful in the tendering for a fisheries research vessel. [11081/96]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 31 and 40 together.

The Marine Institute has commissioned a new research vessel at a cost of £1.741 million to replace the research vessel Lough Beltra which is nearing the end of its useful life. The vessel is being 75 per cent funded by the European Regional Development Fund under the Marine Research Measure of the Fisheries Operational Programme.

The specification and design of the vessel was developed through wide consultation with researchers, scientists and marine sectoral interests.

Following advertising in the national press, trade journals and the Official Journal of the European Union in September and October 1995, seven shipyards submitted tenders based on the specification and plan prepared by the Marine Institute. Two of these shipyards were Irish.

The tender documentation provided that the contract would be awarded to the most economically advantageous tender with regard to the following: demonstratable relevant experience and technical merit; price quoted and value for money; awarding authority inspection of financial records and at its option the furnishing by the supplier of a performance guarantee; compliance with appropriate national and EU tax clearance procedures; period for completion.

A technical evaluation committee established by the Marine Institute considered the tenders received. All seven tenderers were invited to meet the techical evaluation committee to discuss their respective proposals. Five, including the two Irish tenderers, accepted the invitation and met the technical evaluation committee between 19 and 21 December 1995 to discuss price, design and machinery and equipment options. All yards were afforded an opportunity to re-examine their quotation to ensure; (a) that their final offer was in line with the requirements; and (b) that all quotations could be analysed on an equal basis.
The five yards which met the technical evaluation committee subsequently reduced their quotations. The technical evaluation committee concluded that the tender from Scheepswerf Visser, BV, Den Helder, Holland best fitted the published criteria. In particular, this tender was the lowest and offered the shortest timeframe for completion. The board of the Marine Institute accordingly recommended that the contract be awarded to Scheepswerf Visser BV.
Public procurement procedures require that unsuccessful tenderers should be informed without undue delay. Contracting authorities are recommended to adopt a policy of releasing general information to companies inquiring as to why their tenders were unsuccessful. In doing so authorities should not reveal information about other tenders which could enable the price or other commercially sensitive details of individual tenders to be identified.
I am advised that the unsuccessful companies which were invited to inquire why their tenders were unsuccessful confined their subsequent inquiries to the identify of the successful tenderer. I am also advised that the Marine Institute is still available and willing to discuss with the unsuccessful companies the reasons why their tenders were unsuccessful. Such discussions must, of course, have due regard for the commercial confidentiality of the successful tenderer, but could usefully assist the yards in question to become more competitive in the future.
Top
Share