Clare Daly
Question:564. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government why and by whom a tender process (details supplied) was declared null and void in December 2014. [44890/15]
View answerTuesday, 15 December 2015
Questions (564, 565, 566, 567, 568, 569)
Clare Daly
Question:565. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government why none of the applicants to a tender process (details supplied) were contacted; why it took a further six months for the results to be announced following the completion of the scoring that was ready for the Minister to sign off on by 10 December 2015m the same day he had a meeting in Leinster House with the most successful bidder; and why the tender was then suspended and deemed null and void. [44891/15]
View answerClare Daly
Question:566. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government why, in a tender process (details supplied), companies that use the same equipment scored differently on the same equipment; and why companies that scored higher points for declaring Garda clearance for their staff being in place on a different date from others were not asked to show proof of that clearance before contracts were awarded. [44892/15]
View answerClare Daly
Question:567. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government why, in a tender process (details supplied), such high scores were awarded to a company on the question of invoicing set out in ITT section 2.6.5 in regard to the awarding of that contract. [44893/15]
View answerClare Daly
Question:568. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government why he and Pobal did not follow through on tender rules ITT section 6.7 and instead allowed a process whereby the company that met him went on to become the most successful bidder in a tender process (details supplied) given the part of these rules that clearly stated canvassing would disqualify. [44894/15]
View answerClare Daly
Question:569. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government if he will he initiate an order quashing a tender process (details supplied) given the absence of due diligence being carried out on it, as indicated by the information obtained under a freedom of information request and the compared scoring sheets of six of the tender applicants. [44895/15]
View answerWritten answers
I propose to take Questions Nos. 564 to 569, inclusive, together.
My Department is responsible for the Seniors Alert Scheme which encourages community support for vulnerable older people in our communities by providing grant assistance towards the purchase and installation of personal monitored alarms to enable older persons, of limited means, to continue to live securely in their homes with confidence, independence and peace of mind.
The assessment of the tenders for the Seniors Alert Scheme, including the award of contracts, was managed separately by Pobal, an independent company, following a public advertisement on eTenders on 20 October 2014. This process was conducted in a robust manner consistent with EU and national Procurement Guidelines, and a panel of preferred suppliers was identified. The benefits of the new arrangements include the reduction o f the bureaucratic and administrative burden for local community groups, who no longer have to get three tenders every six months and, consequently, frees up these groups to spend more time on engaging with their elderly neighbours.
Following the meeting of the 10 of December 2014 between Minister Kelly and Deputy Ryan, a question arose as to whether this meeting impacted the procurement process or could render the process void. As a result, the tender process was paused by my Department pending clarification of a number of technical issues in this regard, and legal advice was sought on whether the process was impacted.
In clarifying the technical issues, the focus for my Department was on ensuring that the parameters set out in the Pobal tender competition were in compliance with national and EU procurement guidelines and directives. Having considered the matter fully and taken advice, the process was found to be robust and compliant and it was agreed that Pobal would proceed with the tender process and bring it to a conclusion.
As part of this review, it was confirmed that there had been no interference in the tender process or its outcome by any third party. As a result, the tender process was unaltered from the evaluation carried out independently by Pobal, and the original recommendations remained valid. Consequently, there was no need to contact the tender applicants. The pause in the process, however, required a rescheduling of technical development work for the programme schedule within Pobal which pushed back the planned rollout date to September 2015. However there was no significant impact or additional cost as a result of this pause in the schedule as my Department continued to administer the scheme in the interim to ensure continuity in service to support the elderly in their own homes.
As the criteria and scoring under the tender evaluation process were a matter for Pobal, I am not in a position to comment on such matters. However, I understand that the evaluation process was comprehensive and objective, centred around a designated set of procedures and disciplines. The results of the evaluation process were submitted to Pobal senior management, who ultimately decided the matter and signed off on the recommendations therein.
Having fully reviewed this matter, my Department is satisfied that the tender process managed by Pobal was conducted in a robust manner and adhered to EU and national procurement guidelines and directives. Pobal have confirmed that all decisions regarding the procurement process and its outcome were made independently by them in accordance with these guidelines. As a result, the issue of terminating the tender process does not arise.