Publication: Richard Young
Issued:
Date: 2006-07-12
Reporter: Richard Young
Reporter:
Reporter:
|
The Myth of a Regular Corvette Acquisition
Process |
2006-07-12
According to the JIT Report of 14
November 2001 :
7.2.1.5 The three evaluation criteria were to be
consolidated in terms of the following formula:
- BV = (M + IP) / F
where :
- BV = Best Value
- M = Military Performance Score
- IP = Industrial Participation Score
- F = Finance Value Score
This formula was
subsequently changed to: BV = M + IP + F at a SOFCOM meeting. The reasons
furnished by DoD for changing the formula appear to be sound.
7.3.3.4
Evaluation results
(a) The proposals were evaluated for military
performance to obtain a weighted score out of a maximum of 1 080 points. The
overall technical evaluation result was as follows:
M = Military
Performance
Country/
Product/Offeror Score out of 1
080/Ranking/Normalised Score out of 100
Germany
GFC MEKO
A200 810,5 1
100,0
Germany
GFC MEKO
200 790,0 2
97,5
Spain
Bazan 590B
766,6 3 94,6
United Kingdom
GEC F3000
649,9 4 80,2
France
DCN Patrol Corvette 618,3
5 76,3
7.3.6.3 Results of the
forensic investigation
(b) Combined IP evaluation (DIP and
NIP):
IP = Industrial
Participation
Country/
Product/Average/Ranking/Normalised Score
out of 100
Germany
GFC MEKO A200 90,5
1 100
Spain
Bazan
590B 74,0
2 82
United Kingdom
GEC
F3000 51,5
4 57
France
DCN Patrol
Corvette 74,0 2
82
7.3.7.2 Overall financing evaluation
Set out
below is the ranking of the bidders based on the finance value
system:
F = Finance Value
Country/
Product/Offeror
Score/Ranking/Normalised Score out of 100
Germany
GFC MEKO
A200 2,7860
4 79
Germany
GFC MEKO
200 2,7860 4
79
Spain
Bazan 590B
2,659 3 84
United
Kingdom
GEC F3000 2,2071
1 100
France
DCN Patrol
Corvette 2,4970 2
90
BV = Best Value BV = (M + IP) /
F
Country/
Product/Offeror Score/Ranking/Normalised Score out
of 100
Germany
GFC MEKO A200 71,8
2 98
Germany
GFC MEKO
200 70,9 3
97
Spain
Bazan 590B
66,3 4 90
United
Kingdom
GEC F3000 73,4
1 100
France
DCN Patrol
Corvette 53,7 5
73
BV = Best Value BV = M + IP +
F
Country/
Product/Offeror Score/Ranking/Normalised Score out
of 100
Germany
GFC MEKO A200 279
1 100
Germany
GFC MEKO
200 276 2
99
Spain
Bazan 590B
260 4 93
United
Kingdom
GEC F3000 262
3 94
France
DCN Patrol
Corvette 223 5
80
Conclusion
According to the original
approve evaluation formula of BV = (M + IP) / F, the competitive tendering
process for the supply of the patrol corvette platform was won by GEC of the
United Kingdom with their F3000 light frigate.
The following questions
need to be asked at this juncture :
- 1. Did SOFCOM really approve changing the evaluation
formula to BV = M + IP + F?
- 2. On what authority and on what grounds did SOFCOM
approve changing the evaluation formula to BV = M + IP + F after the
commencement of the evaluation phase of the competitive tendering process?
- 3. What is the basis for the JIT's unsupported
conclusion that "The reasons furnished by DoD for changing the formula appear to
be sound."?
- Was the formula changed to allow the GFC to win?
Note, the
GFC's DIP score was incorrectly determined by the scorers. It should have been
71 and not 81. This would further have reduced GFC's overall BV scores using
either formula (refer to Para. 7.3.5.4 of the JIT Report).
Something
smells very fishy in the State of Germany.
It's time to go fishing.
Examination
Q1. 5%
- Does the contention that BV = (M + IP) / F is equivalent to BV = M + IP + F
withstand scrutiny, yes or no?
Q2. 35%
- Fully explain your answer to Q1 above?
Q3. 20%
- Would a contention such as "The reasons furnished by DoD for changing the
formula appear to be sound" as made in a forensic report withstand critical
review?
Q4. 20%
- Why would the author of the forensic report fail to investigate and report
on the legality of changing the formula?
Q5. 20%
- Why would the author of the forensic report fail to investigate and/or
report on the arithmetic implications of changing the formula?
Awards
Score < 50% : nomination
for auditor-general of the realm.
Score > 50%
: nomination for membership of the Society for Bayonetting the
Wounded.
With acknowledgement to Richard Young.