We looked to see whether there had been genuine competition between bidders.
We found that DET:
■ managed to create good tender lists and maintain competitive tension throughout the tender processes. These processes were, for the most part, sufficiently transparent to ensure that the market was well informed
■ retained qualified external advisors, identified the key contractual issues likely to arise and developed a considered approach to the evaluation process
■ set its current school buildings specifications as the minimum requirement, which provided greater certainty in relation to the final product but may have limited further innovative design
■ evaluated all aspects of the bids received and then chose as preferred bidder the one that offered it best value
■ employed the public sector comparator for added competitive tension, particularly in the final stages of negotiation with the successful proponents
■ assumed that the public sector comparator could not achieve efficiencies from bundling new schools, as this would have exceeded the level of funding available using traditional means.
The cost of the public sector comparator exceeded the net present cost of the private sector bid. The 'saving' was achieved with the help of risks transferred to the private sector.
The public sector comparator is very sensitive to the assumptions made. We found that, whilst on the whole they seemed reasonable, some of the assumptions could reasonably be questioned.