Late Tender Submission

The acceptance of late tenders is examined within the context of different factors. The aspects of laws that relate to tender processes are considered to be of significant importance. Accordingly, the paper identifies the points the reason for and against the late tender submission by De Fektif Constructions. The arguments, presented in this study, capture the viewpoints to oppose such an acceptance and those that argue against the verdict to disregard it. The conclusion supposes that a late tender should be terminated, based on the fact that it is contrary to what the submission of a tender should entail.

Keywords: tender, late submission, termination of tender, tender processes

Late Tender Submission

The tendering procedure is one of the main components of a procurement process. Importantly, guidelines play a critical role, so they need to be adhered to for the efficiency of the tendering process. In this regard, pre-qualification outlines should be considered for the validity of a given procurement to be met. For example, pre-qualification standards, their terms, and conditions should be deliberated and documented in a standardized checklist that engrosses all commercial, legal, technical, and fiscal elements (Department of Finance, 2014). Consequently, a question arises whether tenders that are presented late should be considered. This will be revealed from the perspective of a case study that concerns a construction firm De Fektif Constructions that submits an amended tender for attention after the deadline. Essentially, the late submission of this tender attracts significant scrutiny; therefore, the argument of whether it should be accepted or dismissed is based on various considerations.

Why the Tender Should Be Dismissed

The tendering process is supposed to be a competitive undertaking. As underscored in the stipulation, the competition of a tender is shown in the ability of an organization or individuals, seeking a contract, to be able to abide by the rules of tendering that often entail a timely delivery of tender request (Department of Finance, 2014). The same sentiment is stressed in the perception that competitive bidding is linked with the process of dispensing a public tender so that bidders could put their preeminent proposals that follow any regulation by a contracting entity (Department of Finance, 2014). Nonetheless, the case of the late bid, in this case study, will not support the competitive concept of the tendering process. Consequently, it should be dismissed. Notably, by the time other tenders are opened, De Fektif Constructions has already learned about the content of other bids, as shown in its decision to change figures, and this shows a lack of fair competition.

The additional point to support the necessity to disregard late tenders relates to the ethical practices that need to be adhered to. The first moral guideline indicates that government entities must issue contracts with the highest levels of ethics and transparency (Department of Finance, 2014). On the contrary, if allowed, the late tender in the case study under discussion would contradict this practice. The reason for this deduction is that the consideration lack transparency. Ideally, the acceptance and opening of all tender requests are transparent, but in the case of a late, there will be no openness as other bidders may not be present. Consequently, the acceptance of the procuring document would not be a responsible move since a potential ethical issue may arise in this context.

At the same time, an equally important idea that should render the time-barred bid unacceptable is the attempt of practicing the circumventing provisions and processes of laws on tendering. Department of Finance (2014) draws attention to the need for entities, which place their tenders, to do so in tandem with the tender rules that are given by the companies that offer contracts. Thus, specific acts that show the intent to sidestep provisions and the procedures of tendering are prohibited unless they are approved by the topmost tendering officers. Consequently, a late tender should be discharged since it can be understood as an act that breaches the law because the original bid is faulty. Therefore, such a tender should be dismissed when the mistake is revealed by the deadline of the bidding time.

Moreover, if a late tender is accepted, such a move will be tantamount to an act of favoritism that is forbidden in procurement guidelines. Specifically, the standpoint can be illustrated by the stipulation that no entity can be granted either material purchases or service contracts to achieve the individual cravings of any worker who oversees a government organization (Department of Finance, 2014). Furthermore, any form of partiality should never be granted to any official of a tendering firm in the form of incentives and gifts as well as any kinds of certain one-sidedness that can be motivated by a desire to attain special treatment. However, the actions of the building firm appear to contradict this guideline since the company desires to obtain help from Gerry Hatrick. Nevertheless, this help would be considered an act of favoritism if his wish is granted, which means the law will be broken. The inherent possible prejudice here will raise doubt in the process of ensuring that the best-qualified company is chosen. Consequently, the request should be denied.

Go to our website

Choose a type of paper you need

Indicate additional requirements for your essay

Pay for the order

Get your flawless paper on time

Furthermore, for the argument that the company’s late tender should be dismissed, there is a provision that employees, working at government entities, must work within the policies and procedures, related to the tendering processes. If such individuals fail to adhere to these policies, they will be prosecuted. In this line of understanding, such provisions contradict the idea of the late presentation of tenders since the former accentuates the obligation of tender committee members, especially government employees, to operate within the general requirements of the laws that regulate the tendering process (Department of Finance, 2014). In light of this, the act of considering the documents for late tender would be akin to committing a crime against the state, which is punishable in the court of justice.

The admission of a tender should never be tolerated because of the personal interests involved. For example, when De Fektif Constructions tries to convince Ray to allow them to present their second amended tender, the company opts to seek Gerry Hatrick's help with the claim that he would understand them. In effect, this can imply that, perhaps, Hatrick has a personal interest in the company receiving the tender. However, any worker at a government entity must not have personal interest whether by use of an intercessor or directly when handling the matters of a contract (Department of Finance, 2014). Thus, accepting the late tender would be an act in contravention of the government guideline in this case because it seems that De Fektif Constructions views Hatrick as someone with an interest in this company. At the same time, the acceptance of a late tender may not be sensible because the bidding company has not given prior notification to the officers in charge of the tendering process about the particular reasons for the late arrival of the document. If this were the case, the officials would have appropriately made written submissions to that effect to ensure that they did not contradict the legal provision in tendering. This case underscores the need to make tender documents adhere to the various legal requirements for the timeline of the delivery of such records. Unquestionably, this late tender should be disregarded in its entirety.

Similarly, the resolution to disregard the last bid pertains to the fact that the bidder has not specified the said amendments in the tender during its first submission. There is a provision that any changes in tender documents and details therein need to be determined by the contracting firm for official documentation (Department of Finance, 2014). Therefore, the time-barred bid should also show such specifications to render it admissible before another factor of acceptance of the same item is considered. The case of the change of documentation is revealed when De Fektif Constructions makes a late telephone call to Ray Gunn to inform him about the change. Following the provisions, as can be deduced from Gunn's statement, this information is relayed after the recommended time, which explains his refusal to consider it.

The decision to disallow the tender document would be plausible because of the channel of communication that the construction firm opts to use in its attempt to deliver the second tender. To convince the tender official, Ray Gunn, De Fektif Constructions tries to talk firar to Gerry Hatrick who seems to like this company. These actions contravene the guideline on tendering that affirms that in the course of the bidding process, all types of official communication with the contractor must be made via an appointed contact executive (Department of Finance, 2014). As can be seen, this is the case of a lack of respect for the legal provisions that should render the bid unqualified for any form of contracting.

Based on the above stipulations, one can say that De Fektif Constructions is a dishonest company that should be denied the tender at all costs. In the beginning, it offers the lowest price for the bid at $1,666,000. Then, perhaps, upon realizing that it offers a much lower cost than rival companies, it increases the amount to $1,695,000, which is still the lowest bid. Although the company does not admit this, it seems that the error in the first document is linked to the low figure. In essence, this is why the company claims that the first tender ought to stand, but the amount in it should be changed to $1,695,000. To ensure that this happens, De Fektif Constructions shows dishonesty in the readiness to influence the admission of the new amount by contacting Gerry Hatrick, someone who seems to be easy to compromise.

At the same time, it can be argued that the tendering process should exclude De Fektif Constructions because of its association with Gerry Hatrick who seems to have some hidden agenda in the process. Specifically, this is seen first when he supports an open tender that would allow anyone to participate in the bidding. Indeed, this is opposed to the use of direct bid that, as Harrick asserts, would give better assurance for money value. For this reason, the readiness of De Fektif Constructions to contact him is obvious since he will understand that the change in its tender paints him as a man who may not award the bid to a company that would provide desirable outcomes.

Why the Tender Should Be Accepted

Nonetheless, one might argue for the acceptance of the late bid. Such an argument includes the provision on tendering that late submissions, received after the lapse of the specified duration, will not be acceptable (Department of Finance, 2014). In this case, the stipulation can be used by Ray Gunn's company as a reference point to decide to accept the late tender despite several counter sentiments that may be voiced in disputing the act. Accordingly, there will be the need for more justifications for the tender officer to defend his actions in a situation of this nature. In this case, the reason for the tender’s acceptance is still disputable.

The other postulation that can be used to support the suggestion that the late bid should be regarded is that there is a possibility that De Fektif Constructions has made genuine mistakes in the first tender. Within this framework, it would be inhuman to deny the company a chance to compete for the bid that it can win because of the low price that it has offered. Nevertheless, this standpoint can be overwhelmed by the sense of the necessity for adherence to the rules and regulations of tendering that are mainly against late delays in bidding. Thus, the acceptance of the late tender based on this postulation is still open to debate.

Furthermore, it can be said that the tendering process is not strict in this case. Hence, laws can be bent to allow the late tender to be considered. Consequently, the argument may be based on the fact that the contracting company does not seem to have, for example, a tendering committee with executive members. Therefore, the arrangement can be understood as being removed from the conventional ways of tendering in big companies. As such, this deficiency may be used to accept the tender. Although this could be the case, there is a requirement that the timeline for tender delivery should be adhered to in the company. All of this is seen when Ray Gunn informs De Fektif Constructions that the company’s late tender presentation is an act of time wastage. This examination makes one doubt whether the document should be accepted.

Conclusion

To conclude, the issue of De Fektif Constructions is a highly debatable one, given that the entity seeks to present its late tender. Some of the points in support of the argument that the late tender should not be accepted include the supposition that such a move would not render the tendering process competitive enough. Additionally, the act will be unethical from the point of view of tendering ethics. Further, if the late tender is accepted, this will be an act of favoritism that is forbidden in the procurement guideline. This can be explained by the fact that employees, working at government entities, are never permitted to have self-interests in the companies that seek contracts with the organizations, in which they work, especially if they participate in the tendering committees. Nonetheless, some points can serve as arguments for the acceptance of the late bid. These include the provision on the late proposals, received after the lapse of the set timeframe, which might not be acceptable. There is also a possibility that the initial figure has been provided incorrectly. However, based on the above points, one can assume that the late tender should be dismissed.

Guarantees

Email delivery Your paper is uploaded to your account and you get a copy delivered by email.	Wide range of services Your get wide range of high quality services from our professional team.	Authentic papers All papers are written from scratch up to your instructions
Privacy guarantee No personal data is ever disclosed to any third parties.	Deadline meeting Any paper ordered will be delivered strictly according to the deadline.	Satisfaction guarantee All our customer are totally satisfied with their orders.
No plagiarism All papers you order are plagiarism free.	24/7 customer support Our Support Representatives are at your service 24/7 365 days a year.	Free revision Each customer has 48 hours after deadline expires to get paper revised.