Fairness in the Process - Now or Later?

In the aftermath of the Gomery report, many organizations have started using a "fairness" role with their large complex or politically sensitive procurements. The primary objective of involving fairness resources is to provide objective evidence that the process has been run in a fair, open and transparent manner. Having the role start with the process keeps the process ontrack and saves time later, versus the standard waiting for complaints and having someone audit the process 'after the fact'. I've done both roles a number of times, partly to deal with the perception of bias towards incumbents; alleviate union concerns of outsourcing, ongoing vendor relations issues, etc. Thanks to close contact with National Education Consulting Inc & the Legal Edge publication means keeping up-to-date with the latest/greatest court decisions.

Even in cases where RFPs are better developed (in terms of how evaluations would occur) with an incumbent in place, it might be useful to request a fairness advisor/monitor/auditor play a role. Generally, the procurement department itself doesn't hire the fairness role (as it is reporting on their conduct/process!) Personally, I believe a fairness role needs to be appointed by an assurance department or a higher authority. There are even 'little things' that should be considered in the course of 'fairness' such as having all the evaluators sign a disclosure agreement (much like how the vendors are to provide within their proposals). I sat in on an evaluation process where the chair did NOT request this, and the evaluators went through a dozen grant application proposals and it wasn't until they faced the last proposal, one evaluator disclosed his son worked for the firm and would recuse himself from that evaluation - which was good to do, HOWEVER, he was involved in the scoring/discussions on all the competitive proposals up until that point! That is still a conflict of interest, even if he wasn't going to play any role in the scoring of that last proposal, he influenced the other scores. The organization changed their practices for future evaluations, and dealt with the issue by awarding to 'all' grant applications received - eliminating the risk of breach of process. I've been in other processes where the evaluations had to be 'tossed' and a second evaluation had to occur.

Is this more bureaucracy? Red tape to an already onerous process? How do you think the fairness can be 'above reproach'?

Comments/discussion appreciated