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
