This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Second, there is the issue of tenderers using (generative) AI to write or design their tenders. Third, there is the issue of the use of AI by contracting authorities, eg in relation to qualitative selection/exclusion, or evaluation/award decisions. First, there is the issue of buying AI-based solutions or services.
This guest post by Saema Jaffer* explores the policy approaches that can be followed in the UK, and elsewhere, in relation to the use of AI in the writing and evaluation of tender documents. AI EVALUATIONS I am absolutely eavesdropping at this point and think: “now there’s a terrible idea!” Was it simply the evaluation question?
So far, AI has already obtained credible influence in the way public procurement tenders can be drafted and submitted. However, this technology has not yet registered a significant foothold when it comes to the evaluation process. The adjudicators or evaluators of a tender act as both gatekeepers on behalf of the tendering process.
This guide examines the fundamentals of public procurement, including fairness, value for money, and transparency, and how they influence both ethical and effective procurement procedures. How Transparency is Ensured in Procurement Transparency is achieved through open contract notices, public tenders, and clear evaluation criteria.
These agreements define terms, conditions and price for goods and services and allow authorities to procure without having to re-run lengthy tender processes. Tracker Intelligence is a great tool to help vendors precisely and easily negotiate the complexity of the tendering process.
Transparent criteria for evaluating social value proposals allow for fair competition among suppliers while keeping them liable for their commitments. Ethical labour standards are non-negotiable, ensuring workers’ rights and well-being are protected throughout the supply chain.
APUC (Advanced Procurement for Universities and Colleges) The Scottish University and College sectors are committed to carrying out all their operations in an environmentally, socially, ethically and economically responsible manner.
The report stresses this issue: ‘ common or standard metrics do not yet exist within industry for the evaluation of [algorithmic systems]. The issue is further compounded by the lack of standards and metrics.
Governments aim to support ethical, sustainable businesses while getting the best value. Tendering and Bidding A contract notice is published, inviting suppliers to submit bids. This allows contracting authorities or public sector organisations to evaluate and choose the best supplier.
Technical Evaluation Another popular strategy is to incorporate “green procurement” considerations into the technical evaluation for award in a procurement – for example, to give a “greener” product (one that caused less greenhouse gas emissions) more “points” in the evaluation.
In this regard, it is noteworthy that the AI Act entrusts the Commission (and specifically the EU’s AI Office) with the task of “ evaluating and promoting the convergence of best practices in public procurement procedures in relation to AI systems ” [Article 62(3)(d) EU AI Act ]. If so, what is to be done? proof-of-concept).
I continue exploring the use of public procurement as a tool of digital regulation (or ‘AI regulation by contract’ as shorthand)—ie as a mechanism to promote transparency, explainability, cyber security, ethical and legal compliance leading to trustworthiness, etc in the adoption of digital technologies by the public sector.
Author: Graham Allen In the second of two parts of “Navigation the Five Steps of the Procurement Journey” we’ll be covering posting, evaluation, award and close out. Construction tenders may include a mandatory site visit where attendance is required in order to bid. Step 4 Evaluation Once the procurement closes bids are evaluated.
A lack of clarity will be reflected in the quality of the solicitation document, the evaluation criteria and the bid submissions. A Request for Tender (RFT) is used for low complexity / price only solicitations for MRO (Maintenance, Repair and Operations) such as construction, office equipment and routine maintenance.
Sections 1022 and 1023 respectively authorize the Navy to use certain authorized funds to incrementally fund contracts for the advance procurement and construction of a San Antonio-class amphibious ship and a submarine tender.
With the Tracker Intelligence tender alerts feature, you can set up real-time alerts tailored to your industry, so youre always in the know. Cracking The Code: Winning More Tenders With Smarter Bidding Bidding isnt just about filling out formsits about playing to win. The secret? Youll need rock-solid security.
For instance, a lack of clear, coherent tendering procedures or regulatory violations in the tender advertisement may affect the execution of government projects. From the clear tender documents to the evaluation processes, Tracker Intelligence ensures all suppliers compete on levelled ground.
DJP, DJQ, and DJR, who were the respondents in the setting-aside application (the Respondents), tendered for one of the contracts. Enforcing ethical standards in arbitration requires striking a balance between accountability and confidentiality. The DJO decision suggests that this balance may not be sufficiently well-struck.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content