Is it unethical to allow a bidder to change substance of his bid after submission in a Competitive Bidding Process? If so, what are the reasons?

Being Procurement Professional its our responsibility to ensure transparency of bidding process in a competetive environment where all bidders should be given equal oppurtunity to participate in the bidding process. If you allow any bidder to change the substance of his bid after submission, it means you have provided him chance to qualify in the bidding process by unfair means though it might be benefitial for your organization. If you would have provided the same opportunity to other bidders as well they might be able to provide you better options.so its completely un ethical to allow any bidder to change the substance of his bid after submission.

By my understanding, I stongly agree Mr. Hassan Iftikhar Ahmed answer!

Typically it's consider unethical. And this is because in the meantime between the two bids, may be assumed that some information leaked to this supplier by the purchasing professional itself. Furthermore, biding again after the bids are through, indicates that this vendor ain't a reliable one that you can trust in the future.

In practice, and in non bidding process but only during negotiations and only for non strategic procurement, you may take advantage of such a reaction, in order to improve terms and/or price with this or even another vendor.

Hello Nadeem

 

I believe it is unethical, unless you afford the same courtesy to every other potential supplier. The simple reason is fair and transparent trading procedure.

 

Is it unethical to allow a bidder to change substance of his bid after submission in a Competitive Bidding Process? If so, what are the reasons?

 

In general terms the answer is most definitely “yes”. Once a bid is submitted it should be regarded by both the Seller and the Buyer as the Seller’s firm and final offer in response to the Buyer’s Invitation to Tender (ITT).  Bids should not be open to interpretation and the Seller should not assume that he is entitled to resubmit his bid should he feel that he can improve upon it or he finds that it contains errors. Furthermore it would also be unethical for a Buyer to accept an unsolicited change to a Bid where other bidders have not been given the opportunity to also amend their submission.

 

Following receipt of the bids it is the responsibility of the Buyer to determine which bid meets his requirements and is most suited to his needs. Where no bid satisfies the Buyer’s ITT then he may request clarification from the bidders but must ensure that they all have an equal opportunity to respond to his request. On some specific occasions the Buyer may opt to reduce the number of Bidders to, say two, who most accurately meet the ITT. On those occasions, to enable the Buyer to make his final decision he should inform the unsuccessful parties and request a Best and Final Offer (BAFO) from the remaining bidders. The rules on ethical behaviour remain extant for the BAFO and the remaining bidders should be treated as equals during the rebid process.

 

 

 

if the bidds are through, the competitive process does not allow the procuring agency to gave liverage to a certain bidder after all. This is unethical to procuring agency

I agree, it is unethical to allow a vendor to change his/her bit.

 

No it is not, in some cases as a procurement we are after best price for some works scope. in situation where budget are not enough to complete this scope; it might be a good idea to practice such to match the budget, after all it is a free market, a bidder contractor has to be very competitive and smart to secure enough contracts. But what if someone say, how sure that these bidding quotation have single source with more than one company quotations.

It will be certainly unethical to allow a bidder to change the substance of a bid after submission. If it is allowed, it would go contrary to the concept of competitive bidding process and transparency of the bidding process is lost/compromised.