![]() ![]() This group, having assured the process in its alignment with the Prospectus, approved the list of appointable candidates shown in Annex B to be submitted to Ministers for decision. As part of the agreed competition governance, they received information on the assessment process, the scoring of each bid (detailed at Annex B) and the rationale for the long-list of appointable candidates. Detailed scoring of bids is available and this is detailed in Annex B.Ī cross-government group of senior officials forming the Freeports Programme Board oversaw the process. The bid that failed scored a low on 4 out of 5 of the criteria. Of the 14 bids, 13 were judged to have met the threshold detailed at 5.2.3 in the Freeport prospectus. ![]() The result of the moderation and this aggregation process was five ‘High’, ‘Medium’, and ‘Low’ scores for each bid, one against each of the criteria listed at 5.2.1 of the Prospectus. ![]() Officials, therefore, took the decision to give bids the benefit of the doubt and included all bids that met the requirements of the appointable list on at least one approach, marking bids that scored ‘Low’ on one approach and ‘Medium’ on the other ‘Low/Medium’ and those that scored ‘Medium’ on one approach and ‘High’ on the other ‘Medium/High’. As both approaches had merit, and the approach for aggregation had not been published in the Prospectus or decided in advance by officials or ministers, officials decided it would be unfair to disqualify a bid from the appointable list on the basis of the approach chosen. The Senior Responsible Officer for the Freeports programme from MHCLG chaired the formal moderation sessions to ensure consistency throughout.įollowing moderation, officials identified two equally rational ways of drawing the line between ‘High’, ‘Medium’, and ‘Low’ for Criteria D and E. For Criteria D and E, bidders were required to submit multiple documents, so a process to aggregate individual submission’s marks was required to establish a final score for those criterion.Ī process of primary moderation was then undertaken, consisting of internal moderation within assessor teams and then final moderation sessions across all criteria. The remaining 14 bids were then assessed on their answers to the Detailed Bid Information (section 5.6 of the Freeport prospectus), by officials with expertise in Trade and Investment, Innovation, Regeneration and Development, Business Cases and Private Sector Involvement, and Net Zero and Sustainability.Įach bidder’s submission under each question was assessed against criteria and awarded a score of ‘High’, ‘Medium’, or ‘Low.’ For Criteria A, B and C, officials assessment of the response provided (alongside the accompanying materials from pass fail) accounted for 100% of the bidder’s score for that criterion. Further details on where each of these 4 bidders failed and why is provided in Annex A. In the Pass/Fail stage, all bids received were initially assessed on their answers to the Essential Information in Section 5.5 of the Freeports bidding prospectus.įour bids failed to sufficiently answer each of these questions to the specifications set out in the Prospectus - with all failing on at least 4 counts. Pre-decision process summary Pass/failĮighteen Freeport bids were received by the noon deadline on 5 February. ![]() It was followed by officials and ministers according to the process and rationale which were published in the Freeport prospectus.įor full details of that process and rationale, please refer to Chapter 5 of the Freeports bidding prospectus. The purpose of this document is to set out clearly the decision-making process for determining Freeport locations. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |