§ Mr. RedmondTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he gave to accepting lower tenders received for the management of Buckley Hall prison than that he accepted; and what was the gap between the tender accepted and the lowest one made.
§ Mr. Michael ForsythResponsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 8 December 1994:
The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the letting of the contract for Buckley Hall.The Evaluation Panel considered a number of factors when assessing all bids. These included how well the tenderers met the requirements of the invitation to tender; the level of realism and innovation in the bid; the quality of the programmes offered; security; staffing levels; deliverability and implementation; the Panel's confidence in the management teams and the corporate approach; and value for money. The Prisons Board then considered and decided to accept the recommendation of the Evaluation Panel that the contract be awarded to Group 4.Over the five years of the contract the lowest bid was approximately £5 million or 15% less than Group 4's bid. The Evaluation Panel considered that the proposals in the lowest bid lacked substance and was not satisfied that the bidder was capable of implementing its proposals.In the opinion of the Evaluation Panel and the Prisons Board, Group 4's bid offered the best combination of quality and price, as well as confidence in delivery, thus providing the taxpayer with the best overall value for money.