Tender Opportunity

​​​Request ​864645230

Please provide the details of the tenders for Opportunity ID DN812551, per the ProActis portal. This tender relates to the appointment of an independent advisor to provide strategic and ongoing advisory services to the States investment portfolios for a contract period of 4 years - 2026-2030.

It is possible for this information to be made public, as the tender process makes this clear. This is not commercially sensitive information, again, the tender process makes this clear.

1. Please provide the names of all the firms and their addresses (for those whom government said could provide a quote)

2. Please provide the sum total of the amount they quoted

3. Please provide the names of all firms that were declined.

4. Please provide the number of firms that were told not to provide a quote (the answer to this is at least one local firm)

5. Please set out the locations of those firms where they were refused permission to quote.

6. Please provide the name, address and sum total of the quote provided by the successful firm.

7. If the firm has not yet been successful please outline what stage the process is and how many local firms are in the running - including the sum of their quotes.

8. Please explain set out the criteria to explain why certain local firms were told that they could not apply.

Response

8 firms applied for the pre-qualification questionnaire, 6 were rejected as they were unable to meet core requirements.

The Scheduled Public Authority considers that disclosure of bidder identities, participation, exclusion decisions and pricing information would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of those organisations and the Government's ability to obtain best value through future procurement exercises. The requested information relates to a procurement exercise involving third-party suppliers operating in a competitive commercial market.

Accordingly, the information is exempt under Article 33 (Commercial Interests) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011.

Any participating firms have been offered the opportunity to receive feedback on their application, but this feedback will not be publicly released as evaluation comments contain information supplied by bidders in confidence or reflect confidential commercial information obtained during the tender process, disclosure may constitute a breach of confidence. Article 26 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 provides an absolute exemption for this data, where disclosure would amount to an actionable breach of confidence.

Articles applied

Article 26 - Information supplied in confidence

Information is absolutely exempt information if –

(a) it was obtained by the scheduled public authority from another person (including another public authority); and

(b) the disclosure of the information to the public by the scheduled public authority holding it would constitute a breach of confidence actionable by that or any other person.

Article 33 - Commercial interests

Information is qualified exempt information if –

(a) it constitutes a trade secret; or

(b) its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of a person (including the scheduled public authority holding the information).

Public Interest Test

Factors in favour of disclosure

• The procurement exercise concerns the expenditure of public funds and the appointment of advisers responsible for providing advisory services to the Government of Jersey.

• Disclosure would promote transparency and accountability of Government procurement processes.

• Release of information could enhance public understanding of how suppliers are selected and public money is spent.

• Disclosure may help demonstrate that procurement decisions were made fairly, consistently and in accordance with evaluation criteria.

• There is a public interest in ensuring local businesses understand how Government procurement opportunities are managed and assessed.

Factors in favour of withholding the information

• The procurement process involved suppliers operating within a competitive commercial marketplace. Disclosure of bidder identities, participation details, exclusion decisions and pricing information would reveal commercially valuable information relating to those businesses.

• Release of pricing information could prejudice the commercial interests of bidders by revealing their pricing methodology, market positioning and competitive strategy, enabling competitors to gain an unfair commercial advantage in future procurements.

• Disclosure of the identities of unsuccessful or excluded bidders could damage their commercial reputation and place them at a competitive disadvantage.

• Suppliers provided information to Government with a reasonable expectation that commercially sensitive information submitted during the procurement process would be treated confidentially.

• Disclosure could discourage suppliers from providing full and candid information during future tender exercises if they believe commercially sensitive details may subsequently be released.

• The Government of Jersey has a strong public interest in maintaining a competitive procurement environment and securing best value for taxpayers. Disclosure of commercially sensitive information could reduce competition in future exercises and thereby prejudice the Government's ability to obtain best value

• Where contracts have not yet been awarded or procurement activity is ongoing, disclosure could undermine the integrity of the process by affecting supplier behaviour and competition between bidders

• Information concerning evaluation outcomes and individual supplier performance may contain confidential commercial information, the disclosure of which could harm both the suppliers concerned and the Government's future procurement activities.

Conclusion

Upon consider of the factors laid out above, it is concluded that the public interest in maintaining the exemption under Article 33 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

Whilst there is a legitimate public interest in transparency surrounding Government procurement and the expenditure of public funds, disclosure of the withheld data would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of the suppliers involved and the Government's ability to conduct effective and competitive procurement exercises in the future.

Internal Review Request

Dear FOI team

This response is not acceptable.

The procurement agreement, which I have seen in the past, makes clear that information can be made available.

I am not seeking the commercials - the information sought names only and the application process.

One firm, as stated previously, was approached and was told not to bother applying. This was before it had even made an application.

This information is not sensitive its is in the best public interest. Frankly, this is a whitewash. Please treat this as a complaint.

Internal Review Response

This internal review has been conducted by an official of appropriate seniority who has not been involved in the original decision. As part of their review, they will be expected to understand the reasons behind the original response, impartially determine whether the response should be revised, and how so, considering the request and the information held, any relevant exemptions, or other relevant matters under the Law.

The Internal Review Panel was asked to review the original response and confirm the following:

Does the FOI request relate to a body to which the Law applies, or information held by a body covered by the Law?

If the answer is no, all the other questions are not applicable. Further questions if above is a yes:

i. Was the right information searched for and reviewed?

ii. Was the information supplied appropriately?

iii. Was information appropriately withheld in accordance with the articles applied and

were the public interest test/ prejudice test properly applied?

Following discussion, it was agreed by the Panel that the decision was upheld, however, that some of the wording in the initial response should be amended to more accurately indicate where exemptions have been applied.

Amended Response

1.

The Scheduled Public Authority (‘SPA’) – Treasury and Exchequer - is unable to provide this data, as disclosing the identity of failed bidders would likely prejudice the commercial interests of those organisations, Article 33(b) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has therefore been applied.

2.

The SPA is unable to provide bids issued by tenderers, disclosing pricing information would likely prejudice the commercial interests of those organisations, Article 33(b) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has therefore been applied.

Tender submissions contain information supplied by bidders on a confidential basis and include express restrictions on disclosure, including provisions stating that, without prior written consent, the document must not be reproduced, distributed, forwarded or communicated to any other party. Disclosure by the Scheduled Public Authority would therefore be capable of constituting a breach of confidence owed to the bidder. Accordingly, the information is considered exempt under Article 26 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011.

3.

The SPA is unable to disclose the identity of failed bidders is this information would likely prejudice the commercial interests of those organisations; Article 33(b) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has therefore been applied.

Tender submissions contain information supplied by bidders on a confidential basis and include express restrictions on disclosure, including provisions stating that, without prior written consent, the document must not be reproduced, distributed, forwarded or communicated to any other party. Disclosure by the Scheduled Public Authority would therefore be capable of constituting a breach of confidence owed to the bidder. Accordingly, the information is considered exempt under Article 26 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011.

4.

No firms were refused permission to submit a pre-qualification questionnaire; the tender was open to all applicants. As a result of assessment 6 were rejected as they were unable to meet core requirements.

Commercial negotiations have been entered into with one preferred supplier. 5

Of firms who submitted a prequalification questionnaire, 2 have local offices, 6 have UK-based offices. No firms were refused permission to submit a prequalification questionnaire.

6.

One firm is in commercial negotiations; they are predominantly a UK based provider but have a global presence.

Commercial negotiations are ongoing, revealing contractual information to competitors would also be likely to prejudice the Government's ability to secure best value in current and future procurement exercises. Accordingly, the information is exempt under Article 33(b) (Commercial Interests) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011.

7.

Please see the answer to question 6 above

8.

N/a - no firms were refused permission to submit a pre-qualification questionnaire, the tendering process was run via www.channelislandtenders.com, which was open to all entities.

Articles applied

Article 26 - Information supplied in confidence

Information is absolutely exempt information if –

(a) it was obtained by the scheduled public authority from another person (including another public authority); and

(b) the disclosure of the information to the public by the scheduled public authority holding it would constitute a breach of confidence actionable by that or any other person.

Article 33 - Commercial interests

Information is qualified exempt information if –

(b) its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of a person (including the scheduled public authority holding the information).

Public Interest Test

Factors in favour of disclosure:

• The procurement exercise concerns the expenditure of public funds and the appointment of advisers responsible for providing advisory services to the Government of Jersey.

• Disclosure would promote transparency and accountability of Government procurement processes.

• Release of information could enhance public understanding of how suppliers are selected and public money is spent.

• Disclosure may help demonstrate that procurement decisions were made fairly, consistently and in accordance with evaluation criteria.

• There is a public interest in ensuring local businesses understand how Government procurement opportunities are managed and assessed.

Factors in favour of withholding the information:

• The procurement process involved suppliers operating within a competitive commercial marketplace. Disclosure of bidder identities, participation details, exclusion decisions and pricing information would reveal commercially valuable information relating to those businesses.

• Release of pricing information could prejudice the commercial interests of bidders by revealing their pricing methodology, market positioning and competitive strategy, enabling competitors to gain an unfair commercial advantage in future procurements.

• Disclosure of the identities of unsuccessful or excluded bidders could damage their commercial reputation and place them at a competitive disadvantage.

• Suppliers provided information to Government with a reasonable expectation that commercially sensitive information submitted during the procurement process would be treated confidentially.

• Disclosure could discourage suppliers from providing full and candid information during future tender exercises if they believe commercially sensitive details may subsequently be released.

• The Government of Jersey has a strong public interest in maintaining a competitive procurement environment and securing best value for taxpayers. Disclosure of commercially sensitive information could reduce competition in future exercises and thereby prejudice the Government's ability to obtain best value

• Where contracts have not yet been awarded or procurement activity is ongoing, disclosure could undermine the integrity of the process by affecting supplier behaviour and competition between bidders

• Information concerning evaluation outcomes and individual supplier performance may contain confidential commercial information, the disclosure of which could harm both the suppliers concerned and the Government's future procurement activities.

Conclusion

Upon consideration of the factors laid out above, it is concluded that the public interest in maintaining the exemption under Article 33(b) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

Whilst there is a legitimate public interest in transparency surrounding Government procurement and the expenditure of public funds, disclosure of the withheld data would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of the suppliers involved and the Government's ability to conduct effective and competitive procurement exercises in the future​.