The announcement last week that Siemens, a German company, has won preferred bidder status to build 1,200 new trains for Thameslink placed blame at the door of procurement rules set out by the previous government - but Nick Maltby, commercial partner, believes that's not the case.
"It's perfectly simple; the price difference between Siemens and Bombardier's proposals was probably significant and Siemens were it is understood found to have a more appropriate product offering," explains Nick Maltby.
"We should exercise caution when considering what gives the UK tax payer best value for money versus whether the preferred bidder is a UK company or not - in this case, Siemens was deemed to be better overall value for tax payers money.
"The business decision relating to value for money can often clash with opinion of what would be best in the national interests in terms of UK suppliers. But why should the Department for Transport consider an inferior option in terms of value for money without significant corresponding benefits? And would UK tax payers prefer to be subsidising poorer products at a higher price?
"While it is true that the DfT might have factored more social considerations into its decision making such as a requirement to use local labour, such an approach sits uneasily with EU law and would inevitably have added to the price and is not one that the UK has historically favoured. It will be interesting to see how the Government approaches the procurement of rolling stock for Crossrail where the OJEU was published last November and a shortlist announced in March and whether it includes social considerations or divides the contract into lots when this is within its gift.
"In the absence of social considerations, the decision will be, and in this case has been taken by the panel, based on price and quality in accordance with the EU procurement rules. The panel have looked at the best of 'whole life' costing and decided Siemens is the preferred bidder.
"We can't blame the previous government for applying the rules in the way they did. Evaluation criteria even without social criteria can of themselves be quite flexible and if the decision had been a close one, maybe it would have swung in Bombardier's favour - one can only assume that wasn't the case."
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.