Load of guff about tendering and procurement but didn't address what I asked about what were the Brexit risks that the Japanese had in mind.
How can you possibly say that they unduly loaded their risk appraisal? If they'd asked you I've no doubt you'd have minimised any risks from Brexit but maybe they asked people who don't bring a pro-Brexit bias to their advice.
I know how you work. Loads of words about stuff in which you claim expertise and assume no-one else has a clue about, but ignore any genuine question about stuff that you don't have a clue about.
If you think you know they've unduly loaded their risks, you must know what the Brexit risks are that they've unduly loaded. Tell us, O wise one.
Utter bollocks
I addressed the detail and content relevant to my post that you replied to
What you seemingly always wish to do is reply to someone's post - not address the content and distract onto some spurious bollocks that you feel is more comfortable for you
That will be because - as I am sure that an increasing number of posters have realised - in your bitterness you have become (IMO) thoroughly and increasingly disingenuous - the rest of your post confirms this.
I still make the effort to reply to your distractions - but mainly to prevent others being distracted and misled by your determination to avoid the thread discussing Brexit related issues
Here is another example:
"If you think you know they've unduly loaded their risks, you must know what the Brexit risks are that they've unduly loaded. Tell us, O wise one."
I could suggest a number of things - but the reality is likely that the Japanese government have introduced an across the board risk factor - e.g. a fixed percentage such as25% - I doubt that the Japanese government have been taking a specific appraisal of the risks associated to this initiative.
But I do not need to invent and speculate stuff which is or may be may be slightly inaccurate or as is your wont - be utter distracting bollocks - the facts are utterly simple and undeniable.
There are/were 4 stakeholders involved at the short-listing stage:
Bidder 1
Bidder 2
Bidder 3 (Hitachi)
The procuring authority
All 4 will have undertaken throughout the procurement thorough appraisals and quantification of risk which will have been updated through their governance arrangements and informed by developing situations. These appraisals of risk will have informed the development of their models - up to the submission and evaluation of final tenders.
They will have been supported in this work by highly qualified professional advisors
As Hitachi appears to have been unsuccessful due to the level in which it priced in the risk - either through Japanese government directive or local bid team assessment - they have clearly inflated the risks higher than the other 3 stakeholders. As their intention was to win the bid then it is pretty clear that their assessment has turned out to be unduly inflated.
For that not to be the case, you would be suggesting that the other 2 bidders have deliberately priced their bids in a manner which would mean that they will make a loss or that the procuring authority has deliberately planned to enter into a contract knowing that they will fail and suffer all the resulting criticism, increased costs and impact to service.
If you think that - then you know even less of these subjects than you have demonstrated so far.
Crack on and embarrass yourself further - but can I point out that my offer to debate with you was predicated on:
".....and if you can
demonstrate that you have appropriate experience I would be happy to debate them further with you."
That is not going well and I have better things to do with my time
