Originally Posted by
modtinbasher
There's a little known clause in the competition process that allows previously successful companies to be "awarded" new contracts because it's 'already proven' that they've previously satisfied all competitive requirements.
This was dressed up in one bid where the under bidder lost out to the sitting tennant. It was assessed that it would be less expensive to retain the sitting contractor rather than the cost of the underbidder and the cost of redunancy (if any) and the transition costs.
As the underbidder does not know this there is not a lot they can do is there?