3
7.
As regards the aspect "Product price", the
Board agreed with the Chief Explosives Officer's recommend- ation that no points should be awarded, since neither tenderer had given a defined basis for the maximum pricing But the Board noted that of products on the local market.
there were indications that the, prices of Du Pont (Hong Kong) Ltd.'s products would be lower than the current market rates, while Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd.'s prices would probably be higher.
8.
On the basis of these agreed weightings, the Board noted that the results were as follows :
Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd.
Du Pont (Hong Kong) Ltd.
59 points
64.5 points
The Board then considered the remaining two aspects "Security" and "Political", which carried a weighting
of 10 points.
9.
The Board noted that the Chief Explosives Officer had made no recommendations on these two aspects. The Board was uncertain as to the intention conveyed in Executive Council memorandum XCC (76)77, but noted that in paragraph 19 thereof references were made to the weighting of these two aspects as having been "already pre-determined". After some discussion, the Board concluded that the apparent intention was to award the 10 points to Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd., and that the Board in fact had no discretion in this matter.
10.
thus :
The Board noted that the final result was
Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. Du Pont (Hong Kong) Ltd.
69 points
64.5 points
and that solely on the basis of this method of weighting, the award should go to Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd.
CONFIDENTIAL
•
para. 11
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.