There seems to be some confusion as regards the tendering process used by the ICAEW, in relation to the Russian and Chinese training contracts that caused the implosion of Graham Durgan's bid to become President and the ongoing media relations debacle.
Accountancy (June 2006 page 5) state:
"The ICAEW says the work was awarded on an 'open tender' basis..."
Yet an article (Misrepresentation and Shabbiness) was posted on this site (18 May), which Accountancy read, that stated:
"The story gets worse, the ICAEW are reported to have described the agreements with EWI as 'non-exclusive'. Yet this is contradicted by CEO Eric Anstee, who is quoted in the Independent as saying:
'We do not envisage working with further training firms until the volume of students in each location builds'.
Indeed, as if to rub further salt into the wounds, ATC International told the Independent that it was not asked by the ICAEW to pitch for its contract for Russia."
Additionally, Dr Jeff Wooller, wrote in the comment section:
"The Institute of Professional Financial Managers was not asked to pitch. We have a good reputation for courses in Eastern Europe and our own website in Russian."
So, is that open tendering or not? It doesn't sound very open to me.
I have sent this to Accountancy asking them to clarify their report.
The only thing we can be sure of is that at the forthcoming AGM the outgoing president and the chief executive will be given a standing ovation for the great work achieved during the year!
ReplyDeleteWhat 'w.....s'!
Clue: it rhymes with plonkers!