CCS stated that in terms of procurement regulations, there was no reason to preclude Taulia based on Greensill Capital being a subcontractor named in their bid. CCS also told us that based on submissions received from the various bidding companies, its assessment was that there was no conflict in relation to the procurement itself and, therefore, it carried on with the procurement. CCS also confirmed that Taulia had failed on one particular question during the procurement process. CCS highlig...

CCS stated that in terms of procurement regulations, there was no reason to preclude Taulia based on Greensill Capital being a subcontractor named in their bid. CCS also told us that based on submissions received from the various bidding companies, its assessment was that there was no conflict in relation to the procurement itself and, therefore, it carried on with the procurement. CCS also confirmed that Taulia had failed on one particular question during the procurement process. CCS highlighted that it took legal advice from both the Government Legal Department and counsel and both confirmed that CCS could proceed with the procurement.14 Type: conclusion | Number: 13 | Response status: under_consideration Government response: 2: PAC conclusion: Crown Commercial Service (CCS) failed to sufficiently manage and consider conflicts of interest for the appointment of contractors. 2: PAC recommendation: The Department and CCS should formalise the process for considering conflicts of inter