Letters, feedback, get it off your chest: 26 October 2011

This week’s postbag begins with a Finsbury Green response to public questions about its Vic Gov PMS contract.




Re: Letters, feedback, get it off your chest: 25 October 2011

Dear John,

If only you had communicated your feelings to us, we may have avoided this. Instead you chose to publicly share them.

Point One – the process began with an RFI that was made available to the market on the on the 2nd June 2010. This included an open invitation for interested companies to attend a briefing session with the Victorian Government. At the conclusion of the RFI process, an RFQ was provided to the companies shortlisted. I am unsure how you came to the conclusion that the contract was awarded without going to market.

Point Two – the provision of an independent print management solution is central to our solution to Victorian Government. Nothing has changed since the first print management contract and Finsbury Green will continue our contractual obligation to provide an independent solution.

Point Three – the current Whole of Victorian Government Print Management Services contract is mandated for 11 departments and the Victorian Police. There are a large number of other departments and outer government agencies that are not part of the contract who buy print. We do sell our products and services to those departments and agencies as we operate in a free market. If any department or agency that is not currently mandated under the print management services contract choose to opt into the contract then our manufacturing division is excluded from the panel of suppliers.

Point Four – is it really unethical when we tell a prospect that you are a supplier of ours, when we have requested and received a quotation and subsequently placed an order with your company? Our focus is to ensure incumbent suppliers are provided every opportunity possible to retain business.

Point Five – our suppliers are required to breakdown their pricing in order for us to provide data to our client.

Point Six – We are not sure what behaviour or conduct we have displayed that has been anti-competitive, but surely the implied notion that we should not be allowed to sell to “your client” is a clear display of an anti-competitive view.

We understand that there will always be differing points of view, but actions speak louder than words. It is through our actions that we intend to demonstrate to our client that the solution we offer will benefit all stakeholders involved. We respect that it is your decision whether you wish to be a part of the process or not.

Peter Orel
CEO – Finsbury Green