A procurement manager has been asked to procure 1,000 pens. He suggests to his manager that to obtain the best value for money, they should undertake a competitive bidding process. Would this be the best course of action?

The best course of action is not to undertake a full competitive bidding process. The principle of proportionality in procurement dictates that the resources, time, and complexity of a sourcing process should be appropriate for the value and risk of the purchase. For a low-value, routine item like 1,000 pens, the administrative cost and time involved in a formal competitive bidding process would likely outweigh any potential savings. A more efficient method, such as a request for quotation (RFQ) from a few pre-qualified suppliers or purchasing from an established catalogue, would provide better overall value for money.

A. This is incorrect. Simpler procurement methods are used for low-value, low-risk purchases to ensure efficiency and proportionality.
B. While it may result in a cheaper price, the total cost of the acquisition (including process costs) may be higher, thus not achieving best value.
D. This is false. Competitive bidding is a standard practice in both the public and private sectors for high-value or strategic procurements.

Lysons, K., & Farrington, B. (2020). Procurement and Supply Chain Management (10th ed.). Pearson. (Chapter 7, 'Sourcing', discusses the need to match the sourcing process to the value and risk of the purchase, advocating for simplified processes for routine items).

The World Bank. (2016). Procurement Regulations for IPF Borrowers. (Section 5.3 discusses proportionality, stating that procurement arrangements should be proportionate to the risks, value, and complexity of the procurement).