2024.07.03. The Fair Economy — The Gang-neung Science Industry Foundation (Chairman Kim Hong-gyu, Mayor of Gangneung; President Kim Nam-su) recently stated its position on The Fair Economy's June 24, 2024 article, 'Gang-neung Science Industry Foundation pushes through contract despite suspicions of substandard product proposals,' saying the article "was written reflecting only one-sided claims" and that "the foundation's reputation has been damaged by suspicions raised about the selection process, including the evaluation committee."
The issue the foundation took up was the reporting content alleging unfairness in the 'Metaverse Hub XR VP (Virtual Production) Studio Construction and Enhancement Service' project, which the foundation announced and pursued last October (Public Procurement Service e-Government Procurement Notice No. 20231000236).
The foundation further described the report as an "article not based on verified facts" and demanded a correction.
It also mentioned filing an 'application for article adjustment with the Press Arbitration Commission' or taking 'legal measures' if corrections were not made.
Foundation Refuses to Release Any 'Related Materials'
The foundation argued that the expression "refused all disclosure of related materials" in The Fair Economy's report was incorrect, saying, "All materials that could be disclosed were disclosed through the first information disclosure (full disclosure) and second information disclosure (partial disclosure) requested by the complainant." It also said, "The inspection opinions and delivery list materials requested by The Fair Economy were provided."
However, the related materials The Fair Economy requested in its article were 'information on the proposed products included in the proposals submitted during the proposal evaluation.'
The Fair Economy's earlier report stated that the foundation refused its request to disclose which products were proposed during the proposal evaluation, citing "the proposer requested non-disclosure under Article 9, Paragraph 1, Item 7 of the Act on Information Disclosure by Public Institutions."
In particular, even when The Fair Economy requested to know the model of the proposed products while keeping the proposal price undisclosed to protect the business and trade secrets of bidding companies, the foundation refused.
Lack of Discrimination in Proposal Evaluation
The foundation pointed out an issue with The Fair Economy's report that a company suspected of proposing a substandard product "received a high evaluation score at the proposal evaluation stage and even won the contract for the project."
The foundation stated, "We went through a fair evaluation procedure among the proposing companies, and the scores were reversed in the price evaluation, so the complainant did not ultimately become the priority negotiation target."
However, the technical evaluation scores of the two companies that participated in the proposal evaluation for the project were 80.7667 and 80.7 points, a difference of only 0.0667 points.
Regarding this fact, The Fair Economy reported that broadcasting equipment experts stated, "In other public projects, if a substandard product proposal of this level occurs, the company proposing the product is often given a significantly low score ('failing treatment'), or the proposal evaluation is sometimes redone altogether."
Proposal of 'Media Server' Not Supporting Unreal Engine
The Fair Economy reported that multiple informants said, "It is known in the industry that the product proposed by a specific company during the proposal evaluation does not support Unreal Engine."
In response, the foundation claimed, "Besides Unreal Engine, it supports more sources such as Unity, Notch, and Blender, and proposed a product exceeding specifications (adding one media server)."
Proposal of 'Recorder & Player' Not Supporting MXF Recording
The Fair Economy reported that an anonymous video equipment infrastructure design expert stated, "The recorder & player product proposed by a specific company in this project lacks recording functionality to extensions such as MXF. If such a product was proposed as a recorder, it should have received a failing score during the proposal evaluation."
In response, the foundation rebutted regarding the product proposed by the specific company, "Recording functionality for MXF extension and MPG, TS, MP4, MOV extensions was confirmed, so it differs from the article's content."
However, the foundation has not yet disclosed information on which products were proposed during the proposal evaluation.
LED Wall Product Meets 4in1 SMD Specification and KC Certification
The Fair Economy previously reported that informants raised suspicions that although the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the project specified 4in1 SMD LED, a specific company proposed a 3in1 SMD LED type product, and that the product was not KC certified at the time of the proposal evaluation.
In response, the foundation rebutted, "We determined that SMD 3in1 is suitable for indoor XR studios," and stated, "The final construction was completed with a KC-certified product."
However, it did not answer who made the determination that 3in1 was suitable, when it was made, or whether an uncertified product was proposed during the proposal evaluation.
Many Evaluation Committee Members Are Not XR Experts
The Fair Economy reported that an expert who had participated as a proposal evaluation committee member in multiple public XR construction projects said in a phone call, "I know that many of the evaluation committee members who constituted the proposal evaluation committee for this project are not XR experts."
In response, the foundation rebutted, "We publicly recruited a total of 8 people: 5 in the information and communication technology field, 2 in the software (XR) field, and 1 in the broadcasting and communications field. These are field-specific experts suitable for the construction of this project, selected through public recruitment and a lottery among proposers to ensure the fairness of the evaluation."
Evaluation Committee Member's Opinion That 'Need to Confirm Specification Compliance' Ignored
The Fair Economy reported that after obtaining and reviewing the proposal evaluation materials from the evaluation committee members, it found that one evaluation committee member submitted an evaluation opinion to the foundation stating, "Verification of integration with the existing system (media server) is needed" while evaluating a specific company.
In response, the foundation answered, "There was no opinion presented in the evaluation results regarding specification compliance; however, there was an opinion that 'verification of media server integration is needed.' This was explained by the proposer during the evaluation committee meeting and confirmed in subsequent inspection procedures."
However, the foundation did not offer a different stance on why the evaluation committee member submitted an opinion in the evaluation results document, which is submitted after the evaluation, stating that verification of media server integration was needed, if they had been convinced by the proposer's explanation during the technical evaluation of the proposal.
The following is the content of the correction demand sent by the foundation:
<Requested Items>
○ Verify facts through a site visit to the Gang-neung Science Industry Foundation (suggesting possible visit dates)
– Currently based on one-sided claims from informants; verification of suspicions through on-site reporting
○ Correction of article not based on verified facts
– Damage to the legal entity's reputation due to suspicions raised about selection procedures such as the evaluation committee conducted by the foundation
<If No Response to Requested Items (by July 8, 2024)>
○ Application for article adjustment with the Press Arbitration Commission (correction, rebuttal reporting, etc.)
○ Legal measures (proceeding with attorney consultation, civil and criminal legal procedures)
<Main Correction Request Content>
○ Refused to release any related materials.
⇒ All releasable materials were released through the first information disclosure request (disclosed) and the second information disclosure request (partially disclosed) made by the complainant.
⇒ The inspection opinions and delivery list materials requested by the reporter were provided.
Received a high evaluation score at the proposal evaluation stage and even won the contract for the project
⇒ We went through a fair evaluation procedure among the proposing companies, and the scores were reversed in the price evaluation, so the complainant did not ultimately become the priority negotiation target.
Whether a media server not supporting Unreal Engine was proposed
⇒ Besides Unreal Engine, it supports more sources such as Unity, Notch, and Blender, and proposed a product exceeding specifications (adding one media server)
Many evaluation committee members are not XR experts
⇒ (Public recruitment of 8 people total) Field-specific experts suitable for the construction of this project in the information and communication technology field (5 people) / software (XR) field (2 people) / broadcasting and communications field (1 person), selected through public recruitment and a lottery among proposers to ensure the fairness of the evaluation.
4-channel recorder & player lacks MXF extension recording functionality
⇒ Recording functionality for MXF extension and MPG, TS, MP4, MOV extensions was confirmed, so it differs from the article's content.
4 in 1 SMD products have good durability and are suitable for XR studios
⇒ We determined that SMD 3 in 1 is suitable for indoor XR studios.
LED wall product was not KC certified at the time of evaluation
⇒ The final construction was completed with a KC-certified product. (Released as materials requested by the complainant's information disclosure request.)
Whether an evaluation committee member presented an opinion that verification of specification compliance is needed
⇒ There was no opinion presented in the evaluation results regarding specification compliance; however, there was an opinion that 'verification of media server integration is needed.' This was explained by the proposer during the evaluation committee meeting and confirmed in subsequent inspection procedures.
0 Comments
No comments yet.