BIP Solutions - Preparing Perfect Tenders 27th February 2024

 We've swapped a couple of events round, and I shall now be presenting Preparing Perfect Tenders online on Tuesday 27th February 2024.

This is one of our events tailored for suppliers to the public sector, and will of course talk about the new Procurement Act 2023 as well as tried and tested ways to make your bids and proposals stand out.

Full details here (the date might still say 7th March, but it WILL be on 27th Feb - we've just agreed)

Matt Hancock - acted unlawfully over contract transparency

 Second good article from Supply Management.

This time it is about the controversy over the failure of Matt Hancock (Health Secretary) to publish contract award notices within 30 days of award.

A few points about this.

Firstly, publishing late is not evidence of corruption, collusion, or "money for mates" as was suggested by some commentators.

Secondly, publishing late does raise eyebrows because if you were indulging in unethical/illegal behaviours in awarding contracts you would probably try to hide it (e.g. by publishing award notices either very late or not at all).  This is not saying there is no smoke without fire, but you can understand why people do say it.  This is why transparency has to be at the heart of public sector procurement - only if we can see what is going on can we be reassured that our taxpayer's money is being spent in the best way.  Late publishing of award notices may seem a minor issue, but it undermines public trust in government procurement.

Thirdly, there is no good reason for the late publication.  It is a relatively minor effort and should be undertaken as a matter of routine.  It is unconnected to the reasons why we may have gone for direct awards of contracts during the Covid-19 crisis (which may or may not be justified - it is a separate issue).  Personally, I suspect the hand of a well known provocateur at the heart of government who celebrated cocking a snook at the rule of law, standards and processes.  Thankfully he has gone (you know who I mean).

Finally, what is clearly wrong is that Matt Hancock authorised the use of government funds to fight a legal case it clearly had no chance of winning, and in which the government was unquestionably in the wrong.  This is an abuse of the legal system, and a waste of taxpayer's money.  The government's own legal team must have told the minister he had no chance of winning.  Instead Mr. Hancock decided to waste time and money during a health crisis.  

Whether the government was prudent or unwise in not having competitive tendering for PPE is something quite separate, and should be studied by an independent review.  It genuinely could be either case.

Procurement failure - Oxford

 Some good stuff in Supply Management.  

First, Oxford County Council reaching a settlement for £1.6m with a contractor.  The article is here.

A couple of points here, which I commonly raise with delegates.

Firstly, the cost to the council is significant and would pay the salaries of approximately 30 procurement staff.  Investing in high quality procurement staff can pay for itself - the problem is it pays for itself in cost avoidance, which is difficult to estimate.

Secondly, the council's legal team estimated chances of losing at 75% to 85%.  This may seem odd to people not used to legal cases, but the odds of winning or losing are rarely 100%.  You are never quite sure what the court will find.  (though see tomorrow's blog)  So a lot of decisions are made on a commercial basis rather than a legal basis - "we think we are right but the odds are not good so it is better to settle".

Another good article tomorrow.

Find a Tender Service (UK public sector tenders)

 The new Find a Tender Service is up and online - you can find it here.  This replaces the OJEU website for tenders with a value above the relevant threshold, i.e. the larger public sector tenders.  Note that any tender process that started on OJEU will be completed on OJEU and follow EU procurement rules.  Just a reminder - the threshold values themselves have not changed this year - the current levels apply for 2020/1.

They appear to be calling it FTS, not FATS (as I rather hoped).  It is not the easiest thing to find, but hopefully will be further up the listings on Google when it is bedded in a bit.

I have registered, and the process is fairly painless (not completely), and it IS linked to Contract Finder  - which makes a lot of sense but was not guaranteed.

Another PPN - UK Public Policy Notice PPN11/20 - Reserving Below Threshold Procurements

 One that I missed but Eddie Regan at BIP Solutions didnt...

We know something of the possible future for UK Public Procurement thanks to the Green Paper.  One element of that is being adopted from 1/1/21 - which is that procurements below the thresholds ;

● Reserve the procurement by supplier location, AND/OR

● Reserve the procurement for Small and Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs) / Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprises (VCSEs) -

Thresholds are ;

Supplies & Services - £122,976 

Works - £4,733,252

The second one of these extends the provision in the PCR 2015 for VCSEs to include SMEs and I have few problems with that.  The provisions are currently for central government only, but will surely be extended to Local Authorities who will welcome it.

The first provision though worries me.  In several ways.

Firstly, there is the effect on the Union - this is UK legislation and expressly stops the location being based on the four nations (and procurement is a devolved authority, so Scotland, Wales and particularly Northern Ireland will presumably create their own rules based on the UK ones).  But you can see the problems with Scottish contracts for Scotland, English contracts for England etc.

Secondly, the region should be based on a county.  Now Yorkshire is big.  But Rutland and the Isle of Wight are small.  I can see the sense in restricting IoW contracts to the island.  But Rutland?  Surely there is value to be had in sourcing from Leicestershire or Northamptonshire?  But a political advantage in drawing only from Rutland companies....  (I know nothing about the Rutland apart from the TV comedy programme, so I hope that people there do not think I am suggesting they are particularly likely to have problems.  It just happens to be the smallest county)

Thirdly, the geographical restriction will be loved by councils and councillors who want to spend money in their own constituencies.  There are obvious worries about Value for Money, and of course unethical buying behaviour (much in the news at the moment).

So, I remain to be convinced.

Procurex North - Manchester 24th April 2018

Tomorrow is Procurex North in Manchester at Manchester Central (which is part of the G-Mex complex).  Free to people working in the public sector.  Details here.

In the afternoon I am talking in the Winning Tenders Zone - so you can adapt your plans accordingly (listen or avoid).

There are a lot of good speakers during the day - especially in the Keynote Arena.  

Hope to see you there.

EU Procurement and Blue Passports

For once Public Procurement is big news.  The big news is that a French/Dutch company with facilities in the UK has won the contract to print the new Blue British passports over a British company with some assets in Malta.

My TLDR verdict: Delarue should have written a better bid.  (particularly if they are actually £120m more expensive has been indicated)

Carillion - a little extra input

Couple of talking points keep coming up about Carillion. 

Firstly that contracts should not be awarded to the lowest bidder - they usually are not in the Public Sector, but are awarded on the basis of Most Economically Advantageous Tender, i.e. Value for Money.  Obviously price is a factor.

Secondly, sub-contractors accuse companies like Carillion of not paying promptly (Carillion seem to have used factoring of invoices, so that should not be a problem).  Public Contracts require contractors to pay sub-contractors within 30 days.  If they do not then a) the sub-contractor can charge interest at 8% above base rate (i.e. 8.5% at the moment) b) the public sector client can arrange to pay sub-contractors directly and c) late payment may be held against them as a reason for not allowing them to bid for future contracts (in extremis).

I'm not saying these are not problems - they are - but there are existing provisions that could deal with them if applied and enforced.

Procurex North - Manchester 21st March 2017

Today is Procurex North in Manchester.  Hope to see you there.  I shall be running the Winning Tenders sessions from 12:20.  Feel free to come along and ask awkward questions.
If you can't make this Procurex South is 20th April 2017 at London Olympia.

12.20 - 12.45

 

Introduction to Public Procurement

+

12.50 - 13.15

 

Complying with the standard Selection Questionnaire (SQ)

+

13.20 - 13.45

 

Tenderers’ Common Mistakes

+

13.50 - 14.15

 

Addressing Sustainability in Your Tenders

+

Power, Corruption and Lies Part 2: DIT and Cultural Fit as an evaluation criteria

I don't want to be seen as regularly knocking the government, but another case has arisen that I think needs greater public scrutiny.

The Department for International Trade has advertised a low value tender (therefore not subject to the full weight of OJEU) that has as one of the award criteria 15% of marks for Cultural Fit - the others are Technical Competence 65% and Price 20%.

So we can see that Cultural fit is almost as important as price.  And we know that in practice the intangible element of culture can have a big impact on how a contract is actually carried out, so there is nothing wrong in principle with the idea.  But the question is of course, how are we defining Cultural Fit?  This could easily be a discriminatory question which would not be allowed ("you are from the North and don't fit into our Southern culture...")

In this case it is determined as;

Be focussed enough to stick to the task at hand and not be side-tracked in a vast and quick-moving field Be committed and hard-working, to deliver under time pressures Be enthused by the prospect of working at the frontline in such an exciting and dynamic area Be committed to the best possible outcome for the United Kingdom following its departure from the European Union

Let's look at these.

Stick to the task - fair enough but rather a given I would have thought.
Be committed - as above. 
Be enthused - as above.   Can you imagine anyone bidding for this who was not enthused by the task?  They would simply not bid.  Likewise if they were not focussed, hard-working etc. then I cannot imagine they would admit that in their tender proposal.  I also find it hard to imagine how we might score these criteria.  Particularly as part of the process is a formal presentation - which is inevitably more subjective than a written proposal, and therefore potentially more open to challenge as not treating bidders equally.

The final point however is of course the real problem.  Be committed to the best possible outcome for the UK...  this sounds suspiciously like a political Brexit loyalty clause.  And therefore it stinks.  What if I believe the best possible post Brexit is to rejoin the EU forthwith?  Am I now excluded from winning?  This is a political vetting clause, and in no way fits with the requirement for non-discrimination.

I expect to see more of these "political loyalty" tests if this one is successful.  Why are they corruption?  Because it amounts to hiring suppliers that the minister likes, and fits his/her views rather than the best one for the job.  Which is classical government corruption.  No money needs to change hands - the minister benefits politically, and the UK taxpayer is not guaranteed best value for money.

A more elegant analysis of why this is illegal comes from Dr. Sanchez-Graellis of Bristol of University on his always interesting blog (well interesting to me) www.howtocrackanut.com.

Preparing Perfect Tenders, London 15th March 2017

Off to London to deliver Preparing Perfect Tenders for BIP Solutions.  Full details here.

Course: Tendering Procurement and Negotiation skills, Dubai 4-8 December 2016

I am currently in damp old London Town, but in a couple of weeks I shall be off to Dubai to run Tendering, Procurement and Negotiation skills.

We have run this a couple of times already this year and the reception has been good - well I know I would say that but it has.

It is a bit of a "Ronseal" course - it does what it says on the tin.

Dubai is great in December - particularly the shopping.  Even if the exchange rate has not been in favour of sterling recently.  Hopefully the course content will help get over the shock.  Hope to see you there.

Preparing Perfect Tenders - Leeds, 4th November 2015

Been on holiday, and so not much notice for this one.http://www.passprocurement.co.uk/topics/preparing-perfect-tenders/

Ideal for me because it is just around the corner in Leeds.  And about one of my favourite topic - how to win tenders.

Bit late but still room for any latecomers.

Tender Evaluation and moderation

Stephen Ashcroft of AECOM, and Spend Matters have highlighted a recent case between Bristol Missing Link (BMLL) and Bristol City Council.  They have fuller details but in short BMLL are the incumbents and have challenged the award of a contract to a new supplier after a tender process.  The decision was close, and the court has suspended the implementation of the contract until a full hearing of the challenge.

It will be interesting to hear what the verdict is in the full case, but in the meantime there are a couple of points to remind ourselves about when evaluating tendering.

The case hinges on the scoring process, and the subsequent moderation of those scores.  Bristol's case appears to be hampered by the lack of evidence (either written at the time or subsequently to the court) about those processes. 

The names of most of the individual evaluators have been redacted, as I would expect (at least in initial stages of the case).  Their initial scores have been significantly changed during the moderation stage because they were initially not in compliance with the published scoring regime - these changes were significant enough to change the award of the contract.

So the key points I take from this are;
- firstly, the (external) chair of the moderating panel should have emphasised before marking began that the published scoring regime must be used.  If they (she) did then the panel did not listen. 
- second, that instruction could/should have been documented to demonstrate compliance to process
- third, those scoring sheets are a matter of public record and available under the Freedom of Information Act for precisely this sort of situation
- fourth, moderation of scores is allowed and this was stated by the court
- fifth, they were correct to moderate rather than take a simple average
- sixth, they were correct to re-score at moderation to ensure the correct scoring process was adhered to, but
- seven, they should have documented that process including the instructions to evaluators, the process followed, and the consequences.  I am surprised that when the consequence of the re-scoring was a change in the successful bidder that this was not checked, re-checked, documented and reported in detail.  That is what I would have done.
- eight, there seems to have been no report on the tender process, which should be a matter of routine but particularly so when the decision is close or is in any way subject to re-evaluation
- nine, the evaluation panel are either unwilling to give evidence or have been instructed not to give evidence to the court, which does not help their claim to be acting in an open, honest and transparent manner (regardless of whether they actually are doing so, which I expect they are).

What do I take from this?  Well as chair of the panel, do instruct your evaluators and make a note of doing so.  Document the moderation process.  When bids have to be re-scored, then ensure that all bids are scored using the same regime and all the individual evaluators are fully committed to their scores for each bid.  When bids are close, get evaluators to double check their scoring and document the responses.  Do write a tender report detailing the process, the scores, any issues, and comment on the overall result.  Do create an evidence trail, and do expect that trail to be public knowledge (though in practice most times it will not, or will not matter).  Be prepared to defend your process and your decision.

This is at the heart of the tendering process.  If bidders do not trust you to evaluate their proposals fairly and in line with what you have published, then there is no point in bidding.

Preparing Perfect Tenders - Birmingham 25th March 2015

I am taking over the Preparing Perfect Tenders course in Birmingham from my colleague Eddie, and so I have the opportunity to repeat the event I ran last month in Manchester.  Hopefully with new jokes.

 

Of course, since then the new EU procurement regulations have come into force in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.  How does this change things?  Why not come along to the Novotel and find out?  (Ideally having booked first of course)