Tendering for contracts in the public sector

I have been doing some work recently, putting together tender bids, for a client, mainly in restricted procedures and so completing PQQs in the first instance.  These have been for contracts with local authorities and housing associations.  I have been struck by just how different the approaches can be, and I have reflected on conversations with associates who have told me that they don’t bid for work through tenders because it’s just too much work – I can understand what they say.

I was tempted to write a very comprehensive 10 page response for each answer but didn’t have the time!

For tenders in this area there are usually a series of mandatory questions and discretionary questions all about the standing of the company and any breaches of health and safety, bankruptcy, convictions and so on.  Then we get to the company accounts.  Now the company I have been doing work for uses the option within the Companies Act for smaller companies not to have their accounts audited.  It seems that many procurement professionals are unaware of this provision and the tick boxes don’t allow for it; so we are left having to tick the box saying that we can provide cashflow accounts for the last year, or that we don’t have audited accounts and have to offer an explanation – I’m not sure how that fits in with the tender evaluation model.

Some organisations ask a few very pertinent questions – the work I have bene doing has been to do with cleaning contracts and so questions on health and safety assessments, training and management seem fair enough, as do questions on lone working and managing remote workers.  I’m a little less clear on why policies on bribery and corruption, data security and business continuity are relevant to cleaning contractors – well I do see how they might be relevant but they do seem a little over the top, especially when asked to the exclusion of more relevant questions.  One PQQ wanted to know all about compliance with Arboriculture & Forestry Advisory Group guides (it was in a rural setting but the guides cover things like maintaining chainsaws, agricultural equipments and tree climbing operations!) but did not ask about equality and diversity at all.

Another PQQ asked 18 very pertinent questions that examined a whole variety of areas such as training, management, performance monitoring, managing TUPE transfers, avoiding cross contamination, dealing with customer complaints and a host of other subjects.  What they didn’t do was limit the length of each answer (and this is quite common); this leaves bidders feeling it necessary to write chapter and verse on each question so as to ‘outdo’ the competition.  I know that a concise answer should be given, but I also know that others will write comprehensive answers.  What I don’t know is whether the evaluation panel will be looking for succinct answers or those that show breadth of knowledge.  On this PQQ I contacted the organisation inviting the bids and asked whether there was a preferred length of response – perhaps a few hundred words, or a few sides of A4 – I was told that as the PQQ did not specify a length there was no limit – I was tempted to write a very comprehensive 10 page response for each answer but didn’t have the time!

I think that the use of comprehensive PQQs and ITT questions will preclude many of the smaller businesses who are able offer a fine service but don’t have the resources to respond

There are a host of different policies asked for in PQQs.  Whilst every organisation should address issues such as health and safety, data security, avoiding bribery and corruption, equality and diversity and so on and so on these are not always recorded in a tome of policies and procedures – smaller companies don’t have the time to draft, refine and review.  Larger companies need to set such things in stone because there is a vast dispersed workforce and uniformity is required.  When it comes to bidding, they have a definite advantage in being able to deliver highly polished policies.  And, as my client bids for more tenders so will he have!  But it does put off potential bidders, who are able to deliver excellent services but don’t have the written policies behind them.

Another issue is on-line applications.  It seems that there are a variety of on-line procurement websites.  Some regions have got together and operate collectively – for example www.supplyingthesouthwest.org.uk is an excellent site – but others have their own dedicated sites.  Some send notifications when tenders with key words that you have selected come up but others do not.  A large unitary authority on-line site I came across doesn’t – when I asked about the release date for a deferred contract I was told I would need to check the site periodically because there was no notification system – as if I have nothing else to do!  This was a site operated by an external service provider whose strapline is ‘supply management excellence’; I’ll be the judge of that!

In my own main area of work, social housing consultancy, I have long given up trying to register on such on-line sites.  A while back my hard copy promotional literature to one local authority was returned with a polite note saying that they did not receive unsolicited promotional material and I would have to register with their third party managed on-line register of potential suppliers.  I contacted the company and was told that there would be a fee of several hundred pounds a year, this was based on my organisation size.  I then started to fill out the registration form only to find that there was no category of supplier that was remotely anything like I was offering.  I went back to the local authority to explain but was told I HAD to register on-line…I gave up!

So what do I draw from this rant?  Well I think that the use of comprehensive PQQs and ITT questions will preclude many of the smaller businesses who are able offer a fine service but don’t have the resources to respond.  I think that there would be benefit in having agreement on more of the policies to be required to be in place.  I think that there would be benefit in having a smaller number of on-line procurement sites with greater uniformity in how they work and I think someone needs to take a lead.  unfortunately I think nothing will change.

Affordable Rents and local authority Tenancy Strategies – Chicken and Egg?

Housing Associations, now known as Private Registered Providers, or Registered Providers, or RPs – you know, the old RSLs – that wish to develop new homes in the future have been required to include in their bids to the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) their funding models, which include the adoption of ‘Affordable Rents’.  These are rents that have been announced as ‘up to 80% of market rent’ and which will relate to tenancies for limited periods, no less than two years.

No doubt when properties offered on higher rents with less security stand empty the government will declare that they have solved the need for affordable/Affordable housing.

Having put in their bids the RPs are now faced with developing their policies to implement the new tenancy formats.  The TSA says in its Decision Statement Number 5 ‘Revision to the Tenancy Standard: Affordable Rent’ (para 11)  that RPs will want to discuss their approach with their local authority partners.  These should prove to be interesting conversations for several reasons.

Local authorities are preparing themselves for the up-coming Localism Bill which, at para 131, includes an obligation on local authorities to develop a ‘Tenancy Strategy’ that shall set out the matters that RPs are to have regard to in formulating policies relating to:

(a) the kinds of tenancies they grant,

(b) the circumstances in which they will grant a tenancy of a particular kind,

(c) where they grant tenancies for a term certain, the lengths of the terms, and

(d) the circumstances in which they will grant a further tenancy on the coming to an end of an existing tenancy.

They’ll be required to have this in place within 12 months of the passsing of the Localism Bill.  Given that RPs will have adopted their policies in readiness for the implementation of Affordable Rents, and given that their new development proposals are financially predicated upon the policies they adopt, local authorities will be in a very difficult position to influence the RPs’ policies if they don’t take their opportunities now.

A second point is that with even LSVT organisations now spreading their wings, and with the formation of group structures that take RP developers into the league of regional providers, there will be queues of RP representatives lining up to see their list of local authority contacts.

The RPs will have made their funding bids based on a model of Affordable Rents that underpin their development programmes and so it will be difficult, even now, to see how local authorities can be influential.

Many may have assumed that Affordable Rents will be applied to new build deveopments only, however the Affordable Rent model can be equally applied to relet properties and it is believed that a significant number of bidders may have included conversion of social rents to Affordable Rents.  This could provide some interesting comparisons.  For example two properties in the same street may be offered with property ‘A’ being lower rent and with long term security of tenure, and property ‘B’ being more expensive and with a limited tenancy period.  Surely RPs won’t do that?  From what I hear RPs are taking the view that their Affordable Rents policies are commercially sensitive prior to publication and so it seems quite possible that this very situation could arise if different RPs have properties in the same areas.

I think it is for RPs to sort this out for themselves.

Whilst we have long talked about the need for more affordable housing we should make it clear that we mean affordable housing not Affordable Rents.  There seems to be a very real danger that existing properties converted to Affordable Rent properties will become the new ‘hard to let’ properties of the future.  No doubt when properties offered on higher rents with less security stand empty the government will declare that they have solved the need for Affordable housing.

What should be done to avoid the potential problems?  Well a common agreement about how Affordable Rents will be applied to existing properties would be a good start.  This won’t be easy though, as most RPs now operate across a wide number of local authority areas which will have their own demands and their own policital view on how the needs should be met.

Of course, the HCA might come forward to assist: although Affordable Rents were put forward as being up to 80%, and although the TSA’s Decision Instrument (detailed earlier) says:  “We do not intend to prescribe the tenancy which providers should offer..” (para 11), and goes on to confirm “PRPs are independent social landlords and it is for them to decide how to manage their stock within the constraints of the regulatory framework.” (also para 11) it was reported in Inside Housing (24.06.2011 page 4) that the HCA has told Cambridge Council that it must charge tenants of new homes 80% of market rents.  So perhaps the HCA will direct RPs on their Affordable Rents policies for the common good – I don’t think so.  I think it is for RPs to sort this out for themselves.

Is this the way to develop housing policy?

On 7th April Grant Shapps announced Tenant Cashback; there was the press release with footnotes saying that three housing associations thought it was a good idea and they would be happy to pilot the proposed scheme.

The media got exited, Mr Shapps was interviewed and largely repeats the press release and commentators give their views.

But if you try to find any details behind the proposals there aren’t any! The idea has been thrown into the arena for people to pull and push about, to put it to the test and to expend time, effort and money to see if it is a practical idea.

Surely there should be a responsibility on government to provide a little more detail

Of course nobody wants to say that tenant choice is a bad idea, and few want to offend the Minister, so most formal responses are prefixed with ‘We are very much in favour of tenant choice and welcome the proposal…but we need to look at what the difficulties may be’ or words to that effect (see the Chartered Institute of Housing and National Housing Federation responses).

Surely there should be a responsibility on government to provide a little more detail when making proposals and at least be able to demonstrate that the proposals have been evaluated to some degree before being announced.

There has been comment that tenants will be able to claim up to a thousand pounds a year for repairs that they do themselves, or commission themselves, but this was not in the press release (and I can find no other formal information about the proposals); the press release said that social landlords currently spend a thousand pounds a year in repairs per household – it didn’t say this was how much each household would be allowed. But even this figure has been disputed by Abi Davis, from the CIH who, speaking on BBC Radio 4′s You and Yours programme, said  the figure is more like five to six hundred pounds and HQN, who were reported on the Inside Housing website as saying that on average homes have three response repairs a year valued at one hundred pounds each.  I give this as just one example of how the nature of the announcement causes confusion and uncertainty that wastes time and money when it can least be afforded.

This isn’t a blog entry about the Tenant Cashback scheme itself, that will follow when I too have spent time and energy developing my own response to it, but this is about how responsible government should develop policy.

New trends in social housing?

As I read the social housing press I begin to feel that I’ve been here before.

Recently there was discussion of new measures to introduce rigour into the process prior to eviction; there was discussion about ensuring that tenants were actually seen before enforcing an eviction.  When I worked as a housing officer we were required to thoroughly research our arrears cases before serving notice, let alone enforce eviction!  I can recall being made to feel very inadequate because although I knew that a household had children I didn’t have their ages readily to hand when asking for agreement to serving a notice on a case of increasing arrears.

A recent question asked ‘can we ask tenants to pay their first week’s rent at signup?’ Again, it used to be required practice to have the first fortnight’s rent paid up front and only in exceptional cases to allow just one week’s rent to be paid. Certainly if the first week’s rent couldn’t be paid the keys wouldn’t be handed over.

I worry that many of the good practices of yesteryear have been forgotten and need to be re-learnt to tackle today’s housing management issues.

Parent Company Guarantees and Performance Bonds

When letting large contracts there is often the need to consider the client’s interests in case there are performance or liquidity problems with the appointed contractor.  Two commonly used tools to protect this interest are the Parent Company Guarantee (PCG) (or Parent Company Indemnity as it is sometimes known) and the Performance Bond (PB).  So what are the differences between the two and which is most appropriate in any given situation?

Lets look at the two options and then compare and contrast them.

Parent Company Guarantee

A PCG is an undertaking given by the parent company where the Contractor is a subsidiary of a larger company.  The parent company undertakes to guarantee the due and proper performance of the contract generally – this means that if the Contractor fails to perform the contract in any respect the parent company can be held responsible as well as the Contractor (its subsidiary).

If the subsidiary should cease trading the parent will indemnify the Client from all losses and damage resulting from the non-performance or improper performance of the Contractor’s obligations.

If the parent company and Contractor go into liquidation at the same time the Client can be left without any recourse to be compensated.

The PCG provides the Client with a second party to hold responsible if the Contractor should fail to perform its obligations.

Performance Bond

A PB is an insurance taken out by the Contractor, usually at the Client’s expense.  This introduces a third party who is external to both the Client and the Contractor.  The Bond assures the Client that if the Contractor should fail to perform the duties under the contract the Client may recover losses from the Bond provider (usually an insurance company or bank).  Bonds are usually limited in value and are typically for 10% of the contract value.

It should be noted that there are two forms of PBs, the usual ‘adjudication bond’ where the Client has to prove the default of the Contractor, and a less common, and potentially problematic (for the Contractor) ‘on demand bond’. In an ‘on demand bond’ the client is not required to prove a default on the part of the Contractor, it is simply necessary to call in the bond.

Compare and Contrast

Firstly, a PB is a form of insurance and is provided by an external third party.  The fee for the bond is usually charged to the Client and is an immediate contributor to the cost of the contract.  A PCG is provided by the Contractor’s parent company and there is no corresponding charge to the Client unless the Contractor should choose to introduce an administration fee (but if he is alone in doing so it will of course affect his competitiveness).  In the case of a PB the Client needs to consider carefully whether the benefits of the Bond outweigh the costs involved.  This will be dependent on the level of cover, but also the nature of the works specified, an assessment of the Contractor and a number of other matters such as the Client’s appetite for risk!

The extent of the protection will differ between a PB and a PCG.  In the former, as has been said, the cover is limited in the bond agreement.  The level of cover may not be enough to cover the cost of delays due to appointing a replacement contractor and multiple problems can quickly exhaust the level of cover provided.  Often in projects there is more than just the costs to be considered, there is also reputation and goodwill.  A PCG will provide the Client with the same level of cover as if the Contractor himself was being held responsible.  Typically the Contractor will go into liquidation – at that stage the parent company will be responsible as though he were the original contractor (provided he hasn’t also gone into liquidation – and that is a real possibility).

This last point is particularly important.  If the parent company and Contractor go into liquidation at the same time the Client can be left without any recourse to be compensated.  It is for this reason that clients often seek both a PCG and a PB.  If there is no charge for a PCG and all bidders are required to provide a PB then the Client gets maximum cover for no additional cost.

The final difference is the period of liability under the two arrangements.  A PB will usually last throughout the contract period and for a limited time after practical completion as allowed in the contract; a PCG will place the parent company in the same position as the Contractor and this will usually mean that the parent company remains responsible for 12 years following practical completion.

Practical issues

During periods of business uncertainty the availability of bonds to smaller businesses may reduce (or the cost may increase to reflect uncertain times).  Clients should therefore think carefully about the need for bonds.

Some parent companies have a policy of not providing PCG and Clients need to consider how to handle such situations carefully.

As has been discussed above, ‘on demand’ PBs have a significant advantage to Clients and may be considered quite dangerous for Contractors.

If the Client makes it necessary for bidders for work to include a PCG, or a PB where there is no parent company, the playing field will not be level so far as costs are concerned.

Clients also need to consider that not all bidders will have parent companies and how they will safegurd the contract in these circumstances – here a PB may seem appropriate but consider how you balance this against those from whom you ask for a PCG.

Will s122 of the Housing and Regeration Act 2008 hinder resident involvement?

Following the passing of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 the old ‘Schedule 1′ restrictions on non-contractual payments to staff and board members were lifted, however S122 of the HRA 2008 introduced new restrictions on the ‘making of gifts, and the payment of dividends and bonuses by a non-profit registered provider’ to members (ie shareholders), or former members, of the registered provider; members of the family of members or former members, and a company that has a director in either of these two groups.

Some representative groups are considering the position with respect to tenant board members and their travelling and other out of pocket expenses but the impact could be far greater.

Seems reasonable – until you consider the position regarding tenants who are shareholders who may receive any non contractual payment in regards to their involvement with the registered provider; payments such as expenses, invitations to celebratory functions (such as a Christmas dinner, or summer barbeque) and other compensation payments that are not contractual.

This is not an area where there is any de-minimus or discretion. A payment that contravenes this prohibition may be reclaimed by the landlord and the regulator may instruct the landlord to make the recovery.

Many registered providers have encouraged their residents to take up a shareholding so as to improve accountability of the landlord and make residents feel more included.

The position is worsened by the fact that the prohibition affects both current and former members of the RP – so members cannot resign and get around the issue.

Some representative groups are considering the position with respect to tenant board members and their travelling and other out of pocket expenses but the impact could be far greater.

Residents play a leading role in selecting new grounds maintenance contractors

When Dorset based Signpost Housing Association needed to tender its grounds maintenance service saving money was not its only consideration; getting a standard of service that met residents’ needs was also of great importance.  Working with specialist social housing consultant Peter Bird from Primary Business Support the association formed a project working group from staff and residents who were already members of the Association’s Planned and Responsive Repairs Review group (PARRR).

The contracts were let at the higher standard, which, following the tendering exercise, could be afforded within existing budgets

The working group comprised three members of staff and 18 residents and its first task was to agree the tender specification.  Working with a draft the group had real and meaningful input and introduced a number of new elements as well as adjusting the specification to meet their own needs.  There was a desire to improve the standard of specification and the group identified two key areas where it wanted to see improvements.  Grass cutting had long been an area where improvement was wanted, in particular those who lived in communal schemes wanted to see the grass cuttings collected up and taken away.  The group also wanted to see the maintenance of hedges improved.  It wasn’t clear whether improved services were affordable and so the group decided on a three standard specification where the standards on grass cutting and hedge maintenance varied between a reduced, middle and enhanced standard.

Having established the standard the group delegated responsibility for tendering to a sub-group that comprised three staff and six residents.  Because of the size of the contract – the Association has stock in Dorset, Devon and Somerset – the tendering had to be undertaken through the EU tendering route as a ‘Part B’ service and the work was split into three lots each covering different geographic areas.  The restricted tendering procedure was followed which meant that a pre-qualification questionnaire (PQQ) was sent out to potential suppliers.  The sub-group agreed the content of the PQQ including the project specific questions to be included and it also agreed the PQQ evaluation model.  The group went on to undertake the PQQ evaluation and decide which potential providers to invite to bid at the Invitation to Tender (ITT) stage.

Again, the working group agreed elements of the ITT requirement, including the subject areas for method statements that would be used to evaluate the tenders under the ‘most economically advantageous tender’ (MEAT) model employed and also, again, the evaluation model to be used.   The method statements decided by the group covered working methods, staff training, customer service and adding value to the contract.

The procurement process was complicated because the grounds maintenance service is recharged to many residents under variable service charge arrangements.  Alongside the tendering arrangements around 4000 residents were also consulted under a mixture of S20 Consultation for variable charge payers and general consultation with other residents who benefited from the service.  The working group also considered the representations made by residents under these consultation arrangements.

Having completed the tender stage the working group evaluated the tenders for the three contract areas and, based on the evaluation model, selected the preferred suppliers for each contract based on price but also the content of the method statements, and references.

The contracts were let at the higher standard, which, following the tendering exercise, could be afforded within existing budgets.  Residents will see grass maintained at a shorter standard than previously and those in communal schemes will have grass cut using box mowers and clippings will be taken off site for disposal.  Hedge cutting will also be provided at an enhanced standard.

The residents involved have found the process stimulating and enjoyable.  John Pearson, a resident from Winterbourne Whitechurch, said ‘I have found the whole process interesting and I feel that the residents have had a very real role to play in determining the standards to be agreed and the selection of the best contractors for the work.’

Residents continue to be involved and attend joint client/contractor meetings monitoring the delivery of the service in the three contract areas.

Further details about the process can be obtained from Julie-Ann Foster, Divisional Manager for Signpost Housing Association, on 01258 484829 or from Peter Bird, at Primary Business Support, on 01264 324403.

A full case study that includes greater detail and learning points from the project is also available from Peter.

Gender Identity and the Tenant Services Authority’s Regulatory Framework

Going through the TSA’s new Regulatory Framework for Social Housing in England from April 2010 I have come across the requirement for providers to ‘demonstrate how they have taken into account the needs of tenants across the seven equality strands’.  The seven equality strands are race, disability, sexual orientation, age, gender, religion or belief, and gender identity.

I’d be interested to hear from others how they manage to ensure that their services take into account the needs of people across this particular aspect of the seven equality strands in housing or any other service area.

I’m genuinely in favour of equality for all but there do seem to be some practical difficulties in being able to demonstrate having taken some of these aspects into account. Before these factors can be ‘taken into account’ I would think that the landlord needs to identify the numbers, location and needs of the various groups.  I must confess I was not totally clear on the difference between ‘gender’ and ‘gender identity’ and so I turned to Wikipedia.  It told me that gender identity is:

the gender(s), or lack thereof, a person self-identifies as. It is not necessarily based on biological fact, either real or perceived, nor is it always based on sexual orientation. The gender identities one may choose from include: male, female, both, somewhere in between (“third gender”), or neither.

For some time registered providers have had difficulties in obtaining a high rate of return when asking tenants about sexual orientation.  I’m not sure how they will obtain information about such personal, and technical, issues as the Gender Vs Gender Identity of tenants.  I understand from other googling that gender identity seems to be discussed in terms of transgender situations but again many people who have gone through the process of changing gender, or who are in the process of changing gender, will presumably want to keep their situation private.  I can also see great difficulties in getting tenants to understand the differences between ‘gender’ and ‘gender identity’.

I’d be interested to hear from others how they manage to ensure that their services take into account the needs of people across this particular aspect of the seven equality strands in housing or any other service area.

Professional networking Vs Social networking on-line

There seems to have been a lot of discussion recently about the role of professional networking and its link to social networking.

I have read a lot of discussion, in particular, about linking twitter to LinkedIn.  Much of what I see on twitter is general chit chat, views on TV programmes, and other such things, however amongst this is a lot of more work based discussion, people giving each other help and advice and building a professional image.

Now I’m not a PR specialist but there do seem to be some obvious dangers in mixing business with pleasure – so to speak.  However, I don’t think that there are hard and fast rules and the degree of mixing your personal remarks with your business comments may depend on what you do for a living.  Giving a little detail of your background may enable your work contacts to get a more rounded impression of you.  If you are a keen golfer it may be helpful to give a little hint (but don’t bore the ‘audience’!)  and if you’re a member of the National Trust similarly.  I wouldn’t rave too much about the Aston Martin that you have just put a deposit on or the problems that you are having finding cleaning staff for your home.  What you say may depend on your role – if you are a high-flying financial executive you may want to discuss different things than if you are an artist or a dentist.

There are no rights and wrongs but there are some strategies that will be more effective than others.

It is possible to link twitter and LinkedIn so that your tweets appear in your current activity box in LinkedIn and the reverse is true too – what you say in your current activity goes through to twitter.  An important point to bear in mind is that in LinkedIn you can type much more than the 140 characters allowed in twitter and also the new option in LinkedIn to add a hyperlink will not carry through to twitter.

You are able to control what passes from twitter to LinkedIn.  When you set up the link in LinkedIn you can check a box to only pick up from twitter your tweets that have a #in (or #li) flag.  This means you can still have your social chatter in twitter but add the #in flag when you want the tweet to get through to LinkedIn.  You can also get code from twitter to add to your website.  You’ll find this under Goodies at the bottom of the twitter page, if you then select ‘widgets’/'My website’ and then take the search option you can specify which tweets get through and you can put your own twitter id and ‘#in’ in the search query box so that the same tweets go through to LinkedIn and your website (if you want to get really complicated you could use a different flag, for example ‘#web’, to send these tweets through to your website and those with #in’ to LinkedIn!).

You need to think carefully about what impression you want to give in each of your on-line venues and develop a strategy to deliver.  There are no rights and wrongs but there are some strategies that will be more effective than others.

Managing Budgets and Improving Services by Tendering

As the financial squeeze begins to take hold this may be just the right time to consider tendering services.

It surprises me how often people stick with an existing supplier, rolling over contracts, undertaking value for money assessments and generally finding reason not to re-tender services convinced that what they have is the best service possible.

If you are looking to make financial savings now might be the time to consider re-tendering some of your existing contracts.

There are good reasons to re-tender periodically. Number one is that as you are feeling the pinch so are potential suppliers – they are more likely to give better prices or find innovative ways to add value in these circumstances; number two is that as technology moves on so do opportunities for suppliers to make their offerings more attractive, for example, through cost savings brought about by new machinery, equipment and systems.

Another reason is that companies are constantly adjusting to ever changing circumstances; companies are merging and changing so that the offer that they made you two years ago when you asked them for a price may be very out of date to what they can offer today.

Re-tendering also gives you an opportunity to revise the specifications that you currently use to manage your externally supplied services.  These can usually benefit from being brought up to date in terms of user needs, technological advances and legal requirements.  We have undertake numerous tendering exercises and have good experiences working with project teams that comprise staff, residents and external consultants to ensure that the needs of the various stakeholders are recognised and addressed.

People often avoid tendering because they have a comfortable working relationship with current providers: ‘they know what we want and we know how to handle them’.  This can be a good thing but it can also be limiting – when new suppliers are appointed they are usually full of enthusiasm to satisfy you, make you a reference site, go the extra mile.  When the contract has been running for some time the enthusiasm can fall off and ‘what gets measured gets done’.

This is not to say that long term contractual arrangements cannot remain good but a good supplier has little to fear from a bit of healthy competition so long as the competitive process is fairly managed.

If you are looking to make financial savings now might be the time to consider re-tendering some of your existing contracts.