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 been 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.
this is a very long rant about how time-consuming a process is…. would not surprise me if someone posted a rant about not having the resources to read such a long rant….
Thanks for the comment Tibor, you are right – it was a rant and I acknowledged this in the last paragraph; however it gives clues to what can be done to improve the tendering process:
To encourage smaller organisations less emphasis on producing policies and perhaps more questions about ‘how do you…’ – these also give a clue as to what happens rather than what the policy says should happen.
Don’t be fooled by glossy corporate policies that have been well written by a ‘policy writer’ who is separated from the reality of service delivery.
Give some thought as to the relevance of the questions that you are asking – don’t just follow the latest fads – for example the questions on bribery and corruption. Don’t just ask the same questions for all tenders – for example the questions on Arboriculture & Forestry Advisory Group guides.
Have some consideration for the potential providers in terms of the number of questions that you ask at each stage – make them proportionate.
Give a guide to the length of answers that you are looking for, either in terms of number of words or sides of A4, or similar.
Have a clear evaluation model that is non-discriminatory and clear to the panel undertaking the evaluation. And provide the potential providers with the weightings of each element of the bid so that they know where to put the emphasis.
Think about accessibility for your potential suppliers – perhaps have a go at using the procurement portal that you employ.
Oh, I’ve done it again – another long rant!