Agile Procurement - Delivering Results - Press Releases
11 views
Skip to first unread message
doug forbes
Jun 3, 2009, 5:29:52 AM6/3/09
to Agile Procurement
Agile Procurement – Delivering Results
This is a series of two articles
• The first – What do you prefer – Sclerotic or Agile Procurement? Not
for release before Fri 5nd June;
• The second – Delivering Agile Procurement – Making public
procurement faster, fairer, local, compliant and robust. Not for
Release before Fri 12th June.
What do you prefer - Sclerotic or Agile Procurement?
You may remember the award winning series of British Heart Foundation
adverts which showed cholesterol blocked arteries and how slow and
sluggish they are. In many people’s views, that’s just like much of
the public procurement which is being conducted currently. And we know
what happens if you ignore sclerosis, it kills you. Sclerotic Public
procurement is in danger of killing the beast for a range of reasons
and practice needs to be urgently reformed. This is the first of a
series of 2 articles which highlight the many concerns about the
interpretation of the EU Procurement Directives and point the way to
solutions which have been ignored.
Very few procurers, firms and contractors including NCVO and CBI are
entirely happy with the state of public procurement. Even procurers in
Councils are reporting fleet acquisition exercises taking two years
with excessive cost being incurred in the short term to keep an aging
fleet on the road. Then only to find there is no finance available for
the leasing deal. So the contract was awarded to an existing supplier.
Facilities management contracts are also taking two years and being
frustrated as the firms go into liquidation. This is not a recipe for
success at any level, to service users, taxpayers and suppliers.
Frameworks are increasingly being mooted as the way forward, but there
is evidence that in areas such as printer toners and consumables, the
recent exchange rate rises have made previous frameworks unsustainable
and they are being retendered. We are also hearing that cash strapped
builders are offering market sensitive deals but being blocked as they
are not on frameworks. So how is the public sector able to take
advantage of the downturn? Within the NHS, PCTs are being charged with
decentralised procurement due to the inflexibilities of large scale
national contracts. We have recognised that Stalinist command and
control policies do not work as they favour the producer rather than
service user.
There are now so many frameworks in operation that even these are like
a ‘pick and mix’ operation with inconsistencies and differing terms.
So just look at mobile phones where there are five network owning
operators yet countless frameworks involving mobile telephony. In many
frameworks, there is an unseen rebate which the contractor pays to the
framework operator. These can vary and affect the choice of which
frameworks to use, particularly if your agency gets a cut of the fees.
In todays’ environment, are these rebates likely to distort
competition? Of course they are. Surely the choice of framework has to
be competitively neutral as is the method of evaluation.
Multiple contractors are being asked to bid from multiple frameworks
for the same contract. The legal minimum is 3 yet over 50 can be
asked to tender. The term ‘sufficient competition’ seems to have been
substituted by ‘ saturated competition’.
A recent Joseph Rowntree Foundation report recommended higher
thresholds as these are some £90000 for Civil Service and NHS Tenders.
With 30 bidders for open tenders, each costing £1000 to prepare a bid,
for a job which will make £10,000 profit, its costing the private
sector collectively £30,000 for one firm to make £10,000. That is the
economics of the madhouse. You’d do better at the bookies.
The recent Glover Report on SME procurement made the usual
recommendations, which we have seen for the last 15 years, of more
training, more localisation and flexibility and SME encouragement.
Indeed, other reports have said that the bulk of innovation comes from
SMEs. Yet the movement towards frameworks is having an adverse affect
and cutting out SMEs in favour of larger and fewer suppliers in order
to reduce procurement administration costs. This is the tail wagging
the dog. It is resulting in slow and sclerotic procurement. Worse than
that, it is killing off SMEs.
So this all leads to skill shortages amongst procurement officers at a
time when the recession is leading to more firms moving into the
public sector space. Few procurements ever run to time and costs are
increasing. In the Legal Aid space, watch out for massive eAuctions
for legal services. This will cause a backlash from some of the most
vocal and persuasive members of the community, the legal profession.
The ultimate risk is a breakdown of parts of the Justice system as
solicitors take the ball away. With jails already bursting, it would
lead to more untried people on the street and its attendant public
risk.
So what can we do – withdraw from Europe or look for innovation and
like the French, use the flexibilities in the system to devise better
ways of dealing with EU rules. Surely we need to use the rules to
devise methods which will relieve the pressure and move towards Agile
Procurement by using Dynamic Procurement systems.
Agile is fitter, faster, hates sclerotic tendencies, is flexible,
works locally and ensures probity, health and safety, social,
environmental and Competition Act compliance.
The next article will describe how we can use innovation to overcome
these obstacles with Agile Procurement.
Notes For Editors
Author;
Doug Forbes,
Director, Institute of Commissioning Professionals,
Director, Barony Consulting Group Limited.
88 Windsor Court, Chase Side, London N14 5HS
Doug....@baronyconsulting.com
The IoCP is a member owned not for profit with the goal of acting as
the voice of commissioners and improving commissioning standards.
Barony is a management consultancy whose strapline is ‘Performance
through Innovation’
Article 2 – Not for release before 12th June
Delivering Agile Procurement – Making public procurement faster,
fairer, local, compliant and robust
Lets look at what we mean by Agile Procurement and how it would work.
Agile is fitter, faster, hates sclerotic tendencies, is flexible,
works locally and ensures probity, health and safety, social,
environmental and Competition Act compliance.
You will say that you are governed by the timescales for competition,
the need to be competitively neutral, the aggregation rules and
tendering limits. That is correct and we now translate these into
individual tendering exercises and use frameworks. Yet we are missing
a trick to use the regulations to our advantage.
The EU Procurement Directive 2004/1 allows for the use of a Dynamic
Procurement System which, if developed properly, will provide the
mechanism to deliver Agile Procurement. It does not appear to be an
option in the Glover report and to our knowledge, software which can
deliver it has never been commissioned. The outcome is that Dynamic
Procurement Systems are not in general use. So government and local
government, SMEs and Third Sector are not gaining the advantages from
their use. The challenge is to design a Dynamic Procurement System to
meet the Agile requirements.
For your information, we have outline a number of benefits of a well
constructed DPS below.
What is a Dynamic Procurement System?
It is a wholly electronic system which is open to participants at any
time who meet the quality and price criteria.
Will it help SMEs?
Yes as frameworks lead to SME lockout for the firms who are not
included. Also SMEs inevitably have capacity issues and a well
constructed DPS will allow firms to leave and join, based upon
qualifications on a local basis.
Will it lower costs for Government?
Yes by engaging with SMEs directly and cutting out the framework
operator. Costs will be lower and communications faster.
Will they supplement Frameworks?
Yes and bring more decentralisation and localisation into
marketplaces.
Will they help to procure Innovation?
As innovation is focused in SMEs, then they will encourage SMEs to
qualify for contracts, deliver innovation and cut down lead times.
This will be more agile.
Will they help EU Procurement compliance?
Yes through improved transparency and electronic selection providing
audit trails. Joseph Rowntree Foundation has criticised the current EU
procurement limits as too low. The low thresholds have also led to a
skills shortage in procurement and commissioning. Correctly designed,
here is the way forward through the EU rules, which will help
alleviate skills shortages and deliver government programmes faster.
Of course, there may be some self serving interests which want to
foster skills shortages.
Will they help the Construction Sector?
Discussions with Constructing for Excellence indicated problems with
Frameworks. For instance, smaller firms which have capacity and are
willing to price aggressively in the current market are being locked
out due to frameworks.
Are they Sustainable?
They can be designed to suit and include environmental, social and
Competition Act Compliance tests.
Do the current eProcurement Offerings represent a Dynamic Procurement
System?
To quote -“Not as I understand them Scottie”.
The question of why Dynamic Procurement Systems are not being used may
shed some light on current practice and perhaps attitudes to the EU.
However, DPS is EU Compliant and does not seem to have been considered
as a solution to a number of policy issues. Rather than having
sclerotic public procurement, we should move to Agile Public
Procurement.
The next step surely is for government to agree to promote the new
thinking of Agile Procurement and use Dynamic Procurement Systems to
deliver it on the ground.
We also ask supporters to register on the Google Groups site – Agile
Procurement
and make their views known. In addition, anyone can also comment on
the proposals on the Institute of Commissioning website forum, www.iocp.co.uk.
We will then take this to ministers for their consideration.
Notes For Editors
Author;
Doug Forbes,
Director, Institute of Commissioning Professionals,
Director, Barony Consulting Group Limited.
88 Windsor Court, Chase Side, London N14 5HS
Doug....@baronyconsulting.com
This is a series of two articles
• The first – What do you prefer – Sclerotic or Agile Procurement? Not
for release before Fri 5nd June;
• The second – Delivering Agile Procurement – Making public
procurement faster, fairer, local, compliant and robust. Not for
Release before Fri 12th June.
What do you prefer - Sclerotic or Agile Procurement?
You may remember the award winning series of British Heart Foundation
adverts which showed cholesterol blocked arteries and how slow and
sluggish they are. In many people’s views, that’s just like much of
the public procurement which is being conducted currently. And we know
what happens if you ignore sclerosis, it kills you. Sclerotic Public
procurement is in danger of killing the beast for a range of reasons
and practice needs to be urgently reformed. This is the first of a
series of 2 articles which highlight the many concerns about the
interpretation of the EU Procurement Directives and point the way to
solutions which have been ignored.
Very few procurers, firms and contractors including NCVO and CBI are
entirely happy with the state of public procurement. Even procurers in
Councils are reporting fleet acquisition exercises taking two years
with excessive cost being incurred in the short term to keep an aging
fleet on the road. Then only to find there is no finance available for
the leasing deal. So the contract was awarded to an existing supplier.
Facilities management contracts are also taking two years and being
frustrated as the firms go into liquidation. This is not a recipe for
success at any level, to service users, taxpayers and suppliers.
Frameworks are increasingly being mooted as the way forward, but there
is evidence that in areas such as printer toners and consumables, the
recent exchange rate rises have made previous frameworks unsustainable
and they are being retendered. We are also hearing that cash strapped
builders are offering market sensitive deals but being blocked as they
are not on frameworks. So how is the public sector able to take
advantage of the downturn? Within the NHS, PCTs are being charged with
decentralised procurement due to the inflexibilities of large scale
national contracts. We have recognised that Stalinist command and
control policies do not work as they favour the producer rather than
service user.
There are now so many frameworks in operation that even these are like
a ‘pick and mix’ operation with inconsistencies and differing terms.
So just look at mobile phones where there are five network owning
operators yet countless frameworks involving mobile telephony. In many
frameworks, there is an unseen rebate which the contractor pays to the
framework operator. These can vary and affect the choice of which
frameworks to use, particularly if your agency gets a cut of the fees.
In todays’ environment, are these rebates likely to distort
competition? Of course they are. Surely the choice of framework has to
be competitively neutral as is the method of evaluation.
Multiple contractors are being asked to bid from multiple frameworks
for the same contract. The legal minimum is 3 yet over 50 can be
asked to tender. The term ‘sufficient competition’ seems to have been
substituted by ‘ saturated competition’.
A recent Joseph Rowntree Foundation report recommended higher
thresholds as these are some £90000 for Civil Service and NHS Tenders.
With 30 bidders for open tenders, each costing £1000 to prepare a bid,
for a job which will make £10,000 profit, its costing the private
sector collectively £30,000 for one firm to make £10,000. That is the
economics of the madhouse. You’d do better at the bookies.
The recent Glover Report on SME procurement made the usual
recommendations, which we have seen for the last 15 years, of more
training, more localisation and flexibility and SME encouragement.
Indeed, other reports have said that the bulk of innovation comes from
SMEs. Yet the movement towards frameworks is having an adverse affect
and cutting out SMEs in favour of larger and fewer suppliers in order
to reduce procurement administration costs. This is the tail wagging
the dog. It is resulting in slow and sclerotic procurement. Worse than
that, it is killing off SMEs.
So this all leads to skill shortages amongst procurement officers at a
time when the recession is leading to more firms moving into the
public sector space. Few procurements ever run to time and costs are
increasing. In the Legal Aid space, watch out for massive eAuctions
for legal services. This will cause a backlash from some of the most
vocal and persuasive members of the community, the legal profession.
The ultimate risk is a breakdown of parts of the Justice system as
solicitors take the ball away. With jails already bursting, it would
lead to more untried people on the street and its attendant public
risk.
So what can we do – withdraw from Europe or look for innovation and
like the French, use the flexibilities in the system to devise better
ways of dealing with EU rules. Surely we need to use the rules to
devise methods which will relieve the pressure and move towards Agile
Procurement by using Dynamic Procurement systems.
Agile is fitter, faster, hates sclerotic tendencies, is flexible,
works locally and ensures probity, health and safety, social,
environmental and Competition Act compliance.
The next article will describe how we can use innovation to overcome
these obstacles with Agile Procurement.
Notes For Editors
Author;
Doug Forbes,
Director, Institute of Commissioning Professionals,
Director, Barony Consulting Group Limited.
88 Windsor Court, Chase Side, London N14 5HS
Doug....@baronyconsulting.com
The IoCP is a member owned not for profit with the goal of acting as
the voice of commissioners and improving commissioning standards.
Barony is a management consultancy whose strapline is ‘Performance
through Innovation’
Article 2 – Not for release before 12th June
Delivering Agile Procurement – Making public procurement faster,
fairer, local, compliant and robust
Lets look at what we mean by Agile Procurement and how it would work.
Agile is fitter, faster, hates sclerotic tendencies, is flexible,
works locally and ensures probity, health and safety, social,
environmental and Competition Act compliance.
You will say that you are governed by the timescales for competition,
the need to be competitively neutral, the aggregation rules and
tendering limits. That is correct and we now translate these into
individual tendering exercises and use frameworks. Yet we are missing
a trick to use the regulations to our advantage.
The EU Procurement Directive 2004/1 allows for the use of a Dynamic
Procurement System which, if developed properly, will provide the
mechanism to deliver Agile Procurement. It does not appear to be an
option in the Glover report and to our knowledge, software which can
deliver it has never been commissioned. The outcome is that Dynamic
Procurement Systems are not in general use. So government and local
government, SMEs and Third Sector are not gaining the advantages from
their use. The challenge is to design a Dynamic Procurement System to
meet the Agile requirements.
For your information, we have outline a number of benefits of a well
constructed DPS below.
What is a Dynamic Procurement System?
It is a wholly electronic system which is open to participants at any
time who meet the quality and price criteria.
Will it help SMEs?
Yes as frameworks lead to SME lockout for the firms who are not
included. Also SMEs inevitably have capacity issues and a well
constructed DPS will allow firms to leave and join, based upon
qualifications on a local basis.
Will it lower costs for Government?
Yes by engaging with SMEs directly and cutting out the framework
operator. Costs will be lower and communications faster.
Will they supplement Frameworks?
Yes and bring more decentralisation and localisation into
marketplaces.
Will they help to procure Innovation?
As innovation is focused in SMEs, then they will encourage SMEs to
qualify for contracts, deliver innovation and cut down lead times.
This will be more agile.
Will they help EU Procurement compliance?
Yes through improved transparency and electronic selection providing
audit trails. Joseph Rowntree Foundation has criticised the current EU
procurement limits as too low. The low thresholds have also led to a
skills shortage in procurement and commissioning. Correctly designed,
here is the way forward through the EU rules, which will help
alleviate skills shortages and deliver government programmes faster.
Of course, there may be some self serving interests which want to
foster skills shortages.
Will they help the Construction Sector?
Discussions with Constructing for Excellence indicated problems with
Frameworks. For instance, smaller firms which have capacity and are
willing to price aggressively in the current market are being locked
out due to frameworks.
Are they Sustainable?
They can be designed to suit and include environmental, social and
Competition Act Compliance tests.
Do the current eProcurement Offerings represent a Dynamic Procurement
System?
To quote -“Not as I understand them Scottie”.
The question of why Dynamic Procurement Systems are not being used may
shed some light on current practice and perhaps attitudes to the EU.
However, DPS is EU Compliant and does not seem to have been considered
as a solution to a number of policy issues. Rather than having
sclerotic public procurement, we should move to Agile Public
Procurement.
The next step surely is for government to agree to promote the new
thinking of Agile Procurement and use Dynamic Procurement Systems to
deliver it on the ground.
We also ask supporters to register on the Google Groups site – Agile
Procurement
and make their views known. In addition, anyone can also comment on
the proposals on the Institute of Commissioning website forum, www.iocp.co.uk.
We will then take this to ministers for their consideration.
Notes For Editors
Author;
Doug Forbes,
Director, Institute of Commissioning Professionals,
Director, Barony Consulting Group Limited.
88 Windsor Court, Chase Side, London N14 5HS
Doug....@baronyconsulting.com
Em
Jun 3, 2009, 7:24:03 AM6/3/09
to Agile Procurement
Sorry you have lost me... is this in the name of us as a group
discussing agile procurement? Using the open google groups to gather
thoughts makes it look as if we are all a part of barony consulting -
and we are not. I am uncomfortable about this being done in the name
of your consultancy but using the agile procurement google group.
Sorry if this offends
On 3 June, 10:29, doug forbes <doug.for...@baronyconsulting.com>
wrote:
> Doug.for...@baronyconsulting.com
> Doug.for...@baronyconsulting.com
discussing agile procurement? Using the open google groups to gather
thoughts makes it look as if we are all a part of barony consulting -
and we are not. I am uncomfortable about this being done in the name
of your consultancy but using the agile procurement google group.
Sorry if this offends
On 3 June, 10:29, doug forbes <doug.for...@baronyconsulting.com>
wrote:
James Darling
Jun 3, 2009, 7:47:23 AM6/3/09
to Agile Procurement
> I am uncomfortable about this being done in the name
> of your consultancy but using the agile procurement google group.
I concur, but with a minor difference in concern.
> of your consultancy but using the agile procurement google group.
When we started Agile Procurement, we had specific aims relating to
our particular expertise. It was always, as has been repeated several
times, a very focussed group. I don't mean to speak for the rest of
the group here, but as I understood it, we crying something along the
lines of "When we work with government on software development, we are
not able to work with the modern development techniques."
Doug, I appreciate and respect your expertise in procurement in the
larger picture you bring to the group, but you must respect that in
this group, we have this focussed aim. I am more than willing to see
how we fit into the bigger picture, and am open to discussion in
anything that relates to helping us write better code for the public
sector. But these press releases feel way out of the scope of this
lil' group. Perhaps it would be better to reference us as a group,
discussing our particular aims and interests, but please don't assume
we are behind anything outside our expertise. The majority of us a
'mere' coders.
I hope I am not speaking for the group incorrectly, please shout
anyone if they think I've got something wrong (especially the two
Harrys). Please also note these are very quickly scribbled thoughts
whilst at work...
Thanks,
James
doug forbes
Jun 3, 2009, 7:56:07 AM6/3/09
to agile-pr...@googlegroups.com
Guys
Just to clarify matters.
As you are aware, the debate has stalled yet the need still exists. It's a
great concept but no-one seems really interested in making a difference.
When was the last entry?
It doesn't make it look as if anyone is a part of Barony. Indeed, the other
website where we are trying to gather support is for the Institute of
Commissioning Professionals so people have a choice- join in with Google or
the IoCP. There's no guarantee that editors will publish anything.
I'm just an amateur with this new media stuff.
If the group isn't appropriate or you're not happy with this, then we'll set
up another google group to run with this and inform any reporters of the
change.
Sorry to offend.
Regards
Doug Forbes BSc hons DMS MIoCP,
Director,
Barony Consulting Group Limited
88 Windsor Court, Chase Side, Southgate,
London N14 5HS Tel; 020 8886 2462
doug....@baronyconsulting.com
www.baronyconsulting.com; www.commissioning.org.uk; www.iocp.co.uk
Company Number : 4061615
Just to clarify matters.
As you are aware, the debate has stalled yet the need still exists. It's a
great concept but no-one seems really interested in making a difference.
When was the last entry?
It doesn't make it look as if anyone is a part of Barony. Indeed, the other
website where we are trying to gather support is for the Institute of
Commissioning Professionals so people have a choice- join in with Google or
the IoCP. There's no guarantee that editors will publish anything.
I'm just an amateur with this new media stuff.
If the group isn't appropriate or you're not happy with this, then we'll set
up another google group to run with this and inform any reporters of the
change.
Sorry to offend.
Regards
Doug Forbes BSc hons DMS MIoCP,
Director,
Barony Consulting Group Limited
88 Windsor Court, Chase Side, Southgate,
London N14 5HS Tel; 020 8886 2462
doug....@baronyconsulting.com
www.baronyconsulting.com; www.commissioning.org.uk; www.iocp.co.uk
Company Number : 4061615
James Darling
Jun 3, 2009, 8:11:07 AM6/3/09
to agile-pr...@googlegroups.com
> As you are aware, the debate has stalled yet the need still exists.
> It's a
> great concept but no-one seems really interested in making a
> difference.
> When was the last entry?
We certainly are interested, but the main instigators of this group > It's a
> great concept but no-one seems really interested in making a
> difference.
> When was the last entry?
have been incredibly busy of late, this is not our day job. For me,
it's not even my main side project. I personally, if no-one has
organised something appropriate beforehand, plan to go headfirst into
this as soon as I'm next free, which currently looks like September.
I wish it wasn't so far away, but that's how it goes. Nothing to do
with lack of interest.
> It doesn't make it look as if anyone is a part of Barony.
I disagree with this, and I don't seem to be the only one, so perhaps
it would be good to re-asses this.
> Indeed, the other
> website where we are trying to gather support is for the Institute of
> Commissioning Professionals so people have a choice- join in with
> Google or
> the IoCP. There's no guarantee that editors will publish anything.
As mentioned, I'd be more than happy for you to reference us and our
opinions, but I certainly don't feel comfortable supporting your words
in this press release, I'm simply not qualified enough in this area to
feel that I can.
> If the group isn't appropriate or you're not happy with this, then
> we'll set
> up another google group to run with this and inform any reporters of
> the
> change.
If you have a specific movement that you fell you can outline and gain
support for that differs from our specific aims (I reference you to
our first major thread title "What was discussed at BarcampUKGovWeb2"
for a decent overview), I would probably recommend you do, but this is
for you to decide. For now, why don't you simply provide journalists
with your own contact details?
Thanks,
James Darling
Harry Harrold
Jun 5, 2009, 6:53:27 AM6/5/09
to agile-pr...@googlegroups.com
I agree with James.
Procurement isn't my area of expertise by any means, but I've gone
through the process a few times, and I do know a little about agile
development. Until very recently, every procurement process I'd seen had
been very waterfall. Everything defined up front, contractually
explicit, variance through formal change control, and little/no room for
reaction to better understanding of user behaviour, iterative
development cycles, changes in technology, market, etc.
So the concept of agile procurement was originally about how a (any)
procurement process might work with an agile software development
methodology. Obviously, it's mutated a little since then, but for me
that's still the core. (I've got a project in the pipe where we are
actually using something like agile procurement, so I'm expecting to
have a case study where it's worked well at some point in the future...)
So, Doug - your experience with procurement has been really useful, but
I'm not so sure we've communicated to you what agile software
development means as effectively. And that's the other half of the concept.
Best regards,
Harry
>> If the group isn't appropriate or you're not happy with this, then
>> we'll set
>> up another google group to run with this and inform any reporters of
>> the
>> change.
> If you have a specific movement that you fell you can outline and gain
> support for that differs from our specific aims (I reference you to
> our first major thread title "What was discussed at BarcampUKGovWeb2"
> for a decent overview), I would probably recommend you do, but this is
> for you to decide. For now, why don't you simply provide journalists
> with your own contact details?
>
> Thanks,
> James Darling
--
Harry Harrold
Project director, NeonTribe
Internet user experience designers and programmers
www.neontribe.co.uk
01603 727747
112-114 Magdalen Street, Norwich, NR3 1JD
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages