- Make savings for customers in both central government and the wider public sector.
- Achieve maximum value from every commercial relationship.
- Improve the quality of service delivery for common goods and services across government.
- Managing the procurement of common goods and services, so public sector organisations with similar needs achieve value by buying as a single customer.
- Increasing savings for the taxpayer by centralising buying requirements for common goods and services and bringing together smaller projects.
- Leading on procurement policy on behalf of the UK Government.
- Providing a clear, structured and direct route for internal public sector stakeholders and suppliers to raise concerns about public procurement practice (even when attempts at resolving issues with a contracting authority or a first-tier supplier have failed) and provides feedback to enquirers on their concerns.
- Taking a proactive approach through spot checks on procurement documents.
- Identifying areas of poor procurement practice and work with the contracting authority to put them right, and help ensure similar cases do not arise in the future.
- Taking action to reduce the likelihood of similar issues arising in other public sector authorities.
- Identifying examples of good practice that we can share with other authorities
|
Authority |
Subject |
Sub Issue |
Case
Issue |
Case
Outcome |
|
Sanctuary Housing |
Procurement Process |
Financial Requirement |
A supplier raised concerns
about the Sanctuary Housing Architects (Housing) Development Consultancy
Framework that included a zero fee clause in its standard contractual terms
as they felt it would require architects to carry out substantial amounts of
unpaid work. They also queried the specified minimum turnover threshold, as
they believed these values to be excessive in view of the likely level of
architects’ fees. |
Sanctuary Housing,an
organisation regulated by the Homes and Communities Agency, confirmed that
they had used a zero fee provision as a mechanism to meet the Homes &
Communities Agency's requirement to secure best value. They amended their
position following requests for clarification from bidders and made it clear
that they did not intend the zero fee provision to apply if a detailed
planning application was submitted, they confirmed that they will ensure this
is clear from the outset in any future procurements. The methodology used to
set the minimum turnover thresholds was confirmed as meeting the requirements
of the Public Contracts Regulations but they agreed to undertake an
assessment on any future procurement to ensure the most appropriate method is
used. |
|
Places for People |
Procurement Process |
Financial Requirement |
The supplier expressed
concern about a recent OJEU procurement being undertaken by Places for People
(ref. 47577-2018) for a Major Projects Hub including construction works and
consultancy services. Their concern was that according to the notice it would
be awarded to a single supplier. |
Places for People
confirmed that the works and services will comprise all types of building
construction works and associated civil, mechanical, electrical and services
works and may also include design and other services required to develop a
construction design and build. The Major Projects Hub framework is intended
to select a single supplier with the relevant expertise, capacity and
experience to manage the supply chain either on behalf of, or in conjunction
with the contracting authority. By taking this approach the Authority was
attempting to develop projects which otherwise may not have come to
fruition. The supplier met with the
Authority and had a fruitful discussion and will now be working together in
order to address some of these concerns. |
|
Swan Housing |
Transparency |
Evaluation |
A supplier contacted us with
concerns in relation to a ‘below threshold’ procurement opportunity being run
by Swan Housing for the provision of mobile phone services. The supplier felt
that the award criteria set out in the tender documentation were limited and
unclear as they did not disclose weightings. A subsequent concern was raised
suggesting that Swan Housing had offered a shorter contract duration in order
to ensure the contract value remained below threshold. |
The Authority responded fully
to both concerns, providing strong justification for the process and
structure of the procurement exercise, along with the rationale for the
contract duration. The Authority has been found to be fully compliant since
the award criteria was clearly contained in the contract documents. We
recommended the Contracting Authority consider publishing a more detailed
award criteria for complex cases. |
|
Orbit Housing |
Procurement Strategy |
Lotting |
A supplier complained about a
Legal Services Framework opportunity with the Orbit Group (a housing
association) which they felt was not SME friendly due to there being no
lotting structure. The supplier said the structure of the framework - asking
bidders to provide a wide range of legal services meant that only a few large
legal firms would be able to bid. |
The Authority confirmed that
they will continue to consider lotting on a case by case basis for future
procurements to ensure SME involvement remains at a high level, as is the
case currently. |
|
|
||||
|
Authority |
Subject |
Sub Issue |
Case
Issue |
Case
Outcome |
|
L & Q Group |
Procurement Strategy |
Transparency |
A supplier contacted us to
complain that a recent procurement favoured incumbent providers. The supplier
uploaded their bid to the portal on 28th February 2018 and followed up with
the procurement team who told them that was all they needed to do. They discovered
on 3rd May 2018 that they were not awarded the contract. They received a
reply a week later explaining that their application wasn't entered into the
bidding process and therefore they had missed the appeal deadline. As a
result, they are now effectively locked out of an opportunity for 5 years and
this will have a huge impact on their company. |
The system's audit trail shows
no evidence that a bid was uploaded. The supplier would have seen on screen,
a printable receipt when submitting a tender to evidence their submission. As
a bid was not made by the supplier they would not have been directly informed
of the standstill period, as the proposed award would have been announced to
the participating bidders. This was not a public procurement although L&Q
ran the process in compliance with the PCR regulations. The Authority
confirmed that 39 suppliers expressed interest in the opportunity. Of those,
17 suppliers did submit a tender (9 of which are SMEs); and after evaluations
9 suppliers were awarded contract (3 of which are SMEs.) |
|
Hyde Housing Association |
Procurement Process |
Advertisement |
A
supplier contacted the Mystery Shopper team regarding a framework tender for
Construction Consultancy Services being procured by Hyde Housing Group. The framework
notice was advertised on Contracts Finder as Construction Project Management
Services with one access code - 71541000, however the Framework included
three Lots with two additional codes.
The supplier disregarded this opportunity based on the information
that was published to Contracts Finder. |
The
Authority confirmed that the procurement was run through their Delta system
and covered 3 Lots. Unfortunately the Delta system only allowed for one
access code although the Lotting structure was visible when the opportunity
was investigated further. The Authority is aware of the problem with the
Delta system and is working to resolve it. The Authority had addressed the
problem and extra codes were provided during clarification but only to those
who were already involved in the tender process. |
|
Northampton Partnership Homes |
Technology/Systems |
Technical issue with e-portal |
A
supplier contacted us about procurement ref GB003ZM267175 UK-Bolton: Supply
of Non Half Hourly Electricity, Half Hourly Electricity and Gas. The
Contracting Authority appeared to be a private company. The supplier wanted
to check that the procurement through which Utilities Procurement Group (UPG)
Ltd were appointed as agents, that Northampton Partnership Homes (NPH) were
aware of their liabilities under this arrangement and that NPH’s constitution
allows them to act as a central purchasing body for the purposes of this
framework. |
NPH
confirmed that the process to recruit UPG Ltd as its managing agent for the
current utilities procurement exercise was compliant and in keeping with its
internal procurement rules , the commercial arrangements were a matter of
commercial confidentiality. NPH also confirmed as stated within the Contract
Notice, NPH is the Contracting Authority and UPG are NPH’s managing agent
responsible for undertaking the framework procurement and contract managing
the resulting framework throughout its contract term.
|
|
Clarion Housing |
Procurement Strategy |
Financial Requirement |
A supplier contacted us
regarding an opportunity to join the Authority’s Dynamic Purchasing System -
Development 2019 Lot No. 1. The issue focused on the requirement for bidders
need to provide a credit reference that would entail registering for an
annual membership at a cost of £195. Although the supplier provided their
accounts as an alternative they were advised that they will not be considered
and that they must have a credit report. |
Due to technical issues with
their procurement platform the Authority confirmed that incorrect information
had been released in the OJEU notice. Clarion Housing confirmed they had made
amendments to the Selection Questionnaire process because it was incorrect
and not compliant with the Public Contract Regulations 2015. The Authority
confirmed that bidders were requested to upload a credit reference but if
they are unable to provide this or they feel their credit reference does not
reflect current position the Authority would review the bidder’s accounts
using a template they had provided. Once identified, amendments were issued
via a corrigendum, and the correct information uploaded. Clarion also
confirmed that all correspondence rights will only be managed by the Group’s
procurement manager for this project to ensure no similar issues occur. |
|
Sovereign Housing Association |
Procurement Process |
Feedback |
A supplier contacted us
regarding a Supplier Selection Questionnaire (SSQ) for the project “Planned
Gas Boiler and Heating Installations.” The supplier raised that the amount of
information required for specific questions was excessive. The supplier felt
that they had produced a relevant and high scoring submission, this
subsequently failed to progress past the SSQ stage as it was scored low
across the range of questions. The supplier has received very limited
feedback regarding their submission and despite requesting more meaningful
feedback this was refused. |
The contract value for Heating
Installations is circa £64m over the 5+5 years term. Sovereign confirmed it
had used the standard Crown Commercial Services Templates as a basis for the
SSQ. Sovereign had provided an overall score compared to the highest score,
although the Authority is not legally obligated to provide feedback at SSQ
stage . After the Authority had independently reviewed this tender they
identified that more information could have been given to the unsuccessful
bidders, this will be developed in the future. |
|
Central Housing Investment Consortium |
Procurement Strategy |
Establishment of framework |
PPRS was contacted by a
supplier regarding a contract notice advertised by CHIC for Plumbing,
Electrical & General Building Goods & Materials Suppliers. The
supplier was concerned that the Framework duration was set at 8 years. |
CHIC stated that the total
Framework Agreement term of 8 years (including extensions) would allow for
the supply of materials to be effective and efficient. In most cases the
Framework user and supplier would need integrated information technology
systems set at a strategic level. This will require significant time and
resources (including financial expenditure by way of capital and revenue
investment) for both the framework user and supplier to implement integrated
systems effectively and to develop comprehensive supply catalogues. The
return on the investment to achieve this cannot be recovered in a short term
framework and call off contract. |
|
Beyond housing |
Procurement Strategy |
SME exclusion - insurance requirement |
A
supplier contacted PPRS regarding a tender opportunity advertised by Beyond
Housing, reference BH/2020/0044. The supplier was concerned that the minimum
Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) per claim of £5 million was
excessively high and could prevent smaller enterprises from being able to
compete. |
Beyond
Housing confirmed that interested suppliers could submit a bid and advise
what level of PII they would suggest. Bids would not be rejected due to
insurance levels not reaching £5 million. Beyond Housing advised all
tenderers of this through clarification on their procurement portal.
Complaint not upheld. |
|
Sanctuary Housing |
Procurement Process |
Feedback |
A
supplier contacted PPRS regarding a Sanction Housing Association opportunity
advertised on the Crown Commercial Service (CCS) Digital Marketplace
https://www.digitalmarketplace.service.gov.uk/digital-outcomes-and-specialists/opportunities/15089.
The supplier was concerned that they had not received feedback on their
submission for the opportunity. |
Complaint
not upheld. CCS
confirmed that the procurement team was at the shortlisting stage and would
inform all suppliers, whether successful or not, adhering to the DPS
guidelines. Complaint not upheld. |
|
|
||||
|
Authority |
Subject |
Sub Issue |
Case
Issue |
Case
Outcome |
|
Together Housing Group |
Procurement Process |
Transparency |
A
supplier contacted PPRS regarding the Together Housing Group Ltd procurement
for Insurance and Related Services (https://www.contractfinderpro.com/doc/YbExX/together-housing-group-ltd/provision-insurance-related-services-together). The
supplier was concerned that parts of the Selection Questionnaire (SQ)
appeared to be ambiguous as to how responses would be scored. Furthermore,
the Find a Tender Service Contract Notice correctly stated competitive
procedure with negotiation but the Contracts Finder notice stated Negotiated
Procedure giving confusion to the procedure being used. |
Complaint
not upheld. PPRS
contacted Together Housing who were forthcoming with responses and providing
clarification/communication logs. PPRS reviewed the information provided from
the authority, which confirmed that the points raised had been addressed and
the authority had voluntarily extended the submission date. Furthermore, the
authority confirmed that errors on the contracts finder website only allows
the use of the word Negotiated rather than the full title however it was
clearly described in the SQ. |
|
Sanctuary Housing Association |
Transparency |
Transparency |
A
supplier contacted PPRS regarding Sanctuary Housing Association DPS for
Estate Agency Services
(https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/notice/e827f64b-49c1-4a61-aeb1-cd207231e8b1?origin=SearchResults&p=1).
The Supplier was concerned that there was a bias towards one bidding
organisation under the DPS. |
Complaint
not upheld. PPRS
reviewed a recent competition for Abbey Meadows. PPRS found that the
Contracting Authority had not breached the Public Contracts Regulations
(2015), this is based on comprehensive information supplied by the authority
regarding the overall management of the DPS. This included the process the
Authority applied/applies to ensure fairness to awarding contracts and
confirmed the process they followed to evaluate suppliers’ bids was in
accordance with the Public Contracts Regulation (2015) regulation 34 (23). The
Contracting Authority had followed the correct process to ensure conflicts of
interest were identified and managed correctly in accordance with the Public
Contracts Regulation (2015) regulation 24. |
|
Homes England |
Procurement Process |
Evaluation |
A
supplier contacted Public Procurement Review Service (PPRS) regarding Homes
England Property and Financial Services Framework - Lot 2 (Procontract
Reference: DN562720). The supplier was concerned that their submission was
rejected due to lack of content after being asked to drastically reduce the
word count in their submission, specifically section 6. |
Complaint
not upheld. Homes
England advised that the supplier was not excluded because of the word count
requirement. Their tender was excluded due to providing limited information
relating to lot 2 of the scope of services in their Section 6 submission. The
supplier submitted a tender for Lot 2, however the focus of the information
provided in their Section 6 submission was on lot 1 services which did not
form part of the lot 2 Suitability Assessment. The word count of 250 words
was stated in the ‘question description’ and also repeated under ‘question
help’. The 250 word requirement was the original requirement and had not been
reduced at any stage in the competition. All other tenders met the Section 6
requirements including the word count requirement of 250 words. There were 12
other tenders for Lot 2. |
|
Procurement for Housing |
Procurement Process |
Equivalents |
A
supplier raised an issue with the PPRS about a live procurement by
Procurement for Housing (PfH) for a "National Agreement For: Material
Supply and Associated Services" (Agreement Reference: JA / April 2023 /
Materials).
|
Partially
upheld. PPRS
notes that some of the lots under this procurement relate to authorities in
Scotland and are subject to relevant Scottish law. PPRS's findings do not relate to those lots
as they are out of scope of PPRS's remit. |
|
Procurement for Housing |
Procurement Strategy |
SME exclusion - financial
requirement |
A
supplier raised a concern with PPRS relating to the financial thresholds in
Lot 4 of the Decarbonisation & Retrofit Framework (reference JL / March
2023 / Decarb & Retrofit) let by Procurement for Housing (PfH). The
supplier was concerned that the minimum turnover requirement was £10 million
for bidders was across all 11 regions of the UK. They were concerned that
this might exclude SMEs from some of the smaller regions of the UK. |
Complaint
not upheld. PfH was
able to provide a detailed commercial rationale for the minimum turnover
requirements, and were able to demonstrate the requirement's applicability to
the smaller regions of the UK. PPRS are satisfied that the requirement is
proportionate and non-discriminatory. |
Additional
articles can be found at Business Law Made Easy. This site looks at business
legislation to assist organisations and people in increasing the quality,
efficiency, and effectiveness of their product and service supply to the
customers' delight. ©️ Business Law Made Easy. All rights reserved.
