BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT. Consultation Response: HM Government Making Public Sector Procurement More Accessible to SMEs

Transcription

1 BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT Consultation Response: HM Government Making Public Sector Procurement More Accessible to SMEs Dated: 17 October 2013 BCS The Chartered Institute for IT First Floor, Block D North Star House North Star Avenue Swindon SN2 1FA

2 This page is left deliberately blank. Page 2 of 7

3 About BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT BCS is governed by a Royal Charter which defines our purpose: to promote the study and practice of Computing and to advance knowledge and education for the benefit of the public. We bring together industry, academics, practitioners and government to share knowledge, promote new thinking, inform the design of new curricula, shape public policy and inform the public. The Royal Charter enables the Institute to admit qualified members; without our 70,000 members we would be unable to undertake many of our charitable activities to promote IT at all levels. Under the Charter, BCS is required to establish and maintain standards of professional competence, conduct and ethical practice for information systems practitioners. As a professional body, BCS represents its members and the IT Profession as a whole on issues of importance, and liaises with other professional bodies, the government, industry and academics to initiate and inform debate on IT strategic issues. We also deliver a range of professional development tools for practitioners and employees and as a leading IT qualification body; we offer a range of widely recognised professional and end-user qualifications. Page 3 of 7

4 Consultation Document: Consultation Questions: PQQs: Use of PQQs in public contracts Q1. What mechanisms and incentives would prevent contracting authorities from asking unnecessary and burdensome questions during the procurement process? BCS recognises that appropriate due diligence in procurement is required to address potential risks. We would welcome a publicised and transparent route to which bidders could refer burdensome requests. This needs to respond rapidly (for instance, within the procurement process timetable) and has the authority to intervene in, and if necessary halt, a procurement. This would naturally reside in GPS. The Mystery Shopper scheme has no authority outside of central government, and can take three months just to acknowledge a bidder s submission, so is inadequate for this purpose in its current form. We believe that publicising examples where procurements have been found wanting would be an incentive for procuring authorities to follow this policy. Furthermore, a single system, as envisioned, for holding basic information from tender to tender would streamline processes for initial consideration, reduce administrative burden, increase choice and reduce cost over time. The use of performance measures on past contract performance and references to back up capability claims would also provide contracting authorities with assurance. PQQs: Standard core PQQ Q2. Should the core PQQ currently used in central government (attached at Annex B) be adopted as standard across the public sector? We believe that the PQQ should be adopted as a standard across the public sector. Q3. Which, if any, questions could be removed from the core PQQ? Are there any additional questions or relevant standards that should be included because they are essential to a specific sector (and please explain why they are essential)? We generally support the core PQQ in its current form. On a minor point, Forms B and C could be amended so that only one answer is required for each form. PQQs: Providing PQQ information on a once for the public sector basis Q4. How would a single online platform for managing, submitting and verifying PQQ responses provide advantages to bidders and contracting authorities over and above the PQQ reforms already described? For bidders, this would save the repetition of providing the same information to different contracting authorities, or to the same contracting authority for different contracts, or different iterations of the same contract (for example, GCloud). Contracting authorities would be saved from handling each PQQ response separately. A single online platform would also provide a focal point for all parties for a standard and a common market. Would suppliers be prepared to pay a small fee for using this system (assuming the option of manually submitting a PQQ without any charge is also still available)? Page 4 of 7

5 The administrative saving does represent a benefit for suppliers, and in theory this value would attract a payment to reduce the cost of rework. However, the benefit should be in principle, a matched win-win, with cost-savings on the government side. On this basis any additional charge could be interpreted as a charge on democratic supply, and thus a disincentive to small businesses. We have not consulted the market so have no substantive evidence on this issue. Transparency: Accessing all contract opportunities through Contracts Finder Q5. Do you agree that all public procurement opportunities over 10,000 should be accessible from Contracts Finder? Yes, we agree. Contacts Finder needs to be made clearer and the data quality assured. At present it is difficult to understand the stage of some entries for example, a planned procurement in the pipeline, an active procurement, a contract which has been let or a procurement which has been discontinued for some reason. Instructions from GPS, with powers to halt non-conformant procurements (linked to the mechanism in question one), name and shame non-conformant procurement authorities and, in extreme, set in place active oversight over an authority s procurement activity, would drive behaviour. There is a balance to be struck between effective transparency and scrutiny of public procurement, and flexible operations, in an operating environment where time is money; government has a right to procure small contracts without the market-burden of tendering. Likewise, smaller suppliers have a right to expect some degree of client loyalty and consistency from government partners when selling services if quality suppliers are not to be deterred from participation. 10,000 may be an appropriate level provided that procurement processes are streamlined. How can this be achieved simply and effectively? We believe this can be achieved by the inclusion of a live secure feed/portal from all parts of the Public Sector, for example, over Public Services Networks (PSN). Q6. Do you agree that all award notices for public contracts over 10,000 should be accessible from Contracts Finder? Yes. This needs to include contracts let under GCloud and similar frameworks, which are currently not transparent and hence cannot demonstrate value for money or competition. As notification of awards carries less administrative burden than procurement per se, it is possible that this threshold should be set lower than the procurement threshold. How can this be achieved simply and effectively? As mentioned in response to question five, this can best be achieved by the inclusion of a live secure feed/portal from all parts of the Public Sector, for example, PSN. Transparency: Reporting on procurement spend with SMEs Q7. Do you agree that all public bodies should publish data on their procurement spend with SMES in one place? How can this be achieved simply and effectively? Yes. This could be another section in Contracts Finder. For procurement authorities this would just be an extra piece of information to report when they report awards as in question six. As noted above, Mystery Shopper needs more teeth to police this reporting and to enforce action where procurement authorities do not follow the policies. Page 5 of 7

6 The Institute believes that there are considerable difficulties attached to transparency of supplychains so it may be that public bodies are only able to report on their direct spend with SMEs rather than the full spend including SME subcontracting and consortia activity. We note that Local Authorities are already publishing data for expenditure over 500 on a month by month basis, so other parts of the public sector could follow their protocols. Q8. For Local Authorities, how can this work integrate with existing open data practices, such as the Code of Transparency, whilst minimising data reporting burdens? As noted above, reporting on spend with SMEs is just a minor extension of the requirement to report the outcome of procurements so is not a significant addition. With the inclusion of an SME indicator on spending data already in the public domain, it would aid the swift aggregation of expenditure specifically on SMEs. Are there similar issues in other sectors? We believe similar flags or indicators could be included for these sectors to facilitate analysis of expenditure within each sector. Transparency: Reporting on use of centrally negotiated deals Q9. Do you agree that public bodies should publish data on their use of centrally negotiated deals, together with pricing data, to demonstrate value for money? Yes. A comply or explain approach would be effective, linked to the mechanisms covered by earlier questions. The outcome of procurements using centrally-negotiated deals (for example, GCloud) needs to be transparent to ensure that the best deal within the framework has been taken up, and there is still competition. How can this be achieved simply and effectively? A suitable web-portal, for example, data.gov.uk would be beneficial Prompt Payment: Standard payment terms through the supply chain Q10. How can we ensure that standard payment terms are passed down through the supply chain for all public contracts? We believe that sanctions should be implemented for prime contractors who are found not to be paying their subcontractors promptly. The sanctions could include the threat of a time period when a supplier is excluded from bidding for public sector work, or financial penalties in the contracts where subcontractors were not paid promptly. There should be a standard clause in public sector contracts to implement this measure. Transparency of sub-contracting, and PQQ commitment to standardised on-payment would both help here. Q11. Should public authorities and their supply chains publish performance data on their prompt payment to suppliers? How can this be achieved simply and effectively? Yes. The same processes can be used as are used to provide other procurement data, thus minimising burdens on authorities and prime contractors. Page 6 of 7

7 This can best be achieved by implementing similar publication schemes such as Local Authorities have been required to do under DCLG directives for everything over 500. Finance: Performance bonds Q12. Do you consider that requirements for performance bonds are disproportionate and creating barriers for SMES aiming to win public contracts? How is this happening and what reforms could help alleviate this? We believe that performance bonds are a barrier to SMEs and the norm should be no performance bond for any contract unless one can be justified by a business case, with a mechanism for prospective bidders to challenge the requirement as part of the procurement. Finance: Encouraging the use of electronic invoicing Q13. How can government increase the take-up of electronic invoicing in public procurement to maximise the opportunities it affords and create a more enabling environment for SMEs? BCS believes that a conform or explain approach should be adopted, with the expectation that all invoicing should be electronic. This should be a mandatory part of all new contracts. Existing contracts with a significant time remaining should also be reviewed with the presumption that they will change to electronic invoicing. Many Local Authorities already use electronic invoicing and in many cases have proved that it both saves time and costs in processing where invoices from bona fide suppliers default to be paid to terms and are only held when exceptions occur and are flagged. End Page 7 of 7