APPENDIX 7
Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the British Furniture Confederation
PROCUREMENT
Complexity—there are at least 1,600 local
authority purchasers and more than 350 central government purchasers.
They all have their own system and each one is different. A couple
of years ago the OFFMA obtained around 50 sets of terms and conditions
for comparison. Every one was different in some way. The most
commonality we found was where departments had taken standard
terms from what was then the Treasury Central Unit for Procurement
(CUP). Even in these cases only about three quarters of terms
were common. Generally the purchasing authority has a set of procedures
and forms that are used for all purchases, from the simplest product
to the most complex. This results in demands for redundant information
as the purchaser tries to cover every eventuality and uncertainty
as to what is actually required in the context of the product.
In the last year there have been some welcome
moves in that OGC has produced a simplified Pre-Qualification
Questionnaire (PQQ) and draft set of Terms and Conditions (T&Cs)
for use by local authorities. The problem remains of gaining widespread
acceptance amongst purchasers. There is as yet no attempt to standardise
practice in Cnetral Government Departments and OGC fees that this
is many years off. The attempt last year to merge OGC Buying Solutions
and NHS PASA collapsed, our information is that OGC don't intend
to open the matter again for at least five years.
Action: OGC really needs to be given some powers
for enforcing policy.
Inconsistency—with so many purchasers operating
effectively outside of central policy guidance, inconsistency
is an issue. This is certainly exacerbated by public sector purchasers.
Repeated Information—at the moment every
tender is treated as an autonomous item. A supplier may have satisfactorily
completed a contract with one purchasing authority a month before
but still has to go through the whole process from scratch for
a tender from a second authority.
Action: There should be a system whereby suppliers
can automatically pre-qualify if they have satisfactorily supplied
a purchasing authority within a certain time.
Some Local Authorities do use one of two companies
providing Supplier Accreditation Services. The issue here is that
suppliers have to pay to register, with no assurance that this
will lead to any business and that this only applies to the limited
number of authorities using each of the two service providers.
Our position is that suppliers should not have t pay to register.
If there is a need in the market for such services, there must
be mutual recognition between providers. A better system would,
however, be a centrally administered list of qualified suppliers.
OGC has investigated Supplier Accreditation Services and we believe
agrees with the complaints made by suppliers.
Best Value—this is the test for awarding
contracts. Sadly, most public sector purchasers think this is
synonymous with lowest price, which it is not. Part of the problem
may be that specifications are often loosely drawn up so that
it is not possible to properly attach a value to such things as
whole life cots, environmental performance etc.
Action: There needs to be complete openness in
stating the weightings or importance attached to purchasing criteria.
At the moment suppliers generally have to guess.
September 2006
|
