Learning from the failed procurement strategy of reforming legal services procurement

Finally the government has faced the reality that success was unlikely in the dispute with the legal profession and have aborted their plan to cut layers legal fees. I have discussed this daft procurement strategy for years now and why it was unlikely to be successful.

Face-saving is of course required and it was probably easier for Gove to draw a line under this than his predecessor, but let's pick up a few lessons:

1. Pick your fights carefully - the legal profession is an oligopoly who understand the law, relative power and dependency. Without a means of redressing that imbalance, failure could be predicted;
2. If you are going to consult with the market, listen. While there were great promises of consulting with the legal profession, the failure to take on board the messages of the market did not appear to be listened to.  Making a sham of market consultation ultimately reduces confidence and trust in the process;
3. 'Cutting and pasting' one type of sourcing strategy to another category is just stupid - larger contracts and a lowest price pursuit may make sense in some situations but definitely not all;
4. Procurement risk assessments are important - it would be great to hear how the MoJ identified and planned to mitigate all the risks associated with this procurement strategy and how political and reputational risk were being mitigated?

It would be really interesting to carry out an impact assessment of the UK government procurement strategy over the last 10 years, say, and establish which worked and why; having said that, it may well be that is a comparatively short list compared to those which didn't work.

Does Cameron understand procurement strategy?

A few months ago I drew attention to the imbalance of power between the Ministry of Justice and the legal profession, specifically the threat relating to changes in the Legal Aid system. The changes to Legal Aid mean a 30% reduction in Legal Aid cut in fees paid to barristers.

Yesterday we saw the ironic court scene of Alexander Cameron QC, the Prime Minister's brother, arguing that the trial of a £4.5m fraud case should be delayed as a result of the inability of the defendants to access lawyers prepared to defend them under the new Legal Aid rules. Barristers have effectively said, "if that's what the rate is, no thanks".

The drama is even more bizarre in that Alex Cameron had decided to argue that the case could not continue, without charging for his fee!

From a procurement perspective this reminds us of three strategies:

1. Poistioning relative power of the buyer/supplier relationship. The barristers have the power to sell their services outside the Legal Aid system, so they can walk away without great pain;
2. A focus on price reduction can compromise delivery. The suppliers in this case have said to MoJ the price you are prepared to pay is not attractive enough for us to deliver; and
3. Achieving 'preferred customer' disorts the market in favour of the buyer. In this example, Alex Cameron delivered his services free of charge.

While the MoJ case is of interest and relevant to procurement, there is a real danger we are approaching replication elsewhere in the system. For example, think of the threat of the Care Quality Commission to penalise those who on deliver 15 minute home visits to those with dementia. The buyers should of course specify for longer visits based on outcomes to be delivered as opposed to inputs, and in turn pay a rate which is affordable for the providers. But what would happen if the threat continues and the care providers say "if that's what the rate is, no thanks"? Well, I suspect the health and social services commissioners would be in crisis, the Department of Health have no means to deliver the care, there are no longer sufficient places for public sector residential care in either hospitals or homes. Visualise the political impact if these services started to collapse the week before the election?

What do you do in a lawyers' market?

I have often said that Procurement's biggest risk is that no one wants to supply. Now MoJ are faced with a variation of that very problem as barristers opt not to provide services under the new legal aid arrangements - quite simply barristers are saying, "at that rate, no thanks". This isn't remotely new, indeed I predicted as much last July.

There is little point in assuming, as a buyer, that rates are too high and that you are no longer going to pay, if you haven't ensured someone will supply, at what you to consider to be, a more reasonable rate. It appears as if the negotiating power isn't with MoJ at the moment but with the legal profession. So who will climb down?

The costs incurred through not being able to ensure a fair trial due to lack of legal representation will have an impact on the justice system, the costs of delayed court cases will have to be borne somewhere in the system, and then there's the question of whether or not the government have the courage to take on the legal profession claiming they are acting as a cartel?

The stand-off with the barristers can't be seen in isolation though; couldn't the medical profession try a variation of the same ploy in negotiating their contracts?

The big question is 'can the buyers break the market' or reconstruct it in their favour, say, for example, contracting with advocates from other EU countries, or does the English legal system prohibit such freedom of movement to English courts?

This is more than a test of wills, it strikes at the very core of austerity and the notion of being a preferred customer. When suppliers have a choice of who to sell to, who would expect them to opt for contracts which just don't suit them.

Lean or anorexic procurement

If you cast your mind back to 1993 you may recall the seminal book by Richard Lamming on Lean Supply. It wasn't actually called Lean Supply but 'Beyond Partnership'.  That was closely followed by Peter Hines' 'Creating World Class Suppliers'. Many other discussions at the time were indicative of a paradigm shift in procurement thinking. These were more than conceptual ideas, they were based on the hard evidence of what worked. The key change was a recognition that 'adversarial' relationships were not always appropriate, that while there was plenty of talk of partnership, there was a need to go 'beyond partnership' and adopt 'lean'. You may well ask which procurements would be most appropriate for 'a lean strategy' - well, in general terms, those procurements which are strategic.

Fast forward 20 years and we hear the rhetoric of 'lean sourcing' within UK government as the panacea to all woes. Yet have they really understood what 'lean' means. Lean is more than taking costs out of the system and drawing closer so that innovation can flourish. It also requires an entirely different approach to buyer/supplier relationships and contract management.

We have the theory and gospel of 'lean' in government procurement and we can set that alongside the practice, for example, the transporting of prisoners and tagging services. Let's consider Serco, who would have been assumed were a strategic partner of the government but now appear to have fallen from favour on both those contracts - the MoJ have called in the police to investigate claims of fraud in prisoner escorting and there are parallel claims of overcharging for tagging 

This does not exemplify lean on either side of the dyadic. The notion of calling in the police to investigate fraud, claims of overcharging and even allegations of some questionable contract management are an anathema to lean.

It would be possible just to throw stones at Serco. It would also be possible to throw stones at MoJ. Both those approaches may bring short-term solace for one party but wouldn't really help public procurement as we approach the economic recovery. However, we could consider this an opportunity to adopt a more strategic approach and find out what went wrong in melting pot of the theory and rhetoric of lean, the current cost reduction focus and the day-to-day breakdown of contract confidence. Either way we need to revisit the implementation of lean within the UK public sector during a time of 'bust' as opposed to a time of plenty. 

Welcome to the Hotel Oakwood - commissioned by MoJ and managed by G4S

The on-line promotional brochure for HMP Oakwood claims:

At HMP Oakwood we aim to inspire, motivate and guide prisoners to become the best they can be. We offer state of the art facilities, full time employment, programmes and access to physical health and wellbeing initiatives.

The 'TripAdvisor' version, published by the Independent Monitoring Boards, tells a slightly different story which is much more interesting to those of us who share an interest in all things procurement. Forget the fact that this is yet another 'could do better' report for G4S and the exemplary procurement of MoJ - let's just give them a break. Think of it as if you were asked to advise on the procurement of new hotel services.

Let's look at some of the issues which were found by the Independent Monitoring Board but recast as if they were written about a hotel as opposed to a prison:

1. Should the first who have the pleasure of testing a new services be some of those who will be your more regular guests occupying the most expensive rooms?
2. Would you think it was appropriate to deprive the first guests of essentials, such as toilet paper? 
3. Do you think it would be acceptable to advertise free access to all parts of the hotel, including the Executive Lounge, and then say, "ah but not just yet"?
4. Would you expect food to be prepared in a temporary kitchen?
5. Would you find it acceptable that the design prohibited staff from being contactable throughout the whole hotel, particularly in the event of an emergency, and have to pay an additional £400k to have those basic communications?
6. Would you expect guests to be satisfied with poor TV signal reception?
7. Would you find it acceptable to only have a centrally controlled heating system which meant that it was impossible to control the temperature in different guest rooms?
8. Would you expect guests to be happy with an off-site fitness suite?
9. Would you find it acceptable to have no locks on either staff or guest toilets?
10. Would you be happy if shower areas did not offer privacy?
11. Would you find it acceptable for guests to easily access from other competitors offers which you wanted to prohibit access to (in the prison situation, drugs and mobile phones being passed over the fence)?
12. Would you be happy if the hotel staff hadn't previous experience of working within a hotel environment?

If you were discussing the procurement of a new hotel, indeed a flagship new hotel, I suspect you would not consider that to be a good case study. How on earth did it go so badly wrong with HMP Oakwood? What procurement risk assessment was carried out and how were the risks managed? Something seems to have gone seriously wrong, or have I just missed the point?

The Justice of paying tag in procurement

If yesterday’s Sunday Times is correct it appears G4S will have an up hill struggle in gaining future public sector business -  is that justice and would it stand up under public procurement regulations?

Now don’t get me wrong, I have not been afraid to cast stones at G4S and some aspects of their performance, but is this latest concern about tagging the right one to pick a fight about and would justice be seen to be done? Would the demise of G4S be something any government would want to celebrate?

While it may be fashionable to rake up the past of G4S’ Olympics security debacle, who was actually the client for that contract? I can’t see any connection with the MoJ, nor can I believe that MoJ have had full view of all the relevant facts and agreements. That being the case, is it justice to use that as a basis for withholding other contracts? Equally, why act now, given that there were calls for G4S to be blacklisted at the time?

But let’s consider the specifics of the tagging contract. G4S claim they had previously provided information to MoJ auditors for scrutiny, yet have not received any feedback. Given that there’s always a cost in providing information and no feedback has been received which could have helped G4S address issues - is it fair and reasonable to treat a refusal of G4S to volunteer to submit to a forensic audit? Should the evidence of abuse not be presented by the MoJ?

"Generally the MoJ is seen as doing good work in the procurement area"?

I'm going to leave it to others to dissect the G4S and Serco overcharging for tagging the Ministry of Justice. I fully expect a deluge of blogs. Nor do I intend to catalogue the long list of MoJ procurement issues which I have discussed previously.

But I will remind you that last September I highlighted the need to question the value for money of tagging and indeed the need to question the procurement approach including the failure to focus on outcomes.

I also want to remind you that I questioned the value of evidence given to the PASC Procurement Inquiry when one of the 'experts'' stated "Generally the MoJ in seen as doing good work in the procurement area".

The big issue to me is the decision of the Lord Chancellor to launch and internal investigation into contract management based on evidence that MoJ officials knew as far back as 2008 that there were issues with billing. If that proves to be true our profession has been discredited.

I want to learn of the evidence that was uncovered and why that wasn't reported? I want to know how broad, deep and high the awareness went? I want to know whether fraud was involved or corruption? I want to know how much money this has cost the tax payer? I want to know what will happen to tagging if there are only two providers and both are found at fault? I want to understand how these organisations have become so powerful suppliers to the public sector that it appears a blind eye is turned to past misdemeanours? I have long called for personal accountability, will we see that?

Prior to the separation of the MoJ from the Home Office, the then Home Secretary claimed the Home Office "wasn't fit for purpose" - I think we now need to understand what the MoJ Procurement Capability Reviews revealed (written and unwritten - think CQC) and how much of public procurement just isn't fit for purpose?

MoJ Legal Aid Procurement Strategy needs an advocate

The Ministry of Justice's procurement has an uncanny knack of providing something worth discussing.The latest being a decision to put its proposed legal aid reform on hold.

Like all good procurement practice MoJ engaged in consultation with the market but there were fundamental doubts as to whether or not the Lord Chancellor has been serious about consultation. Joshua Rozenberg provided a really good review of how that discussion went - suffice to say it did not go well and the key stakeholders, lawyers, put forward a purely selfless argument, that a tendering exercise with lowest price being the main criteria would not be good for justice.

The MoJ appeared to have had one central objective in the exercise, namely, to save £220m a year out of the annual spend of £2bn. Perhaps the outcome of the consultation may have been more productive if they had asked their learned friends for solutions on how to take cost out of the system.

However, whether or not the Lord Chancellor was serious about the consultation, he does appear to have heard something; I suspect what he heard was not the criticisms of the approach but the threat that few, if any, of the lawyers would compete for the business. Now all good procurement people know one key fact, a competitive tendering exercise only works if sellers chose to bid - the legal profession appear to have used their powers of persuasion to suggest that they wouldn't take part in a bidding process. The outcome is a return to the drawing board for the MoJ and I suspect a discussion on how on earth these ket stakeholders can reach a readiness to change

I have no idea how the MoJ propose to move forward on this but it will pose major problems:

1. The lawyers appear to have won through harnessing their collective power to opt out of tendering;
2. The notion that lowest price wins is rarely right but how will the MoJ repackage the procurement strategy or will they just give up?
3. If you chose to take on lawyers are the odds stacked against you winning in a regulated procurement environment? 
4. The government now appear to have met their 'trade union' nemesis in trying to bring about change with the 'professions' of the medical world and the legal world  - how will they change their future negotiating strategy?

A balanced approach to probation outsourcing

I've discussed the outsourcing of the probation service on a number of occasions but today revealed a strange 'spin' which requires re-balance and critique if the best option and approach is to be selected.

We have learnt that "Officials have warned the Justice Secretary", but then that the warning is actually in the form of a risk register. Of course there should be a risk register which identifies risks in as objective a manner as possible, but risks 'might happen', it doesn't mean they 'will happen'. Is it fair refer to inclusion is a risk register as a 'warning'?

Then we learn that a "a criminal justice expert said the Probation's sell-off is being carried out too hastily; there is too much risk. It is highly likely that service delivery will collapse and public protection will be undermined. The Government must think again". Well if you heard that from a 'criminal justice 'expert' you'd assume an objective opinion, but if you were then told that 'expert' had been a trade union representative of the probation service perhaps you'd consider the opinion highly subjective and more than a little biased?

The Times. which report that they have seen the risk register, appear to have been a victim of spin and not managed the risk of being a pawn well.

From a procurement perspective, whether or not we agree with outsourcing, we should applaud comprehensive risk registers, but we should also avoid being too influenced by subjective opinions. Professional procurement requires robust options appraisal and risk management as opposed to scare mongering.

Reducing crime doesn't pay if you're paid by on the basis of demand

Not everyone gains from reduced crime. When you've contracted to deliver a service, and the service is linked to prison 'heads on the beds' you're in trouble if crime reduces.

That's the painful lesson G4S have learnt in The Netherlands, which has seen a reduction in prison occupancy rates from 14,100 in 2005 to an anticipated, below 9,000 in 2015. 30 prisons close so there is less demand for the contracted G4S prison officers. Reduced demand for contracted prison officers, for G4S, leads to the need to issue a warning over profit margins. Anticipated deduced profit margins led to a 15% fall in share price. Reduced profits and share price leads to a potential change in financial stability. Reduced financial stability of a key contractor should lead to a reassessment of procurement risk.

This should serve as a reminder to those involved in procuring services of the need to be conscious of:

• The need to align contractor incentives with those of the procuring organisation;
• The need to recognise that demand goes up and down;
• The need to design contracts which can flex for demand;
• The need to carry out market scanning and understand the potential impact of external changes.

A uniform approach to justice and wasting money

There's something a bit strange going on when departments are wrestling with spending cuts and how to make them, yet a parallel discussion which says "let's spend more".

That's what looks set to be announced next Tuesday when it is decreed that all new prisoners will have to wear prison uniforms for the first two weeks of their 'Porridge'.

While there appear to be a reduction in prisoner privileges there do not appear any means of reducing the fixed costs, therefore the gyms and fancy TV's will still have to be paid for, but a new additional cost of uniforms will have to be added. Previously prisoners carried the cost of their own clothes, now it will be the public purse. I wonder has some costed this change and carried out a cost benefit analysis.

Thinking of the risks:

1. What will happen if all prisoners see this as an opportunity to protest and request that the public pay for clothing beyond the two weeks as an act of protest? How much will that cost?
2. How do you define 'a uniform', is it actually two uniforms (a prisoner could not be expected to wear the same clothes for two weeks?), complete with shoes, socks, etc?
3. What will happen when prisoners demand the right to be consulted on the uniforms?
4. What will happen if this goes to public tender and is won by a clothing provider in say Bangladesh? How will the public sector protect against the low cost manufacturing risks? 

A risk in outsourcing: (Not) Embracing Digital Procurement Strategy

I have been discussing Digital Procurement Strategy over the last few weeks. I thought I had said as much as I was going to until I read Thursday's report in The Guardian on the gagging orders allegedly placed on probation staff during the current outsourcing process of 70% of the work. This provides lessons for all those involved in outsourcing and change management.

As I see it, some stakeholders affected by the outsourcing decision aren't happy - should that be a surprise when your job is at risk, particularly in the current economic climate. They have not been won over during the change management process. They assumed they had freedom of speech and social media provided the channel. The main champion of the proposed outsourcing (the Justice Secretary) doesn't like what is being said using social media, so has chosen to effectively issue a gagging order on any dissenting voices. The gagging order isn't restricted to the disgruntled workers criticism but also applies to their 'retweeting' of others views (potentially this blog too). Seems like a strange view of justice but then perception counts for a lot. There also seems to be more than a little contradiction between the MoJ's view of the world and the proposed NHS Duty of Candour!

Of course we also need to remember that there are more stakeholders than the staff - there are the other potential providers (as I discussed in Probation's Dilemma a few weeks ago).

We are currently in the outsourcing process, what will happen when the contracts are subsequently awarded - will social media turn the process into another West Coast Rail debacle, will contract management become a target of social media, etc...?

My suggestion is that:

1. Recognise social media is two way - you may see it as part of external communications but it is also market communication about and to you;
2. Digital Procurement Strategy needs to reflect the risks of stakeholder engagement, misalignment and criticism;
3. Any potential discussion, yes, even a discussion, on outsourcing needs to be viewed within the context of a change management programme, even if it may not lead to outsourcing;
4. Trying to stifle social media is unlikely to be productive.

It's time for procurement policy outcome evaluations

I'm sure many of you followed the discussion on the evidence given by Colin Cram and Jon Hughes to the Public Administration Select Committee. We had a good critique, over a few Spendmatters' Blogs and the readers associated comments, then we had Colin's pieces in Public Leaders and Supply Management once again with associated comments. We need more discussion on how procurement is approached and more debate. But yet I feel there was a fundamental weakness in the whole discussion - it lacked any rigour and solid evidence.

There is an additional weakness though in relying on the wisdom of procurement's eminence grise to provide the right answers - while those in the procurement world can debate good practice, their wisdom is cloaked, in spite of the obvious disagreements, in 'the narrowness of the same school'. By way of contrast, we know that the Prime Minister takes advice from the philosopher Nassim Taleb. It is interesting when reading Chapter 12 of Taleb's 'Antifragile' that, had the philosopher been asked to comment on the best structural model for procurement delivery he could have been expected to have given a different view. Just to be clear, what I am saying is that, even though there is disagreement amongst some of the more influential procurement commentators, if we want to identify what is best, sometimes it is worth considering the views of those outside our world.      

One way of opening up to others views is through the use of social media. But as we make greater use of social media, and blogs in particular, for sharing thoughts on how to improve procurement we need to be cautious of taking opinions too seriously, regardless of the deference due, in the absence of evidence. I was surprised to discover that The Times differentiates between 'opinion' and 'reporting' through the use of ragged edges - we don't see that differentiation in most blogs. Opinions have a tendency to swing like pendulums. One day a particular view is fashionable and the next it's not.

A useful illustration of the need to be wary of opinions was provided in the second session of oral evidence provided to the same PASC. There we had the unexpected luxury of one of the witnesses, Kevin Craven (Chair of the CBI procurement sub-committee of the CBI PSSB, in answer to Question 55) stating "Generally the MoJ is seen as doing good work in the procurement area", yet on that very same day, MoJ procurement was being described as 'shambolic' by MPs in the same building - need I say more!

The situation isn't helped by

We need an urgent 'COBR like' response to food procurement

I'm sure you have guessed what's coming, yes, another food procurement disappointment, this time relating to not just a failure to deliver Halal meat, but to make matters worse to discover in that within the Halal labeled food were found traces of pork. Not good. What do we do now? This is getting pretty serious.

One of my friends is a devout Muslim and I can understand his food vigilance - he places trust in those who prepare his food and confidence in their assurances.

My daughter has a serious peanut allergy. Since she was very young we have gone to great lengths to protect her from peanuts. Wherever she goes, her epi-pens have gone with her (I hope). We've spent years asking airlines to protect her from exposure from peanuts when she's on board (I'm sure you've heard the type of announcements which have caused her to blush). When we go out for meals we place trust in those who prepare her food and confidence in their assurances.

Globally, we have also been concerned with food security - "both physical and economic access to food that meets people's dietary needs as well as their food preferences".

A few years ago I was involved in the Public Sector Food Procurement Initiative. It was a serious, cross-Whitehall strategy to help the UK economy. In all the meetings I attended I just cannot recall any discussion suggesting a lack of confidence in food standards or that what was procured would not be received to specification. Ironically, every meeting included a detailed review of risks to the Programme. UK food procurement has a significant contribution to make to the economy.

How things have changed. We now appear to be stepping into the abbess in terms for food procurement risk.

We all need to eat food, yes, prisoners and those with food allergies too. We all need to buy food to feed ourselves and our nearest and dearest. The horsemeat discussion was able to be side-tracked through the discussion of "at that price what do you expect?". We have now reached a different position - a public sector institutional food procurement failure.

The Probation's Dilemma

I'm sure many of you are familiar with the Prisoner's Dilemma - perhaps through the scene in one of my favourite films, The Beautiful Mind, when Nash outlines how his college friends can all 'get the girl' through collaborating together. I think today we saw a new iteration, The Probation's Dilemma.

Previously we have discussed problems with the potential outsourcing of prison services, now we've learnt of plans to outsource the probation service. Personally I think this creates a real dilemma.

1. The first problem is that already there is speculation one of those potentially in the frame for delivery are G4S.  Rather than revisit old ground and boring you, all I will say is: Olympics security delivery, black-listing, and Home Affairs Select Committee.
2. Second, there is the potential power some of the providers may gain in service delivery, namely, providers of tagging, prisoner transport, prison management and, now possibly, probation services. That's a lot of eggs in one basket and a lot of risk with a very small supply base who could start to have so much power they could hold the MoJ to ransom. 
3. Third, there's the problem with making Payment by Results work - specifying outcomes and contract management. Yes, Chris Grayling was one of the architects of the DWP Welfare to Work Programme, but to me that should still be treated as prototyping and an opportunity to learn. 
4. Fourth, there's the not insignificant problem of very unhelpful impact the austerity strategy has had on the third sector who have a good track record in supporting ex-offenders. The third sector are frustrated with their perception of the Work Programme and many have suffered considerable pain as a result of the austerity measures; many are struggling to survive and have been forced to make redundancies. It's all very well offering the carrot of £500k to help them prepare to bid but could this just be a little bit too late?  Have we already lost some of their innovation and creativity in service delivery by being 'penny wise and pound foolish' in short-term procurement strategy? If you were a third sector organisation would you have enough confidence that the probability of success will justify the costs of bidding?
5. Fifth, we have the lethal mix of third sector cashflow and payments by results - will potential third sector providers be able to cross subsidise an unproven government 'good idea'?
6. Sixth, is the readiness to change - it certainly doesn't look as if those who already work in delivering probation services have welcomed this initiative with a fanfare of endorsement!    

So, as I see it, that's The Probation's Dilemma: the need to blend that difficult mix into a success for all the stakeholders so that they each perceive a 'win' - given questions about the MoJ procurement capability and the risks involved: Beautiful Mind or Beautiful Dream?

MoJ Procurement capability lost in translation

Tonight's Channel 4 News carried an unfortunate story which seemed to once again call into question public procurement performance. I'm not going to try to defend the Ministry of Justice  but I do think there's a wider issue here - the effectiveness of the central government procurement improvement programmes.

When first mooted I was impressed by the concept of Procurement Capability Reviews.  They were an adaption of the former IDeA's successful Fitness Check programme.  The Fitness Check programme was considered part of the success of the National Procurement Strategy for local government.  The idea was simple:

1. develop a best practice strategic procurement benchmark; 
2. ensure senior management ownership and desire to be compared against the benchmark;
3. carry out a diagnostic 'critical friend' review;
4. identify priorities for improvement; 
5. communicate the outputs of the diagnostic review to the political and managerial leadership; and 
6. provide access to support, if desired.

The diagnostic could be traced back to the former OGC's Procurement Excellent Model, which in turn could be traced back to the EFQM.

A Procurement Capability Review was carried out in the Ministry of Justice. Although it now appears impossible to find the report on the web, references in the NAO report and an  associated presentation imply that a lot of room for improvement was acknowledged.  But what happened next?  A review for its own sake isn't sufficient.

Reducing prison inmate numbers and cleaning up crime (Part II)

On Monday I discussed the outsourcing of the prison services .  Now I've learnt that there has been a new entrant into the bidding. The Prison Service have now entered the game as Mitie's 'preferred partner'.  Mitie don't appear to have any experience of running a prison but now they've an obvious partner - the Prison Service.

I posed questions on the supplier appraisal approach but those questions have now been added to.

• How can a 'preferred partner' be added to one of those shortlisted after you've drawn up the shortlist?  
• What happens if the new partnership is successful in winning all nine contracts and an objection is raised on the robustness of the process?  
• Did the other bidders have an option of partnering with the Prison Service?  
• How and when did this partnership emerge?
• Are there any precedents?

Background reading
Lea, R., and Ford, R. 'Prison Service makes late bid to run private jails', The Times, 19 January, p.33.

Reducing prison inmate numbers and cleaning up crime

At a simplistic level there are some obvious ways of reducing the prison population, including:

1. Turning a blind eye to crime,
2. Reducing the number of custodial sentences,
3. Reducing reoffending, and
4. Making it easier for the prison population to escape.

It is with that in mind I was interested to learn that the Justice Secretary is outsourcing £2bn of prison service management.  Will that lead to a reduction in reoffending or an increase in escapes?

The short-listed bidders include some firms who lack any experience

Ministry of Justice finds IT Offender for Probation Services

When I last wrote about IT fiascos I referred to the need for political ownership and effective use of gateway reviews.  But IT procurement just seems to keep on giving lessons, if not unwarranted public monies to the IT wizards in the midst of an Austerity Strategy.

The latest debacle is found in the Probation Service's new £250m IT system for the whole of England and Wales.