Design & delivery of a compelling 'Stay In' public information leaflet without shooting client in the foot

Next week we are told every household in the UK will start to receive a copy of a public information leaflet setting out 'Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK'.  We are told the leaflet has cost £9m, including the cost of packaging and delivery (Production: £458,500; Print and delivery: £5.947m; Digital promotion and website: £2.894m).

The initiative is proving, unsurprisingly, to be politically toxic but there are interesting procurement issues too - so if I were the CPO asked to have handled this procurement exercise here's some of the questions I would have asked:

1. Have we processes in place to comply with the EU Regs?
2. I assume the business case has been agreed, risk assessed and approved?
3. Has the 'do nothing' option or leave to the 'Stay in' campaign been fully evaluated?
4. Do we let one contract for design, one for print, one for packaging, one for delivery, and one over-arching contract?
5. The budget is separate for 'production' and 'print and delivery', what do we mean by 'production' - is that 'design'?
6. The design appears to include every other page as a colour picture, given that this is primarily about 'facts' will the additional pages of print and costs directly associated with the pictures be justified?
7. Has an equality impact assessment been completed on the design?
8. Are those with special needs accommodated?
9. Is there any risk that the potential suppliers could subsequently prove to be an embarrassment to the initiative? 
10. Which elements of the work can be used to showcase UK businesses, SME's and the community sector?
11. Which elements of the work could be delivered by UK businesses, SME's and the community sector?
12. What quality of paper is required, would cheaper quality match our needs?
13. Given that this initiative is being led by the Environment Secretary, will the paper and inks used reflect our aspired environmental credentials?
14. What are the alternative avenues for distribution which can be subjected to an options appraisal, for example, do we use Royal Mail or its competitors, community sector, local government refuse collection operatives (some may say that would cut out the middle man for many householders and go straight to the bin)?;
15. Given the Government Digital Strategy, the target audiences, and the Environment Secretary leadership, would a 'soft copy' and making use of social media perhaps be worth exploring more before pursuing a print dominant route?
16. Will there be costs incurred if householders pursue a 'return to sender' protest and have they been factored in?
17. Are you sure this initiative is not something we may live to regret?

Almost echoing my suggestions for reducing the cost of organising the Queen's Birthday celebrations, a letter in today's Times must ring alarm bells for those concerned with stewardship of the public purse:

Sir, I doubt I am the only director of a creative agency who would be more than happy to design a 16-page glossy brochure, edit and proofread it, for less than one tenth of the £500,000 of taxpayers' money mentioned in your report.

EDEN PHILLIPS, CEO, Edenco Creative 

Have the NAO got it wrong on gifts & hospitality?

I read the National Audit Office report on the 'Investigation into the acceptance of gifts and hospitality' with interest but have to say I am mystified. While the EU and United Nations are against the receiving of gifts within a procurement context, the NAO appear to have come to a view that:

While barring UK officials from accepting gifts and hospitality is an option, it would run the risk of hampering the legitimate activities of the departments and officials, including engaging with stakeholders.

How could the refusal of a gift hamper (excuse the pun) business? I am also mystified at the lack of explicit recommendations.

Hospitality and gifts are only targeted at those who are likely to have influence over a decision, and there should be no 'ifs' or 'buts', they are offered to distort decision-making. Of course, the NAO have referred to avoiding perceived conflicts of interest - sorry perception of hampering business is unavoidable when gifts and hospitality are received in the procurement process.

Let's also remember that any gift or hospitality offered is not free from cost - that cost has to be recouped from somewhere and in all probability is an overhead cost included in all public sector contracts.

So what were the examples of gifts received:

These included: tickets to professional sports and cultural events, sometimes accompanied by a spouse and/or children; bottles of champagne; wine for a team’s Christmas lunch; iPads; Fortnum & Mason hamper, a painting valued at £300.

That list is of course constrained by the fact that the systems for recording gifts are not robust and not adhered to anyway.

I didn't pick up anything which specifically addressed staff involved in procurement, but let's remember that if they are MCIPS/FCIPS the CIPS Code of Conduct applies.

Regardless, I think the NAO have missed a mark on this one, a robust approach to the acceptance of gifts and hospitality is not just about the perception of conflicts of interest, it is about protecting staff from potential allegations of bribery and corruption - it should not only be a risk management issue but a health and safety issue too.

Strategic procurement programmes: Before and after

We're all familiar with the 'before and after' images which so often paint a picture that suggests 'after' is more attractive than 'before'. If only that were the case with strategic procurements.

After years of 'before' trumpeting the anticiapted aspirational success of the NHS National Programme for IT, a programme which appeared to be the offspring of political egotism, the first signs of faltering, and the cosmetics of a name change, now politicians want answers:

"There has to be a reckoning. We have to know how much money has been squandered and what could have been done instead."

"If the people letting the contract have made a catastrophic, gargantuan mistake then there is an opportunity cost. It is the taxpayer who has to fork out money for what should have been spent n services they need."

To me the NPfIT was clear who was leading and the governance structure to be used. But back in 2011 I asked what happened to the application of Gateway Reviews on the Programme. Of course MPs received NAO reports on the Programme's progress too - they were not ignorant of the risks.

So when the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Administration Select Committee sit down looking for answers, I hope they start by considering their own role in oversight - didn't they have a responsibility to the electorate? They could ask about political pressure that that was exerted and if civil servants 'pushed back'? They could then ask about who was getting paid for Programme leadership, where, when and why it went wrong? Then they could get the detailed findings of the Gateway Reviews? Then look at the risk register, how it was reviewed and when and what actions were taken? Then they could look at similar debacles, of which there are many, forget the political rhetoric and posturing? Finally they must ensure an environment exists which ensures there are very real penalties in place for those who should have blown the whistle on this and similar programmes yet didn't - did they lack the knowledge or the spine?

Unfortunately the 'after' looks fairly ugly for this Programme but perhaps the Beast could spawn some Beauty's for the future.

When obfuscation meets incisive questioning on collaborative procurement

On the 22 June the NI Assembly Public Accounts Committee published its report on collaborative procurement in Northern Ireland - far from a glowing endorsement for those leading on collaborative procurement.

However, as some of you will recognise I am intrigued by some of the oral evidence sessions at public procurement inquires. The Report includes the witness evidence given by key players in civil service procurement in Northern Ireland to the Committee on 5 June 2013. On this occasion those asking the questions were remarkably well informed on public procurement and their expectations. Unlike so many of the Inquiries I have discussed previously (for example, the recent CLG Committee Inquiry), the MLAs were not prepared to be distracted but asked probing and detailed questions - to me they were exemplary in their scrutiny.

So what do I mean by probing and not being distracted? Let's look at the questioning regarding the CPD (Central Procurement Directorate), a hybrid organisation who, according to the evidence do not procure anything (#4 and #138) but provide guidance. The CPD was set up in 2002 and in their evidence said "we have been making procurement processes more efficient over a longer period than some other jurisdictions" (#18) - by other jurisdictions you can take it they include England, Scotland and Wales. Let's remember that Northern Ireland is quite small and is really about the size of one of the bigger counties in England, so perhaps when comparing progress towards collaborative procurement a better comparison may have been with the Yorkshire Purchasing Organisation (YPO) or Central Buying Consortium (CBC).

Bad Pharma, data manipulation & procurement inquiries

Richard Bacon MP, a member of the Public Accounts Committee, gave a very good interview on the Today programme this morning. I have listened to Bacon during various PAC procurement related inquiries and have always been impressed - to me he grasps key procurement issues very quickly and provides excellent scrutiny and probing. 

Although he did make reference to the NHS being a monopoly buyer, his interview wasn't about procurement but the publication of clinical research, or more specifically, the problems of drug companies withholding information which doesn't suit their vested commercial interests. I discussed some of these issues in my review of Ben Goldacre's Bad Pharma. 

However, he made a number of comments which are particularly relevant to procurement, for example, stating that "The whole point of scientific research is that you take all the data ..." because cherry-picking and just using research which suits your vested interests distorts the truth and leads to false impressions. 

I would like PAC to reflect on that when they consider procurement evidence too.

A tale of two cities for CLG procurement inquiry: Sheffield & Sheffield

The CLG Inquiry into procurement rolled into Sheffield on the 18 November. This initially impressed me as it provided an opportunity to get out and feel the pulse on the ground. I say initially, as it transpired during the evidence that the Committee had pre-purchased tickets for the 3.47 train back to London and therefore couldn’t hear evidence after 3.25. Was such a guillotine a demonstration of good value for money?

Anyway, I would love to have shared the carriage with the Committee as they returned to London, and waited for the “What are we to make of all that?”

The objective of the sortie to Sheffield was “about trying to find out what is really happening on the ground, ..., what is going right, and what is going wrong”. What they heard were mixed messages about procurement in Sheffield; not local government in general, and not local government procurement in Sheffield but a ‘come all ye’ of anecdotes from questionable sources. For example:

• Single sourcing is leading to an item which would otherwise have cost £10 costing £20, yet no evidence to substantiate that claim was provided;
•  EU procurement rules require contracts over £250k to be advertised, yet my understanding is that the threshold for councils is actually £173,934;
•  Contracts under £20k can be awarded on the basis of three phone calls;
• “people, companies and organisations from outside the area seem to have a better opportunity of obtaining procurement contracts, mainly because they do not have any conflicts of interest or for some other reason.”

My suggestion to the Committee is, if you hear such heresy and factually flawed evidence, treat the informants other evidence with a large pinch of salt.

But the Committee are not blameless in this evidence session,

Do the incumbents of government contracts have an advantage?

On Tuesday I discussed the NAO Memorandum to Parliament on the management of strategic suppliers. I now turn to the parallel Memorandum on the role of major contractors in the delivery of public services. This is slightly different though in that it aims to stimulate public debate.

As usual, an excellent report from the NAO with plenty of useful insights for procurement practitioners.

I have little to contribute to that debate, however, I do think paragraph 1.9 in the report is worth discussion:

Incumbents can be seen by procurement and policy officials as he easier and softer option. Across the 15 applicable services we looked at as case studies for this memorandum , seven had been retendered at least once, with four of the most recent competitions being won by new providers.

I don't agree that procurement and policy officials would have a preference to the incumbent, and I doubt if the success in retendering demonstrates they do.

Incumbents have many first mover advantages and would be expected to do well in a retender as they should be able to identify scope for inefficiencies and have a greater understanding, possibly than the client, of the client's needs. The incumbent will also know where the emphasis can be placed in pricing strategy and where demand is lowest.

Strategic supplier management in UK government

On Sunday I discussed Premier Foods novel approach to strategic suppliers. Yesterday, the National Audit Office published a Memorandum to Parliament on Managing Government Suppliers - an interesting publication for anyone concerned with strategic procurement approaches, regardless of the sector you work in.

Margaret Hodge, Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, is clearly not happy with what the Memorandum has highlighted, nor that of its sister report on the role of major contractors. Both would have been of particular interest had their conclusions been fed into the PASC Inquiry on public procurement so it will be interesting to see 'what happens next?'

40 contractors have been identified as 'strategic' and collectively they consume 25% of the government's total spend. The suppliers are identified as strategic on the basis of extent and profile across central government and potential added value, but not necessarily spend or risk.

There still appears to be confusion on roles, responsibilities and accountabilities between spending departments and the Cabinet Office. That strikes me as something which needs to be addressed urgently as it could lead to suppliers playing one off against the other and causing gaps in strategic supplier management. At the present spending departments are the contracting bodies, yet both the departments and suppliers are subjected to Cabinet Office interference without accountability. Of course there's nothing unique about this and it's not a problem unique to the public sector either.

But then we also have the potential for dysfunctionalism with the Cabinet Office's focus on short-term savings while departments can be expected to have a wider view.

Thus spake PAC on Universal chaos and waste

"...the Department lacked an overarching business transformation strategy, and focused its effort on the programme's IT aspects. The failure to develop a comprehensive plan which will deliver these important changes has led to substantial nugatory expenditure which has yet to be finally determined and extensive delays in the implementation of the programme. 

 The Department accepts that timescales have slipped and that value has not been secured from the X million[s] invested so far. There has been a shocking absence of financial and other internal controls and we are not yet convinced that the Department has robust plans to overcome the problems that have impeded progress. Our recommendations are designed to help get the programme back on track. In particular the Department needs a robust plan on how to transform its business and what is required from the new IT systems it intends to use to support the transformation. If the Department is to secure the benefits it seeks, the new IT capabilities must enable more online operations, must address fraud risks, and result in a system capable of handling the real-world complexities of [key users] circumstances. The Department must be realistic and transparent about its expected costs and timescales, and the milestones against which we can hold it to account. We believe strongly that meeting any specific timetable from now on is less important than delivering the programme successfully."

It's highly likely that a high proportion of the millions invested will have to be written off. Without even getting beyond the summary, it isn't hard to ask "aren't these the basics of PRINCE2 and MSP?"  However, how many other projects could the same narrative apply to with a little 'cut and paste'?

But just in case you thought this was all the fault of IT strategists and policy wonks;  procurement were also named and shamed:

Universal Credit's contract management seems lost in space

I doubt if anyone truthfully expected the NAO Early Progress Report on Universal Credit to be singing its praises – life just isn’t like that. However, tucked away within the woes of the implementation are the added miseries of procurement and contract management.

Universal Credit isn't only one of the Government's flagships, it is one of the Cabinet Office's 12 major programmes - as such it is critical that it acts as a 'how to' exemplar. 

It is hard to believe that a more holistic approach to procuring the IT systems wasn’t pursued. That failure contributed to £34m of new assets being written off. Serious questions should be asked to establish if that £34m write-off could have been avoided, had the procurement approach been to look over the life of the programme as opposed to a narrow pilot. Did the suppliers warn of this potential waste?

Then we see a recommendation:

The Department should improve its ability to challenge suppliers and reduce its reliance on suppliers for important decisions (p.10). 

You will recall the tough talking of 2010 when Francis Maude summoned some of the top suppliers and read the riot act

A spending review anomaly for procurement policy

The Spending Review provides an opportunity to gain some insights into public procurement policy, so it is worth looking slightly deeper than the common headlines of cuts, cuts, cuts.

The nugget which I want to highlight is the freedom gained by Arts Council England and the national museums to opt out of government procurement procedures. 

First it is worth reflecting on what I think was the last relevant report on DCMS procurement by the National Audit Office - at that time, (admittedly November 2005) the view was:

"Procurement is an area where the Culture, Media and Sport sector can achieve significant savings and improvements. Whilst the sector has made some progress in improving its procurement capabilities and practices, a great deal more can be done. A greater level of commitment from organisations to adopting good practice, as well as addressing specific issues such as greater collaboration between organisations when buying common goods and services, will result in greater value for money." (Sir John Bourne, 30 November, 2005).

Is the new freedom to opt out of government procurement procedures an acknowledgement that DCMS has so significantly improved procurement that they should be cut loose from the constraints applicable elsewhere in the sector? If that is the case, which I doubt, it would be useful to understand how they have brought about greater collaboration, which just has not been achieved elsewhere in the public sector, for example, the police?

Is the freedom an acknowledgement that existing government procurement procedures are inappropriate? If so, why release one part of the sector rather sort out the procedures for all departments?

Did Arts Council England and the national museums actually ask for this freedom, if so what was the business justification? What precedent has been set and how will it be applied to the next petition for 'opting out'?

What particular areas of government procurement procedures will Arts Council England and the national museums be released from and have those relaxations been risk assessed? Are major construction projects, grants, and commodity goods and services included? Have new procedures been drafted, if so, can we hear what the proposed new procedures are? Will those procedures be 'leaner'?

Assuming government procurement procedures exist to provide value for money, achieve public policy and provide a shield to protect those involved in public procurement from criticism; how will those objectives now been satisfied?

On the heels of so much debate on greater use of 'centralised' contracts, has the so called 'mandating' just been set aside?

Will the independence bring with it reduced costs for what is procured? If yes, then some serious questions need to be asked about the 'centralisation agenda'? If costs increase, how will that be justified? Will a baseline for future comparison even be established and published?

To be truthful, I just can't understand the freedom as it seems to go against the tide - I'd like to have heard the view of Francis Maude, Margaret Hodge and Bernard Jenkin?

24 hours to get your communications plan ready

It seems this weekend was a good time to bash public procurement and that the attack will continue on Monday night with Channel 4's Dispatches programme. I make no defence for public money wasted and am ashamed of some of the poor public stewardship exhibited. But the headlines can be misleading, the sound bites are easily digested and create barriers for hearing the truth. But procurement can see the media attention as an opportunity, to do that you need to think about what will be 'heard', how to respond and how to create a constructive platform for moving forward. These few days public procurement bashing can be very healthy and provide a useful opportunity for strategically repositioning procurement, if you want.

So, let's recall, Saturday's public procurement bashing centred around the Taxpayers' Alliance publication of the Bumper Book of Government Waste. The headline figure was £15bn of procurement waste per year. You can read my blog on how I believe the headlines were flawed. To me, if you are in public procurement, you need to have a quick refresh of the content of Towards Tesco, understand the key arguments, set out the pros and cons of your own organisational structure (acknowledge there is no perfect structure), be clear how you can maximise the benefits of collaborative procurement internally and externally, and set out your collaboration strategy.

Monday night's Dispatches programme provides a second bite of the cherry. In anticipation of that you should try to read the Sunday Times procurement bashing articles. Expect a revisit of Sir Philip Green's flawed report - you could read my critique. To me the focus of the bashing will be on pCards - now I've dealt with those before. You should understand the benefits of procurement cards, particularly how they can help local SMEs at the present time with cashflow problems. Also be clear about the transaction cost reductions and, contrary to the bashing, the increased control and visibility they provide. The Dispatches programme here is your ally as it highlights visibility which may not otherwise have been available. Make it clear that pCards were not the problem but inadequate governance, controls and procedures.

The timing of the media procurement bashing is also fortuitous - if the newspaper articles hadn't have been over the weekend, CEOs may not have had time to consider them. Your challenge now is to seize the opportunity and prepare a briefing paper for your CEO so that you can use media procurement bashing as part of your procurement communications strategy.

Taxpayers Alliance procurement assertions are flawed

Today's Times makes great play of The Taxpayers' Alliance, Bumper Book of Government Waste. Not only does public procurement get a bashing on page 4, but also in an Opinion piece from Matthew Sinclair (Chief Executive of the Taxpayer's Alliance) on page 26.

When I read that £15bn a year could be saved through better public procurement naturally I looked for the evidence. That led me to the source being cited as the Institute of Directors. But the Institute of Directors hadn't identified £15bn could be saved, their source was Colin Cram's report, Towards Tesco.

Now I have deliberately stayed clear of the procurement family spat on Towards Tesco, not least because I like and have great respect for those presenting the opposing arguments. However, we have to remember that the Towards Tesco was based on big assumptions too - it also stated there was an absence of reliable data.

I have serious concerns about the pragmatism of the centralisation argument and I'm not even sure if Colin's argument has been correctly interpreted. But we have reached a dangerous stage when a hypothesis presented by Colin, who is clearly committed to public procurement, is being misinterpreted and used by the Taxpayers' Alliance. We need to end the rhetoric and move to robust peer reviewed evidence to get to the most likely outcome. In the meantime, perhaps we should take all the other Taxpayers' Alliance assertions with a pinch of salt.

Are we ready for naming, blaming, shaming & taming procurement

What do you think about the Health Secretary's plan to expose health consultants who want to opt out of performance tables?

I'm in favour. In fact I'd go further - I want to understand the outcomes achieved, problems encountered in the operating theatre, proportion of NHS/private work, the proportion of their career spent on my particular area of concern, and, what's more, I want to  have the option of seeing that information on an NHS validated webpage or when I am sitting in my GPs surgery discussing a referral. Why? Well, I have had a number of operations which have had complications in theatre, serious infections, and conflicting opinions. I have also been given, what other consultants convinced me was inappropriate treatment and inappropriate advice. I also want to see the cloak of aloofness removed from the consultant so that they also remember I am the focus of their attention.

While I'm on that rant let me share just one of many bad experiences. I waited quite some time for an appointment to see a consultant. I then waited long after my appointment time to be admitted to his inner sanctum. While I was waiting, of course there were the signs prohibiting the use of mobile phones. I was duly informed I could be seen. No sooner was I in the throne room than his mobile phone rang, he said, "excuse me I have to take this call". Believe it or not the call was from his son and they discussed his performance on the rugby pitch. Not that surprisingly the child had more of the consultants time than I had. Did I feel I'd experienced patient centred care?

Thankfully, I have also experienced absolutely world class care. On at least one occasion having to be reassured they had not mistaken me for a private patient.

Remove the cloak of mystery and I can make informed decisions as to whether or not I trust the consultant. Remove the cloak and I can see beyond the hot air. Remove the cloak and I can opt not to go near the poor performers.

Now if we adopted a similar position in public procurement things might change too. We might learn who is in the wrong job, who doesn't implement procurement policy, whether centralised contracts are justified. Let's forget about massaging the data overload and opacity of contracts let. Just let us know which procurement departments achieve agreed objectives. If they don't use the central contracts, just let them tell us why - we can then make an informed judgement as to whether the 'centralised contracts' are at fault or the procurement leads. If we see enough CPOs saying the contracts aren't used because they aren't fit for purpose, then maybe that is useful for reviewing the strategy. If procurement policy initiatives are not being implemented then maybe we have the wrong CPOs. Are we ready for naming, blaming and shaming in public procurement? Perhaps we're content with the cloak of opacity.

Police procurement on the line

There's something very odd about a room where the most common item of clothing worn appears to be a white shirt and the main subject of discussion is how difficult it is to buy white shirts.

Yes, that's what the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee seemed to focus on at its meeting on 5 June when the subject was really Police Procurement.

However, this evidence session should, in my mind, be included within the Public Administration Select Committee's Inquiry into Public Procurement. The evidence had a much more realistic assessment of the difficulties associated with centralisation.

The Committee started with a reality check: why, when Gershon, in 2004, highlighted the need for a 'uniform' approach to buying white shirts for the 43 police forces,  has such a seemingly simple aspiration proved so difficult to implement? Yet, that's the question which needs an unequivocal answer to, and plan to address, before 'the grand collaborative public procurement vision' should be embarked upon.

Theoretically, the silver bullet has been found for the police in the form of the Procurement Hub. It appears the aspiration was that there would have been 100% sign-up to the Hub last year, yet so far only 2%, yes, TWO PERCENT has been reached. The new aspiration is that 80% will be achieved by the end of the current parliament. Asked, what milestone has been set for 12 months time on the journey from 2% to 80%, there was a sense of embarrassment - that question seemed to take the Permanent Secretary by surprise! It does make you question if there is the least likelihood of the 'stretch target' being achieved.


What are the problems with bringing about increased ownership of the Procurement Hub? Answer:

• Cultural issues;
• Changes in processes; and
• Resistance to change.

But hold on a second, the Procurement Hub will not standardise on one uniform white shirt, or one supplier, it's a collaborative 'framework'. Sounds a bit like legalising 'pick 'n' mix' as opposed to Gershon's vision.

NHS Commissioning looks poorly

I had thought we had done away with public flogging but today's Public Accounts Select Committee certainly gave me cause to doubt that. What was even more bizarre was that some of the witnesses appeared to be wearing self-written sandwich boards which said "I haven't really prepared for this grilling and I don't plan to demonstrate any humility today and certainly not accept personal accountability".

It was a gruelling session for all those involved and the patience of the MPs seemed to be sorely tried - I may return to some of the evidence in more detail. Four points though are worth reflecting on and one worth discussing:

1. Hospital consultants appear to have negotiated wonderful contract which led to being paid more and being less productive. 'Pay more for less' just isn't that best outcome for a buyer from a negotiation.
2. The reason why we are 'paying more for less' is, believe it or not, being a consultant has become more complicated in the last decade. I'm sure that's not what they meant to say but they made a point of reiterating that argument.
3. There was great play made of the presence of annual plans for clinical consultants. The committee appeared to struggle to understand why their presence alone was worthy of credit while the lack of an associated performance management system.
4. There is a need to really understand what you have authority to do - our friends seemed unsure whether Treasury Guidance, because it had been around for some time, still needed to be adhered to.

However, there was another strange twist in the Clinical Commissioning Group saga, now we find "Commissioners should only use competition where there is evidence it works". I would have liked the Committee to have been more probing on this statement and what the guidance will say. Given the conflicts of interest we discussed on Friday this does not strike me as a good foundation for achieving value for money:

• What will be acceptable evidence that competition works?
• What incentive would there be to try to prove competition works?
• Will it be possible for potential challenges that 'competition doesn't work'?
• What incentives will there be to ensure that those who have demonstrated poor negotiation in hospital consultants' contracts will be able to negotiate contracts without competition? 

It is certainly is an interesting precedent to set and one which I am sure others will crave for. Why on earth did the Public Accounts Committee let that pass?

pCard or not pCard, that is the question: Considering the evidience

The Government Procurement Card (pCard) was introduced in 1997. Its primary purpose was to reduce the transaction costs associated with Low Value Orders when it was assumed the cost of the transaction was more than the actual purchase price.  It was also believed that pCards would deliver better control and reduce fraud.

On 1 June 2012 the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) published its report on the use of pCard’s in central government. While the PAC report highlights the need for strengthening controls and a refreshed business case. This blog is not concerned with the key content of the report but instead considers some of the oral evidence reported verbatim in the report. The oral evidence discussed reveals some matters of relevance to all those concerned with reducing procurement transaction costs, regardless of whether or not they are based in the UK, engaged in central government or the wider public sector.  While concurring with the PAC findings and recommendations, the significance of some of the key issues debated appears to have been missed in the key body of the PAC Report.