Procurement policy on blacklisted construction workers?

Scottish construction workers protested on Friday about the discovery of a blacklist of 'trouble maker' employees'. I had previously discussed the blacklisting and asked why procurement should interfere if a potential employer opted to bypass 'trouble makers'.

However, what the protest has brought to light is that, when you scratch a little below the surface you find that the definition of a trouble maker, in this case, also relates to some who raised concerns about health and safety. That's a much more serious issue, as not raising concerns about health and safety could lead to liabilities, delays in project completion and serious injury or even death. Silencing the trouble maker in this case amounts to something similar to silencing NHS and other whistle-blowers. Yes, I think we all agree that whistle blowing policies are a good thing.

However, the protesters are calling for a ban on public sector contracts being awarded to firms that have used the blacklists. How on earth would that work? Would it be legal? How would you answer one of your political masters if you were asked to advise? How would you advise your Board if you were in a private sector organisation committed to responsible procurement?

I can't really see any scope for the public sector to avoid using those involved in the blacklisting as it is quite probable that a number of the issues just aren't relevant to the subject matter of the contract. Yet, I do think there is scope for every public sector organisation to consider within the selection criteria the need for a whistle blowers policy. Would that not be a more pragmatic way to solving the problem and yet avoiding the direct risks of related potential increased delivery costs through site closures, etc.. and duty of care?

What would your recommendation be?

Are you ready for Procurement Visibility: ProcureTruths

I wonder how many of you have come across Glassdoor; a website where potential employees can identify a particular organisation, the typical salaries paid to their varying levels of staff, what questions were asked in interviews, others experience of the recruitment process and what those who were successful in the selection process subsequently thought about working for the organisation. Some really interesting insights and all free of charge.

It came as quite a surprise to someone who recently wanted to discuss a 'compelling opportunity' with me, when I explained that the comments on Glassdoor made it clear to me there was little value in progressing the discussion.

I can see how Glassdoor could be used as part of procurement research in providing useful insights on bidding firms. Of course as Peter Smith rightly implies have we information overload?

However, visualise a similar service for the supply market, let's call it, 'ProcureTruths'. Perhaps ProcureTruths already exists unbeknown to me (please enlighten me if you know of it?).

Nevertheless, let's visualise that ProcureTruths, provides potential suppliers with information on specific buying organisations, say:

1. Key decision makers in the procurement process;
2. Procurements influence over spend;
3. Typical questions asked during the procurement process; 
4. Organisational tendency to maverick spend;
5. Buyers qualifications and currency of training;
6. Understanding and application of procurement best practice; 

Calling the kettle black & Taking Account of Bidders' Past Performance

I just don’t get it. There was the fanfare of MP’s calling for a blacklist of poor suppliers based on perceived performance failures of one supplier (who shall remain nameless) but subsequently went on to win many contracts. Then this week brought uproar when the construction industry were alleged to have a blacklist of staff who had demonstrated poor past performance. Do we seriously want organisations taking on staff with a history of poor performance or are we expecting them to rely on the rhetoric and additional costs of making it easier for employers to get rid of poor performing staff. Would we want to procure from organisations which had poor preforming staff?

The recent Procurement Policy Note - TakingAccount of Bidders' Past Performance, euphemistically called 'Action Note 09/12', would answer, ‘no’.

The Policy Note is concerned with taking into consideration a suppliers past performance, and by implication, the past performance of the suppliers’ workers! Is this a case of ‘the pot calling the kettle black’?

What I just don’t get is why did we need a Policy Note to set out, only for contracts over £20m, that suppliers past performance should be considered. Call me naïve but the EU procurement rules have never prohibited taking into consideration a potential contractors relevant past performance.

Does the need for a Policy Note imply that central government procurement has not previously

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?

Could supplier blacklisting backfire?

We have been aware of the UK central government plan to blacklist poor performing suppliers for some time. Today a new twist was introduced when the CBI, who frequently support procurement reform, entered the discussion and made clear they do not support the initiative.  The CBIs director general said:

"It's an unhelpful development, from our point of view. In 2010 the government came to suppliers and said, 'we want you to take a haircut and we want you to share your ideas'. We've taken a cut in margins and offered our intellectual property up to government to find better ways to operate more efficiently and this is what we got."

It is surprising given the traditional closeness of CBI to the government that they were not consulted upon and contributed to the development of this policy.

But what is more surprising is that the government CPO, Bill Crothers, believes this is the first time a company's record has been taken into account in the public tendering process.  Quite frankly I am both mystified and concerned