Grenfell Tower: Could procurement help reduce the current risk?

Few could fail to be affected by the tragic disaster of Grenfell Tower. Understandably there has been a clamour for a quick response to reduce the risk of a repeat, but I wonder if the potential use of procurement as a speedy risk mitigator is being overlooked.

Attention is being given to having the cladding on something like 600 tower blocks tested and fire inspections carried out.  While that will provide some comfort and be politically expedient it there may be faster ways in providing reassurances to those potentially at risk.

Let's face it for cladding to have been installed there needed to be a specification, a contractor and a completion. Would it not be possible to use make use of that trio for providing a quicker response:

1. Each landlord checks the specification for cladding to see if, with the benefit of hindsight, it satisfies today's safety requirement; (If landlords don't have the capability then perhaps some central support could be provided to QA the specification);
2. If the specification is considered 'fit for today's needs' we then ask the contractor for a written undertaking as to whether they fitted the specified cladding. Failure to give that undertaking could be place the contractor on a 'naming and shaming list' and potentially be taken into consideration in the award of future contracts. Health & Safety legislation and Contract Law could be used to address those who feel short in delivering the specification;
3. If the specification is no longer acceptable then at least we have a short list to progress for further prioritisation;
4. Where the specification is appropriate and the contractor provides an undertaking that they complied, then you can provide some reassurance to residents and move those site visits further down the queue;

If I am correct, this strategy could provide reassurance in hours rather that weeks. Document analysis and quality assurance is at its core rather than the much slower inspection and testing. Is what I propose over-simplistic or have I missed something?

I'm not suggesting there will not be a need for a comprehensive response of testing, inspections, and review of Building Regulations, but that can happen against a background of the proposed prioritisation

Of course, the finger may well be pointed at construction procurement anyway, for example, poor specifying, poor contract supervision and management are obvious potential vulnerabilities, as will be allegations of fraud and corruption!

When contract management meets prisons management.

In the face of an obvious procurement performance management crisis in UK prisons, the Prisons Minister has stated "We have robust processes in place to closely monitor and manage the performance of all contractors".  It therefore seems strange that a £200m maintenance contract has been able to take on the appearance of not being managed and it was only when prison officers refused to accept inmates, some repairs made within hours!

Robust contract management process need to be more than just a written procedure, they need to be embedded as a way of working.

To make that happen the contract needs to have explicit standards and a specification of what represents acceptable performance - it is agreement between the provider and client of what they are exchanging. Is that explicit in the prison's maintenance contract?  That statement should have been based on a risk assessment and understanding of the 'front line' - were front line staff involved in defining the standards?

There also needs to be a cascading of the contract documentation down to those who are in a position to know, on the ground, what acceptable performance means. There is little point in a contractor being criticised for poor delivery if they are actually matching what they were asked to price, that could include, for example, schedules of which repairs need to be completed within particular timescales - again risk based.  While Carillion, in this particular case, are being criticised, is the specification part of the contract actually robust?

A contract management structure needs to support the process which sets out who monitors what and the escalation approach. It also needs to have a process where and when client/contractor liaison meetings take place.  Either this was not in place or it has failed drastically for the Prisons Minister to now be meeting with Carillion's senior management to set out the improvements required.

But the Prisons Minister also needs more that a list of defaults to wave in front of Carillion, he needs to have a very clear plan of what he is going to do if Carillion don't make the improvements. Can he terminate the contract and find someone else, for example? If he makes a threat at this stage and then doesn't follow through, he'll be looking for his own 'get out of jail' card.

A New Year procurement lesson from Rodin and the Honore of Balzac

Some time ago I discussed the story behind one of Rodin's sculptures, the Burghers of Calais, and its relevance to procurement; this time I want to discuss the actual procurement of a different one, namely, the sculpture of Balzac, the novelist who lived from 1799 until 1850.  

Rodin was commissioned by Societe des Gens de Lettres in 1891. Rodin spent seven years on the work, seeking to understand the author's life, arranging for models to pose and actually ordering clothes to Balzac's measurements. He eventually clothed the sculpture in a dressing gown depicting Balzac's dress sense when writing. Worse, Rodin chose to present the sculpture as a persona as opposed to a true likeness. The client was unaware of this intention and when a plaster model was presented to them in 1898 they were furious and refused to pay.

Rodin kept the sculpture but it was not cast in Bronze until 22 years after his death.  (You can now see the finished work and the Burghers of Calais in the Rodin Museum in Paris.)

Few would doubt Rodin's capability and capacity to satisfy the client, that's not where the commission went wrong. So, as we approach the procurements of 2016, the lesson is clear: make sure you specify clearly what you want and any constraints you place on the provider. If your commission can be managed in stages with sign-offs, make sure you set out what those stages are and also how you have the right of exit.

Rodin's sculpture of Balzac was not to everyones taste and indeed neither the buyer nor the seller ended up happy; pity they hadn't given more thought to the procurement process.

When actions speak louder than words

Sadly tonight, yet again Newsnight gave a focus to procurement - this time under the spotlight were 2 Sisters Food Group. 2 Sisters Food Group have a commitment to sustainability, and that is supposed to include responsible business. From a procurement perspective, here's what they claim on their website:

Procurement

Our vision - We partner with our suppliers to our mutual benefit and engage in the development and implementation of responsible sourcing standardsOne of the great sustainability challenges of our generation will be feeding 9 billion people on the planet, many of whom will be achieving increase in wealth. The growing population and increasing middle class bring bigger demands on land, what is produced and how it is produced. The potential impact on sensitive ecosystems is huge, and we will work with suppliers to prevent this through use of responsible sourcing standards. We are already certified to RSPO, are members of RTRS and UTZ, and supply MCS fish. Where relevant we will continue to support and champion responsible sourcing standards and develop approaches where they do not exist in the market.

A big challenge we face sourcing from over 50 countries is ensuring we protect people from exploitation and abuse. This is a complicated area, with many different challenges across the world depending in the size of suppliers, cultural differences and ways sectors operate. As members of SEDEX we are championing this to our supply chains, and have made a commitment to use this system to assess, risk rate and take action where required.  We will provide support to suppliers to ensure we can implement effective solutions that ensure the sustainability of both supply chains and 2 Sisters.

- See more at: http://www.2sfg.com/sustainability/#procurement

Later this week, on Thursday, we have another BBC exposé related to procurement, Apple's Broken Promises:

Apple is the most valuable brand on the planet, making products that everyone wants - but how are its workers treated when the world isn't looking? Panorama goes undercover in China to show what life is like for the workers making the iPhone 6. And it's not just the factories. Reporter Richard Bilton travels to Indonesia to find children working in some of the most dangerous mines in the world. But is the tin they dig out by hand finding its way into Apple's products?

There's something ironic that the profession is celebrating a name change and the ability to award individual Chartered Status while the media is pouring shame on our peers, sorry highlighting the shame of our peers. What I also find strange is how CIPS are being left out of any of the media discussions - are they part of the solution?

'Cut the Cards: making SAP work' - Book review

At first glance you may wonder what relevance this book could have to you. Don't be put off by the title as it is not a book for SAP 'techies'; it is much more and I would view it as recommended reading for anyone on an MBA course or with an interest in PRINCE2. I suspect those who would benefit most though would be those designated as Sponsor of an ERP implementation and those charged with an oversight or scrutiny role.

Donnelly has produced an easily readable book on what could be a very dry subject and his black humor works very effectively. Having said that, assuming there is a second edition, I think the addition of section headings would be beneficial.

In a forensic analysis of public and private sector IT implementation disasters, Donnelly provides a diagnosis of what he believes really went wrong: cash-flow, poor leadership, self-serving partners, poor project management, poor risk management, and poor contract management are all there.  Key lessons for me are the need to modify SAPs standard processes as little as possible, so change management should be concerned with moving from the As-is to the correct SAP process, having the correct governance in place and use PRINCE2 methodology.

Also covered, although indirectly, is SAP's marketing strategy - a good case study in itself.

But what's there for a procurement practitioner? If there's an ERP project the CPO needs to have a seat at the table as part of the business case development, specifying, contract drafting, selection, risk management, change management and contract management. Then the CPO needs to be engaged with Blueprinting the To-Be - I have previously discussed how that should be an opportunity for procurement transformation, yet too often is missed through automating the existing, yes, that still happens!

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.

Relationships First: The new relationship paradigm in contracting - Book review/critique

This a very strange book or is it a manifesto? It argues that something new has been developed and applied, yet I see little new from what was discussed in the mid-1990s. Does it justify the subtitle 'The New Relationship Paradigm in Contracting'? Sorry, it doesn't.

It is printed double-spaced, why? The appearance creates the assumption that this was a MBA project re-shaped as a self-published book. If it is a repackaged MBA project the potential reader should have been warned prior to purchase.

Five chapters of the author talking about his experience before you get to an explanation of what the 'new' model is about - actually I can't see what the new model is.

Business school models are drawn on, for example, 5 Forces and 7 S's. Yes, this definitely has the feel of an MBA project. Now why was Peter Kraljic's seminal 1983 paper was missed - didn't it have the same message that strategic contracts need to focus on relationships?

Time to take a stand on UK slavery in supply chain management

This weeks cover story of the Sunday Times Magazine heaps more shame on retail supply chain management and the suggestion that UK supermarkets are best of bred. 

I've frequently discussed the issues of supply chain management and even advocated that we need 'undercover supply chain managers'. Horsemeat and pork of poor providence, foreign factories with unacceptable health and safety, and poor working conditions - we've discussed them all even though the Public Administration Select Committee were led to believe retail procurement is an exemplar.  

But there has to be something seriously wrong when the Sunday Times Magazine appears able to expose appalling supply chain behaviour of UK supermarkets. What we learn on pages 22-27 of the Magazine and also in the main paper is that some UK supermarkets pursuit of 'value' means slave workers, on 17-hour days, suffering beatings and sexual abuse, living in squalor, for £2.80 per day. That's a very perverse view of responsible procurement. A very perverse view of supply chain management. A very strange view of contract management. Yet these modern day slaves are not in some far flung outpost, they are working in the UK and part of the supply chains to us.

The Home Secretary plans to introduce an anti-slavery bill and Chris Byrant MP, the shadow immigration minister hopes to introduce a Transparency in Supply Chains bill. The Sunday Times has announced it is fronting a Britain's Secret Slaves campaign. The supermarkets can be expected to hold up their hands and tell us through a spate of full-page advertisements it will be address the issues after once again being exposed for poor supply chain management - but clearly the claims of learning the lessons of the past ring hollow now. 

Yet there is one voice which seems silent on these issues, CIPS. We love the glory which comes from the Purchasing Manager's Index being regularly being cited as an economic indicator - but where is CIPS actually taking a stand on retail supply chain management?  If CIPS don't take hold of this very quickly the whole profession risks being discredited.

Solicitors - A cautionary tale (Part 2)

I recently set the scene regarding my introduction to acting as an Executor. One message which came through my induction was that there appeared to be a difference in my understanding of the theory and practice of the legal world. Another message was the need to remember when dealing with a solicitor you are dealing with a seller, who is not necessarily customer focussed. 

I next emailed the solicitor twice. In the first I reiterated I did not want a full service but two comparatively straight forward actions, progressing an Inheritance Tax Return and obtaining of the Grant Probate.

You may well ask why I even felt the need for the solicitor for this? Well the answer is quite straight forward, the obtaining of a Grant of Probate would have required me to be in Belfast on either a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday but I am only in Northern Ireland on Friday, Saturday and Sunday’s.  I had however, drafted the ITR and explained that to the solicitor.

The first email the solicitor stated:

... we feel that the proposed fee is disproportionate to the work required. If you were happy to provide an al la carte scale of charges or a capped rate for ITR and the Grant of Probate we would however be happy to reconsider? We would also be happy to receive your proposed fees for acting as solicitor in the sale of [the property]?  

A week later no reply.

Free range humble pie supply chains at Tesco

It's unbelievable, given the horsemeat debacle, that Tesco have now another food supply chain mess. Recall the rhetoric and assurances of lessons learnt and that customers could have confidence in UK food supply chains. We even had Government Minister's trying to sort out the mess. You may have believed the processes had been corrected and risk management and effective contract management put in place.

Yet Tesco have found themselves in another iteration of the same mess. This time supposedly Red Tractor British pork chops were found to lack the appropriate supply chain management performance. The Red Tractor label is supposed to provide an assurance of safety, hygiene and animal welfare - that mark of assurance has now been compromised by Tesco. Tesco didn't even appear aware that 'British' pork chops were actually Dutch!

'Mislabelling' seems to have become a euphemism for fraud, incompetence and inadequate supply chain management, oh yes, and over-pricing!

The key lesson here is that the response to the horsemeat crisis was not effective - it failed to address what are likely to have been systemic weakness which all point to ineffective change. Clearly the response to horsemeat has not been effective.

The lesson for us all is that procurement risk management and contract management are not 'one offs' -they need to be embedded in culture. To me that is the latest Tesco lesson. To me that's the question which all those responsible for procurement now need to test in their own organisations.

M&S Bizarre ways

It never ceases to amaze me when I read the bizarre M&S label which extols 'Inspired by Italy' - what does such a bizarre claim really mean?

We know M&S has diversified and is now a bank - you can get one of their credit cards with an APR of 16.9% - I wonder what Mr Marks and Mr Spencer would have thought of that diversification strategy and the idea that customers would pay over the odds to acquire something today and then pay later. But then Mr Marks & Mr Spencer grew up in different times - banks were the friends of business and they didn't bring businesses and countries to their knees.

Mr Marks & Mr Spencer may also find the whole talk of a  'Plan A' which addresses CSR quite bizarre. That's a long way from haggling with their suppliers then handing over the cash. But like 'Inspired by ...' what do such claims really mean?

I suspect Mr Marks & Mr Spencer would find it not only bizarre but be appalled by the notion of refusing to pay their suppliers in a reasonable time.

Yet now we see the convergence of banking, CSR, supply chains and a firm going through a mid-life crisis. The result, in spite of being signed up to CSR, and the Prompt Payment Code is to reach for the contract terms and beat the small guy over the head. So now it appears M&S have depersonalised business relationships and told their clothing suppliers they will slow down their payment, from 60 days to 75 days after receipt of goods. While supply chain financing is being viewed elsewhere as a panacea (and ironically M&S have made that commitment too) something seems to have got lost on the road to recovery with M&S. We can only assume suppliers will suffer, and that all the talk of M&S being committed to ethical trade has got lost in translation. Like 'Inspired by ...' what does M&S commitment really mean?

Now here's a dilemma: is it ethical to charge your customers 16.9% APR to buy your goods and then delay paying your suppliers within say 30 days, but not pay your suppliers 16.9% APR for the delayed payment?

Ethics and behaviour at M&S, to Mr Marks and Mr Spencer, may appear very, very bizarre.

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

Solicitors - A cautionary tale (Part 1)

Sadly my mother died recently of Alzheimer's. This introduced me to the world of actually fulfilling my role as an Executor. Carrying out the role of Executor isn't some black art and there are many sources of online support which can easily help navigate you through the process. Having said that we have now learnt that the average 'cost of dying' has increased 7.1% over the last year and now amounts to over £7,000.

I may well write a number of posts on my experience of dealing with the legal profession but today I will just deal with a few which address elements that have been at the centre of me purchasing and procurement career since the 70s, namely, Invitations to Treat, Offer and Acceptance, when a contract is in place and value analysis.

I have studied contract law in many forms over the years and thought I had a reasonable grasp of some of the principles, yet I now see the world slightly differently - here's a cautionary tale (Part 1).

My belief was always that there had to be certainty regarding the contract before it is valid. I met with the solicitor, and after that meeting questioned what was actually going to be delivered. I wrote:

Can you help by identifying what all [the firm] plan to do - my brother and I are concerned that this isn't overly complicated given that we're so far below the Inheritance Tax Threshold and we've managed to handle all my mother's affairs up until now. 

I received this response - worth nothing is the lack of clarity on what was to be delivered and how much it may cost:

A sad reflection on social care procurement

Last night's Newsnight didn't do any favours for public procurement and particularly those responsible for social services.

In summary, the report highlighted that some organisations, contracted to provide home care, only pay staff for the specific time the careworkers are in the users home (no travelling time getting between users locations is paid for) and, as a result, the carers, considering all their actual working time, are paid below the minimum wage.

For quite some time it has been recognised that it makes good sense to keep those who need care in their own homes as long as is safe - it improves their quality of life and reduces the national costs of placing users in care homes. That being the case, the aim should be to ensure good quality home care provision which also means paying for appropriate quality staff.

We have discussed some of the implications of when care provision goes wrong in the past.

Bad as that is, the real disappointment was in the interview with the social services (ADSS) spokesperson. Her analysis was that bidders could choose what price to bid at and the conditions of employment. If that was actually her justification it is seriously flawed. Those procuring social care need to recognise the risks of contracting at rates which are unsustainable and cannot deliver the level of service required. There needs to be much more due diligence.

All together the Newsnight report was not good for those who procure social care, but worse it was not good for those who are dependent on that care if 'lowest price' regardless is the strategy now being pursued.

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. 

On procurement of aircraft security

I am, by any definition, a frequent flyer and, like so many, one of the banes of my life is airport security. I am astounded by the lack of customer focus and also the delight some of the searchers appear to get through making travel more unpleasant.

Some months ago I was asked by the security at Liverpool to remove my shoes, I asked why, and she told me it was just because she wanted me too.

A few weeks later, I observed ladies with flip-flops being asked to remove them - once again it appeared to be, 'just because'. The same day I was asked to remove a watch just to satisfy the searcher - I have worn near enough the same watch for 25 years without having been asked to remove it. Nevertheless, with due deference I had to comply, then forgot the watch was in the tray, dropped it and broke it. Needless to say that was my fault as opposed to an over zealous searcher who appeared to be in the wrong job. I complained, gained some solace in that other searchers said they wouldn't have asked me to remove the watch, completed a complaint form, and I still await even an acknowledgement.

Last week every single person going through the alarm system of the queue I was in appeared to trigger the alarm. Common sense would suggest there was something wrong with the alarm system but that wasn't being addressed. The result longer queues and more frustrated travellers, some of whom, like me barely caught their flights.

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?

Dispatches reaches the parts contract management can't reach

Yet again Channel 4's Dispatches reaches the parts contract management just doesn't seem to reach - this time the NHS 111 service. I don't think anyone should be surprised by poor implementation of the 111 service which has been commented on elsewhere - 111 is just the latest of a litany.

The service portrayed in the programme was truly disgraceful. But what we appear to be witnessing recently is a culture of apathy and acceptance of that's the way it is in the NHS. We see representatives from the BMA and the Royal College of Nursing who appear genuinely surprised that the service is so bad, yet clinicians (their members) are supposed to be a key part of the 111 service delivery - how come their own members didn't make them aware of the lack of clinicians?

While it may be consoling to point the finger at other professions, one of the biggest indictments appears to be the complete absence of any meaningful contract management system. I recently posted a guest blog on Spendmatters which suggested we need undercover supply manager. Despatches' investigative reporters seem to have a better understanding of where to look for contract failures than those responsible for contract management - why couldn't those responsible for the service have uncovered the poor quality of service delivery? Why didn't the contract management system work?

While I am sceptical about the new Commercial Commercial Service, here's a suggestion for their leadership: get a high-powered team undercover supply managers trained by investigative journalists, such as those with Dispatches or the Sunday Tines, and use as part of strategic public procurement contract management.

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?