Were procurement voices heard at Bristol's European Green Capital?

I'm sure it will have escaped many of you that Bristol was the European Green Capital in 2015. The Times have just revelled some of the £12m of procurement's involved:

• £37,000 wiring a tree with a sound and light system activated by falling beechnuts, only to discover that it was predictably going to be a lean year for beechnuts; 
• £49,200 creating an artificial fog over footbridge;
• £84,000 for life size wicker sculpture of whales;
• £5,000 for a guest speaker;
• £3,800 for pies provided to guests at a launch party;
• £25,00 for a 'happy cities' survey;
• £6,000 for a circus group;
• £18,000 for use of 'Shaun the sheep' image on promotional materials;
• £1,000 a month for a press-cuttings service.

Now let's assume that proper procurement policies were in place and processes complied with - although we know that often 'arms length' bodies feel they are beyond that.  Let's also assume that there was some benchmarking to ensure that the various deals represented good value for money.

The previous Mayor of Bristol claims the year was a "massive success". Unsurprisingly, others don't agree but is that criticism justified? There must have been a strategy for the year and that should have drilled down to the various event components - those responsible for governance had a responsibility to ensure that was scrutinised and justified and not just 'rubber stamped'. It would have been good if that plan had been published and consulted upon as that would have deflected some of the later criticisms.

It would also have been good if the initiative were subjected to an independent outcome assessment - that would have demonstrated the economic and environmental benefits gained - the ratio of cost to benefits.

As with so many of these types of initiatives money was pooled from various big funders: £1m from the City Council to pump-prime, and that brought a further £7m from the government £3m-£4m from the private sector.  I actually know nothing about the governance structure which was put in place, but to me, Bristol City Council probably came out on top. However, I would like to have seen a pro-rata allocation of influence at the governance table based on the funding provided - those funders had real 'skin in the game' and needed to be clear these were procurements they had confidence in as opposed to rubber stamping, of worse, giving without control. I wonder how many procurement voices were heard at that table?

A family affair or a weak procurement strategy?

Sadly the Queen's 90th birthday party has needlessly got off to a bad start. Not only is there criticism about the plan to charge £150 to attend the picnic, but there are also questions about the procurement of the event organisation. The problem isn't that the event is being organised by the Queen's grandson, but that her grandson's company are charging a fee for organising the event.  

Why on earth have those representing the Queen's interests not warned about the probability of a perceived conflict of interest and sought to avoid that criticism. Transparency of a competitive procurement would have helped. Alternatively her Grandson could have acted as a specialist advisor to a different provider free of charge.

It makes little difference to the perceived conflict of interest that the event will be run on a not-for-profit basis since there is no means of demonstrating that the costs are reasonable.

But there's another procurement angle; whoever delivers this once-in-a-lifetime event will gain unrivalled commercial gain from the ability to sell services to future clients on the strength of the demonstrable experience gained.  Given that value to potential providers, those procuring the event could have asked, "Is it really necessary to pay someone to organise this at all, would good providers see it as having such long-term value they'd have done it for nothing or even paid for the privilege?"

It never ceases to amaze me how often perceived conflicts of interest in procurement make the headlines when they could so easily be predicted and prevented. It never ceases to amaze me that there's an assumption you always have to pay?

PS. 10 February 2016: Queen's grandson quits birthday charity due to conflict of interest!!!!

Making the Games

It is unlikely to be in the memorabilia sought on eBay but Making the Games does represent a very useful legacy of the London Olympics and Paralympics. A round of applause to the Government Olympic Executive and Department of Culture, Media and Sport for asking the Institute of Government to carry out this review of lessons learnt. Is it cosmetic though?

There's a lot in the report which just echoes what should be viewed as good practice, I'll plagiarise the lessons below and then highlight some lessons which we don't appear to have learnt, yet.

The key lessons, all worthy of consideration for anyone organising events, are:

1. Project trumps silo;
2. Bring together the right people in effective teams;
3. Personal stability and personal responsibilities matter;
4. Political cooperation creates space for project success;
5. Change and time discipline are crucial; 
6. Limit innovation;
7. Budget realism and transparency brings benefits;
8. Arms-length and the public sector can deliver;
9. Design in safety and sustainability from the start;
10. Beware false economies;
11. Plan, assure, test.

Had we been asked to provide a checklist for those organising the Games in advance, I suspect most of us could have produced that list (and some more) - it is hardly rocket science. Yet, the Institute of Government clearly think they need stating. To be honest I think they do need stating and restating as the failure to address them is frequently a topic of this blog.

A few observations though:

"Events, dear boy, events"

Reputedly, when asked what he most feared, Harold Macmillan replied, "Events, dear boy, events".  

As I watch some of the spectacular public sector funded events I often wonder if  "events, dear boy, events", is uttered by procurement and others, when asked, "what are the key no-go areas for procurement?".  I get the impression that events are an exclusion zone for the profession.  Yet these are big expenditure decisions and have big time, cost, quality and risk implications. They also provide plenty of scope for procurement to demonstrate a meaningful contribution.

The assumption seems to be that events are special and can only be delivered as a 'personal service' through an exemption of the normal procurement rules, but is that really the case? There are alternatives.