Have RIBA redesigned their procurement reforms?

One of the most amusing stories I've come across in a long time appeared in today's bdnoline.co.uk where we learn of what appears a hypocritical approach to procurement by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA). RIBA are in the process of procuring an architect to design their new headquarters.

Now RIBA previously published some useful ideas on how reforming procurement could contribute to the economic recovery. Within their recommendations (#1.3.3) they advocate that PQQ's should be simplified, standardised and shortened. While in #3.2 they advocate enabling access for micro-businesses and SMEs and ensuring greater proportionality in their treatment, including in #3.2.4 ensuring financial standing criteria are appropriate to the project and the contract. Just to be clear, RIBA advocate "... turnover requirement should be capped so that the maximum level is ascertained from a fair comparison between the annual fee turnover and what might be earned annually from a project over its duration".

Not only have RIBA now issued an 18 page PQQ but they have set a turnover qualifier of twice the fee averaged over the last three years.

All good procurement professionals know that setting a turnover requirement of three years accounts means young practices just can't compete. Having a turnover requirement of twice the contract value is also restrictive. I wonder how many of the practices RIBA represent feel let down by their own Institute? I wonder have RIBA decided they are unhappy taking the risk for following their own guidance? I wonder have RIBA joined the architectural school of 'do as I say, not as I do'?

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.

Degrees of rotteness

How can you interpret what is the right thing or reinterpret doing the wrong thing? Whether or not Patrick Mercer MP has done the right thing remains for others to judge but what I can't get my head round are some of the crazy statements which seem to imply there is some honour in doing the wrong thing. Take for example these two statements:

If Mr Mercer has done something wrong he would act totally honourably.

Patrick Mercer has done the right thing in referring himself to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and resigning the whip. 

It is a strange world we live in where corporate tax avoidance is considered morally wrong even though it may be complying with the law. Yet someone perceived to be unduly influencing the legislative machinery of the land, breaking rules of the organisation is spun as doing the right thing if they resign when caught.

How big a shift is that from a child murder, who, when there is compelling evidence presented which places them beyond reasonable doubt as the killer, decides to change to a plea of guilty?

Or what about the public sector procurement manager; are they doing the right thing awarding contracts to 'mates', until their malfeasance is exposed?

Is it any wonder confidence in the democratic system is waning when you can make up definitions of what is right as you go along, or rather, when you are exposed!

Osborne lessons in procurement performance management

Before:

“To bring some accountability to economic policy, I have set out eight benchmarks for the next Parliament against which you will be able to judge whether a Conservative Government is delivering on this new economic model... So we will maintain Britain’s AAA credit rating.”

After:

"[... maintaining Britain's AAA is] not the be-all and end-all"

Inappropriate lessons:

1. Agreeing in advance what it is absolutely paramount for procurement to deliver isn't that important - just say what you think is politically acceptable and re-write, with the benefit of hindsight, if you completely miss the #1 priority;  
2. Do not use measurable KPIs as there is too much clarity if your strategy doesn't work;
3. There's always the hope that food supply chain debacles or political scandals will act as a distraction.

Appropriate lessons:

1. Plans don't always go as well as you hope;
2. Regularly review your strategy for appropriateness - agree a change of KPIs before it's too late to gain ownership;
3. Hubris, stubbornness and blind optimism do not deliver long term benefits. 

Sustainable procurement risk

Tell me what would you do if you read this statement in an ITT:

The [organisation] is committed to sustainable procurement and would wish to see tenderers adopt a positive environmental approach.  Information and guidance about how to pursue a more sustainable future is available from [central government portal]1

You could