Does your procurement strategy address Economic Crime?

Thankfully there now appears to be a move to widen the reach of the existing UK Bribery Act to embrace economic crime. My own opinion is that the Bribery Act has not yet had sufficient impact, partly because no prosecutions have taken place, partly because 'bribery' is only part of the problem, partly because of denial, partly as a result of ignorance and partly because of a lack of understanding of the need to take steps to prevent bribery.

Anyway, yesterday we learnt that the journey to an crime of economic crime is underway with cross party agreement. Therefore the election is unlikely to be an impediment but finding time in the parliamentary calender could be an issue. We also learnt that the government plan to publish its first anti-corruption plan - that should be of interest and no doubt procurement will have more than a passing reference.

This is all good news to me and provides an opportunity for CPOs to make use of today's press coverage to place the issue of procurement risk management on the Board's radar - perhaps that's an opportunity worth taking before you become the first case which receives the bite of the current and future legislation.

You may find my related whitepaper of interest

Greening, social benefits and procurement?

Social benefits clauses have been the subject of much discussion over the past decade but in an interesting development today the UK government is said to have claimed they will award the new Crossrail contract taking into consideration the wider benefits to the UK.

Justine Greening, the Transport Secretary, claims:

"This includes a 'responsible procurement' requirement that means bidders will need to set out how they will provide opportunities for training, apprenticeships and for small and medium-size businesses."

I wonder if this is another case of Greening misinterpreting advice? We considered an earlier faux pas some weeks ago. Is it not the case that a non-UK bidder could deliver and possibly exceed the delivery of social benefits yet the beneficiaries may not be in the UK?  If that is the case Greening could find herself having to eat humble pie, again.

Of course, Greening could find wiggle room by saying that she really meant the procurement itself (Crossrail carriages) will benefit the UK and that earlier delivery, better functionality and lowest whole life costs were really all she intended to take into consideration at the award stage - they are certainly benefits to the UK.  I wonder will she?

Nevertheless, this will be worth watching as it is difficult to see how awarding a contract based on UK specific social benefits are not discriminatory and therefore in breach of the Public Contracts Regulations.

Either way, the contract will provide useful learning for the rest of us.  It would be useful though if

The curious case of the procurement of blue light temporary staff

PSNI are the subject of an investigation on re-hiring former officers as temps. Estimates of spend vary but somewhere between £45m and £60m is reported to have been spent over five years. That's slightly more than the response given to a FoI request in 2009 which stated an estimated value was £5m (per year).  

Three quarters of those hired are former police officers who were recipients of redundancy payments. That's 300 staff. 

You may ask, 'why were they made redundant in the first place - what was the desired outcome?' The redundancies were the result of the Patten Recommendations to transform the former RUC into a new PSNI. Critics could argue that aspiration has not been achieved. Supporters could say there was a need to ensure business continuity and the terrorist threat had not gone away.

In addition, it was a condition of the redundancy scheme that if those made redundant were re-hired as police officers there would be a repayment of the redundancy payments. Was the contract designed to circumnavigate that requirement since the stipulation doesn't apply if those re-engaged are civilians; even, it seems, if they are carrying out broadly similar roles.  Is this what is meant by the private sector taking up the slack from public sector redundancies?

If the intention was to re-engage as civilians, then the investigation needs to go beyond one contract into the whole category.  Up until now no one has mentioned the contract for Outplacement Services.  If you are fortunate enough to be unfamiliar with this service, it is a bit like a JobCentre Plus advisor which is supposed to help those made redundant adjust, and get back into employment. My experience of it was that it was a smoke and mirrors service which should have been paid by results.  But if they were paid by results, I don't think they would exist and a grant to the Samaritans may be better use of public money - I may save that argument for another day.  Nevertheless, how much was that contract worth and was its purpose merely cosmetic if a revolving door would have sufficed?

Now we face an interesting scenario which may resonate with others.  

How does this sit with