On 'Lots' within a sourcing strategy.

Peter Smith posted an interesting post a few days ago on 'Lots' (breaking up potential contracts into smaller packages). His post was a follow-up to a previous discussion on the EUs strong steer that, in their view, 'lots' should be the default strategy when letting contracts.

I have advocated the use of 'lots' for many years but that has always been as a tool in achieving the strategic objectives of the organisation, for example, ease of access to SMEs.  If 'lots' are not strategically aligned with the organisation's objectives then, to me, they should not be used.

'Lots' are just one of an array of strategic sourcing options which should be considered - they should not, however, be the default option. Nevertheless, the EU now expects public sector procurers to document why 'lots' are not used and therefore implies, they are the option of preference. The implication is that at some stage that documentation will be need to be produced as some sort of discoverable evidence in defence of a professional judgement by the CPO.

Now I am not against a CPO documenting an options appraisal which justified why 'lots' were not used, on the contrary I would like to see more procurement decisions led out in logical argument. However, I feel those documented justifications should be for internal scrutiny and not something which the EU should demand.

I also have concerns of what this could lead to. For example,

Is the Tesco storm indicative of a governance & policy failure?

Today's news that allegedly three more Tesco staff, who have links with procurement, have been suspended continues to rub salt in the wound and negatively impact on reputation.

While I have discussed Tesco's procurement many times, I now find myself asking: "is the weakness in the governance and policy as opposed to the people?"

If the press are correct, those suspended now include: the commercial director, the food commercial director, three category directors (group wine director, director of convenience foods, and director of impulse purchases) and someone responsible for sourcing.

It seems impossible to believe all those suspended are mavericks or indeed that they were pursuing a strategy concealed from those with strategic oversight. If that is possible, then how many other areas of Tesco's governance lacked scrutiny?

Nevertheless, it may be a good time to gain insights into the procurement governance and policy of Tesco. If that was a fault, you can hardly blame the staff. Even if Tesco replace the staff, in the absence of addressing governance and policy failures, the corrections will only be cosmetic.

It may also be a good time for those charged with procurement governance and policy to ask, "could Tesco's woes be replicated here?".

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.