Twelve Angry Men - Procurement Theatre review

The film version of 'Twelve Angry Men' was released the month I was born, yet I have never seen it. Yes, I am of the vintage which remember Robert Vaughan when he was 'The Man from U.N.C.L.E.' and Martin Shaw as one of The Professionals. Perhaps that was why I couldn't resist the opportunity to see the stage version at The Garrick tonight.

The high-level story is a comparatively well known court drama played out in the Jury Room. One Juror isn't prepared to go with the pack and eventually the pack go with the original solitary Juror. It is brilliantly played out at the Garrick by Shaw, Vaughan, et. al., and I couldn't recommend it highly enough.

But it struck me that the procurement lessons didn't just lie in getting a good deal from Lastminute.com but in the play itself.

The Jurors each bring their own personal judgements to the Jury Room. Some were formed by the appearance and pedigree of the defendant. Some were based on racial prejudice. Some were influenced by the urgency of prior commitments and a preference to be somewhere else. Some too strongly influenced by others 'opinions'. Some even viewed changing their initial impressions as something to be defended, as if in a competition. Having said that, this is a play which will have you laughing out loud - it actually makes use of some brilliant irony and comedy.

It stuck me how effective questioning led to a better decision as the lack of robust evidence was highlighted.

However, it also struck me that this was a bit like some of bid evaluations I have witnessed. The need for a quick decision and pre-conceived ideas led to a poor decision, if not, wrong decision. The dominant voice for a strong individual subtly, and sometimes not so subtly, bullying others into a decision. I could go on with the parallels. But, if, instead of a Jury Room drama, this was recast as a Tender Evaluation Panel, I wonder which character would represent the CPO?

Twelve Angry Men may be a great play, but I think a DVD of the film would be a useful procurement training resource the next time a complex contract award is being approached. Come to think of it, it would be a very useful procurement training resource (full stop).

CLG Procurement Inquiry could ask 'why bother?'

I have been discussing the oral evidence sessions at the CLG Committee Procurement Inquiry. I assume those of you following my observations can sense my frustration that this excellent opportunity appears to be slipping away. I'm sorry to say the second panel session of the fifth evidence saw some of the same methodological flaws being repeated.

The opening question of this session asked witnesses from the Federation of Small Businesses, Market Dojo, and Bangor University:

Could I just begin with a subject where we have perhaps had slightly different points of view expressed by yourselves and your organisations? It is about trying to achieve greater opportunities for SMEs and micro-businesses to obtain contracts, and the extent to which there is a potential conflict between that and the council getting the best value for money from its contracts.  

So, ask yourself, if that was the exam question, what would the correct answer look like? Set aside that 'best value for money' is frequently 'in the eye of the beholder'. Were the Committee asking: 'Is the objective of achieving greater opportunities for SMEs and micro-businesses incompatible with the objective of achieving best value for money?'

If that was what the Committee were trying to establish, quite simply, they didn't hear. They heard about a new term for me, 'stickability' (that's the amount of contract value which stays in the local community). They heard that local sourcing can lead to better social cohesion. They heard that local businesses employ a range of employees. They heard that there could be growth in the local economy. They heard that local government procurement processes can act as a barrier to SMEs. They heard that "SMEs are the reason why a lot of large companies fail and yet local government procurement does not take account of this very well in the process" (What on earth is that about?). They heard that councils could not take account of innovation in the award process. But did they hear if the objective of achieving greater opportunities for SMEs and micro-businesses is incompatible with the objective of achieving best value for money?' - in a word, 'No'!

To me this is a serious weakness of the oral evidence sessions - poorly focused questions are being asked and the Committee just aren't extracting what they need to know. There are also opinions being expressed which appear to lack any foundation yet are not tested and lack of clarity of definitions which  mean answers are given but there is no shared understanding.

Social Value Act, social benefit clauses & SRO at CLG Committee Inquiry on procurement

And so to the fifth evidence session of the CLG Committee Inquiry into procurement. The first panel representing the Centre for Local Economic Strategies, National Council for Voluntary Organisations, and The Joseph Rowntree Foundation - all organisations which have previously helped move the procurement improvement debate forward.

To set the witnesses off to a good start and feel relaxed, the Chair started with one of those classic sextuple questions witnesses must, by now, be starting to expect:

One of the things we will be looking at is how procurement might be used for a number of objectives. We will begin by looking at how it might be used by local councils to tackle social disadvantage and poverty. Do you think councils are actually doing this effectively? Are they getting it right, or is there more they could be doing? Who would like to start?

Would anyone seriously have expected the witnesses to answer: "Actually, I think councils are really doing the absolute maximum that could be done". 

That reply wasn't heard but instead we heard that making an impact was down to the culture of officers and how procurement and economic development work together. I agree that there needs to be effective linkage between economic development and procurement but there's a flaw in the answers as they suggest officer driven policy and strategy and made no reference to political leadership. To me, in local government, elected members need to drive and lead the initiative - it is elected members who have to decide on competing priorities and then officers implement and are performance managed. If officers lead, to me, there is a high risk that their own personal agenda are pursued contrary to those of the democratically accountable leadership.

Now, let's reflect on that a bit further, three witnesses and not one of them initially mentions political leadership, yet, in the follow-up question, when political leadership is mentioned by the questioner, surprise, surprise, suddenly: "Political leadership is key, because it tells officers this is a high priority on the long agenda of things they have to deal with..." - call me a cynic, but had the questioner not mentioned political leadership would that key ingredient have been identified?

Procurement of taxis - get me out of here

What's the best way to procure a taxi service?

I suspect the custodians of the BBC are asking that question at the present. £10m a year spent on 350,000 journeys needs some sort of strategic approach. But users of the Beeb's Gateway Booking system seem to think the centralised purchasing system isn't delivering the best price. The examples cited suggest that buying locally, 'maverick buying', is approximately 50% cheaper.

Justifications used by the procurement department include: "we have to ensure that the companies used are both legally compliant and vetted, and this is done as part of the managed service provision ... we also require a 24/7 service which ensures broadcast criticality, full transaction reporting covering all journeys, ensuring we are compliant and can report our [tax reporting] obligations".

Virtually every organisation uses taxis and there are legal requirements for any taxi provider. It would be quite difficult in almost any part of the world I have been in not to find a 24/7 taxi service. I can understand that in certain situations there will need to be special provision for vulnerable passengers but why pay over the odds for all the other journeys?

There is always a dilemma when you try to take away flexibility and freedoms from staff, for example, their ability to hail a cab as an impulse buy or just when you need it as other options just won't work, so you can expect the odd example to be cited as part of the resistance to change, but why not just use corporate credit cards, claims expenses and, if it is abused, remove the freedom or tighten the controls.

I think there also needs to be some serious benchmarking discussions taking place with the providers. Something does not look right and the profession can avoid 'amateurs buy best' perceptions.

A tale of two sides of the same coin for the CLG procurement inquiry

On Tuesday I discussed the first of the two CLG local government procurement inquiry evidence sessions at Sheffield held on 18 November. I have been following the oral evidence sessions but the Committee will also take into consideration the written evidence submitted.

The earlier session on the 18 November appeared, to me, to be riddled with anecdotal evidence and unreliable answers to poorly framed questions. Nevertheless, it did suggest that there is an issue with stakeholders perception of what happens in local government procurement. It also suggested that the 8 Principles of Good Commissioning and the Compact are Whitehall theory as opposed to what the market appears to experience in Yorkshire and Humberside. Surprisingly the Committee don't probe these areas.

The second session provided an opportunity to hear from the other side of the coin, two councillors from Sheffield, Sheffield's Director of Commercial Services (also the regional lead on procurement) and  two representatives from YPO.

This session was unusual in that the evidence of councillors was taken. However, we only heard from two cabinet members and there weren't even any questions on how Overview & Scrutiny members might be engaged in strategic procurement.

We learnt that Sheffield, thankfully have moved from a position of building cost inflators into contracts. I have to say I have never before come across a system where contractors are guaranteed annual price increases.

A tale of two cities for CLG procurement inquiry: Sheffield & Sheffield

The CLG Inquiry into procurement rolled into Sheffield on the 18 November. This initially impressed me as it provided an opportunity to get out and feel the pulse on the ground. I say initially, as it transpired during the evidence that the Committee had pre-purchased tickets for the 3.47 train back to London and therefore couldn’t hear evidence after 3.25. Was such a guillotine a demonstration of good value for money?

Anyway, I would love to have shared the carriage with the Committee as they returned to London, and waited for the “What are we to make of all that?”

The objective of the sortie to Sheffield was “about trying to find out what is really happening on the ground, ..., what is going right, and what is going wrong”. What they heard were mixed messages about procurement in Sheffield; not local government in general, and not local government procurement in Sheffield but a ‘come all ye’ of anecdotes from questionable sources. For example:

• Single sourcing is leading to an item which would otherwise have cost £10 costing £20, yet no evidence to substantiate that claim was provided;
•  EU procurement rules require contracts over £250k to be advertised, yet my understanding is that the threshold for councils is actually £173,934;
•  Contracts under £20k can be awarded on the basis of three phone calls;
• “people, companies and organisations from outside the area seem to have a better opportunity of obtaining procurement contracts, mainly because they do not have any conflicts of interest or for some other reason.”

My suggestion to the Committee is, if you hear such heresy and factually flawed evidence, treat the informants other evidence with a large pinch of salt.

But the Committee are not blameless in this evidence session,

Good news for buyers and workers on Bangladesh factory safety?

Last week I discussed the ongoing problems in Bangladesh clothing manufacturing and the reluctance to pay the agreed minimum wage - thankfully that moved on and agreement was reached. Although I can't help but feel that spirit of responsible manufacturing was somewhat lacking, after all the Prime Minister had to intervene.

Today we have learnt that three stakeholder groups are close to agreement on minimum safety standards (Accord on Fire and Safety in Bangladesh, Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety, and National Tripartite Action Plan). This is potentially a good result for the European retailers involved but is it good enough?

The new standards will simplify inspections and therefore reduce costs to the buying organisations. They will also reduce inspection costs and disruption in the factories. Likewise the legally binding commitment of some of the buyers to maintain orders levels for the next two years and to share the cost of factory upgrades are positive steps for the workers.

However, if I was on the Board of one of the buying firms would I be relaxing? No, I don't think so. Consciences may be salved. New standards are good but can Board members of buying firms be sure they will be implemented, and that the standards are of sufficient level that the Board member would feel safe working with those as the minimum standard for the corporate HQ? No, this tentative agreement between such a varied group of stakeholders is likely to reflect consensus on the lowest common denominator as opposed to the best optimum solution for workers and buyers  - it is a step in the right direction but not the end of the journey,

CPOs have no cause to relax, they need to complete a risk assessment of the new regime and they need to made sure they are not abdicating responsibility. If the standards aren't high enough and there is another disaster, it won't be good enough the blame the standards - caveat emptor!