Gerard Toplass is the CEO of The 55 Group, parent company of frame supplier Pagabo
With the Construction Manual, the ‘Gold Standard’ and the new Procurement Bill setting the road map for public sector procurement going forward, we are at a key point for frameworks.
After 10 years of making frames the preferred route to market, suppliers must now consider how things will continue to develop in the next decade and how to protect the strong reputation that has been built by maintaining standards and responsibility throughout the sector. This includes how we leverage best practices, collaboration and new technologies to maximize the benefits frameworks deliver to customers, suppliers and the communities they serve.
“We have a responsibility to the public sector to hold other framework providers to account when standards are not met”
As the use of frameworks continues to grow, so does the risk that opportunists will enter the market without the same compliance rigor that market leaders put in place to make frameworks so widely adopted in the first place. This risks not only harming customers and suppliers, but also causing irreparable damage to the integrity of the frameworks as a whole.
At Pagabo we believe that there are key principles that must be followed when establishing and managing public sector frameworks, and we have a responsibility to the public sector to hold other framework providers to account when they are not met standards
Promote best practices and legal compliance
The first critical point is that organizations establishing frameworks must comply with the PCR2015 regulations and be able to provide both customers and suppliers with guidance on best practice.
This is why it is so important for suppliers to invest in an experienced and skilled team, ensuring that they not only produce compatible frames, but can provide an effective ongoing service to both customers and suppliers.
Procuring organizations must be able to demonstrate not only that they have accredited professionals, but also that they have the necessary assessment resources, along with the skills needed to operate the framework throughout its lifetime. For example, a multi-lot framework may require the appointment of hundreds of suppliers, a significant management task that the supplier simply must have the ability to deliver effectively.
Be fair and transparent with all parties
Frames play a critical role in helping to manage both supply and demand, so careful care and management is vital. The guiding principles are fairness and transparency: one-sided agreements do not help clients or providers, or the communities to which the programs will be delivered.
Frameworks do not dictate, they are developed to meet market needs. A frame that is not used is usually because it does not meet the needs of the market or it duplicates other more used purchase channels that it cannot compete with.
For suppliers, being nominated to a framework provides a compliant route to securing work, but does not guarantee pipeline. If a framework is developed and launched without being based on an identified need, it can end up being a huge drain on resources for providers who spend time, money and effort bidding on it. In turn, this could have the effect of eroding trust in frameworks in general and causing suppliers to divert resources to less efficient procurement routes.
Therefore, ensuring that frameworks meet the market requirements of both customers and suppliers is critical to success, and depends on broad engagement with the market.
Frameworks are supposed to encourage transparency, this is set out in law. However, our experienced opinion has seen that not all procurement notices or invitation to tender (ITT) documents in the framework space are fully compliant. This is worrying, because for a framework offer, compliance and transparency are paramount.
Clarity is needed to ensure fair competition. For example, how will the awards be made? How will evaluations be managed to ensure that bidders of all sizes have the essential information to determine how the award will be handled and have a clear process for asking questions? And how will the allocation of SMEs be fairly judged?
Offering value for money
Transparency issues continue on the financial side of things, existing to ensure that the framework offers real value for money.
This includes being clear about the commitments required. Providers should be wary of any organization that seeks rates for the lifetime of the framework (typically four years) up front without recourse. Expecting this level of payment up front is an exceptionally bad practice that we are surprisingly still seeing in some places.
Incentives and reasons are often included in frameworks that measure performance, such as KPIs. However, if those offered are punitive and one-sided in favor of the frame supplier, this is not fair in contractual terms, nor does it comply with the principles of the construction manual or contract law.
In order for prices to be sent, customers must have the ability to understand built-in costs. To put it in basic terms, if a client cannot understand how a framework is costed and funded, they should be wary of using it, and if this cannot be clarified or display as fair, the frame should not be used.
Frameworks are an incredibly powerful tool for the public sector to use that we simply need to future-proof to ensure it can procure what it needs quickly, compliantly, fairly, easily and with value. If those of us who champion the principles of ethical recruitment do not hold others in the space to the highest standards, the reputation of frameworks will sink.
