| This review has considered the impact of the Competitive Dialogue process on public sector procurements in the UK. Following a series of questionnaires and roundtable discussions with public and private sector participants in procurements which have used Competitive Dialogue, we have the following recommendations to improve the procurement process, achieve better value for money and shorten delivery times: |
| 1. Inconsistent training courses on the Competitive Dialogue procedure has contributed to the lack of upskilling in procurement professionals. This review recommends a series of training courses for complex procurement be developed for officials across the public sector. (p.8) |
| 2. Competitive Dialogue should not be seen as the 'default' procedure for all complex procurements. Step by step guides to the Open, Restricted and Negotiated procedures are currently in development and should give authorities the confidence to use alternative procedures where these are appropriate. (p.11) |
| 3. All future projects wishing to use Competitive Dialogue over the Open and Restricted procedures should include their justification document in their published procurement documentation, following sign off by the Senior Responsible Owner and the organisation's Head of Procurement. (p.11) |
| 4. Pre-procurement is the most important stage of a Competitive Dialogue procurement, it is also often the most neglected and poorly executed. Forthcoming guidance from the Efficiency and Reform Group will help address this key area of concern. (p.14) |
| 5. To inform new bidders, and to combat some of the more common impressions about what can be expected during a Competitive Dialogue procurement, a short 'Suppliers' Guide to the Competitive Dialogue Process' should be developed. (p.14) |
| 6. As part of their pursuit of the best value for money solution, contracting authorities should be cognisant of the private sector's 'auditioning' process. They should use Bidders' Days OJEU Prior Information Notices and Contract Notices to showcase their preparation and demonstrate to all bidders their capacity, capability and commitment to delivering an efficient and timely procurement process. (p.14) |
| 7. Procurement timetables should be developed allowing for a realistic schedule of meetings which incorporates time to address internal approval processes and allows sufficient time to revise documents based on outputs from Dialogue meetings. This will provide a procurement with a strong foundation capable of supporting both public and private sector requirements and expectations. (p.15) |
| 8. Projects should establish their own procedures for closing Dialogue before entering procurement. Taking the time to establish the level of detail and assurance required in advance of entering Dialogue will avoid costly overruns and impromptu requests for further information. (p.16) |
| 9. Considering the benefits of targeted dialogue, it is strongly recommended that Authorities should consider which issues need to be dialogued and they should not seek to dialogue every aspect of the contract. (p.16) |
| 10. In 2007 the Committee of Public Accounts (PAC) observed that with the introduction of the new procurement regulations, it would be expected that the incidence of late changes made changes to PFI projects after they had selected a single, preferred bidder would decline. This review has carefully considered current practice under Competitive Dialogue compared to that under the Negotiated procedure and understands Competitive Dialogue has successfully addressed the issue of protracted post-preferred bidder discussions. (p.16) |
| 11. HM Treasury has engaged with the Procurement Lawyers Association and legal advisers from the PPP Forum with a view to encouraging the legal sector to debate those areas of Competitive Dialogue delivery most heavily influenced by legal advice. Covering issues from the original decision to pursue Dialogue over alternative procurement routes, to behaviours during Dialogue, approaches to evaluation and the interpretation of 'clarify, specify and fine tune', both organisations are keen to develop a series of papers on the subject, to be produced collaboratively by a working group of experienced practitioners. The review welcomes this work as a positive step towards achieving a consensus view on these crucial aspects of Competitive Dialogue delivery.(p.17) |
| 12. On each future Competitive Dialogue procurement, the Authority should produce a detailed guide to the evaluation approach to be taken, setting out the value of each piece of information requested and linking each response to the evaluation criteria will reduce bid costs for the private sector, reduce the administrative burden for the public sector and facilitate the swifter and more accurate evaluation of bids. (p.18) |
| 13. Public sector teams engaged in Competitive Dialogue procurements should engage in a shadow charging exercise to provide a more accurate picture of the cost of undertaking complex procurements. Such exercises will help focus the attention of the Senior Responsible Owner and Head of Procurement on costs and have a subsequent positive effect on timescales and behaviours. Data gathered should be shared between authorities to inform future resource planning. (p.20 |
| 14. Authorities should bear bid costs in mind when determining the level of detail genuinely required for bid submission purposes at each stage of dialogue and what is absolutely necessary for evaluation purposes and to deliver the required planning permissions. (p.20) |
| 15. This review recognises that the current Gateway processes were established in advance of the introduction of Competitive Dialogue and recommends a refresh of the Gateway stages to more accurately reflect (where required) the implications of using Competitive Dialogue as the procurement route. (p.21) |
| HM Treasury has a historical commitment to the Public Accounts Committee to review the impact of the Competitive Dialogue procurement process. Colleagues in the Cabinet Office's Efficiency and Reform Group are currently undertaking a Lean Procurement Review to uncover the causes of delay in the procurement process and to suggest actions to rectify them. It is hoped that the findings of this 18 months study will complement and contribute to this valuable piece of work and this report has been submitted as evidence to the ERG Review for their consideration. |