4.23 It is mandatory to apply the STUC Staffing Protocol on all privately procured projects. In terms of the opportunity for in-house teams to deliver soft FM services within a private finance context, the Quantitative Assessment at OBC stage is not an appropriate benchmark for an in-house bid. These must be tested during the procurement process. In addition the potential savings from in-house FM provision should not be applied to the CPAM to form a differentiator for conventional and non-conventionally procured investment.
4.24 Where an in house bid is being assessed, this should be done in a market testing exercise and the public sector bid must be comparable to and based on the same assumptions as the private sector bid (e.g. in terms of risk allocation and service specification).
Results of the Qualitative and Quantitative Assessments |
4.25 The quantitative assessments, sensitivity testing and the qualitative analysis will confirm the preferred project scope and procurement route. Procuring Authorities, Agencies and Directorates will need to determine the weighting to be applied to these aspects of the VfM assessment. The quantitative VfM factor is likely to differ by sector.
4.26 The Qualitative Assessment should inform the confidence placed on the Quantitative Assessment.
4.27 Procuring Authorities, Agencies and Directorates must calculate and confirm their own affordability envelope and compare this with the results of the quantitative analysis. If a project is deemed unaffordable, it should not be pursued.
4.28 If privately financed or NPD procurement does not represent VfM, the reasons why the project is not VfM should be reviewed as well as the appropriate procurement route. This may involve re-examination of the project, its scope and allocation of risk. Assessors should consider the following:-
• identify why and whether the issue is specific to the proposed procurement route or to procurement of the project in general;
• consider the case for a delay to the start of the procurement, if this can address the concern;
• reconsider the criteria to be set out in the OJEU Notice and determine whether there is another way to deliver the business requirement; and
• reconsider the procurement route and the possibility of switching to other forms of procurement.
4.29 When considering the VfM assessment, Procuring Authorities, Agencies and Directorates must accord proper weight to the respective parts of VfM analysis -qualitative and quantitative. Provided that the indicative VfM is positive and is based on a balance of combined qualitative and quantitative VfM elements, the project can proceed: there is no necessity to prove quantitative VfM above a particular percentage. Audit Scotland supports this approach. Judgement of the weighting between the qualitative and quantitative elements is a key consideration as is reference to previous evidence bases in assessing qualitative and quantitative assessments.
4.30 Where there is an affordability constraint, the combination of proposals should be selected that optimises the value of the benefits.
4.31 In Scotland no project in receipt of central government funding should proceed to market (the Procurement Level Stage) prior to receiving OBC approval from the relevant Directorate. In the case of NHSScotland Bodies, following OBC approval by the Capital Investment Group, a Pre-OJEU KSR is required. This should be discussed with the SGHD Capital and Facilities Division. An OJEU should only be placed following approval from the relevant Directorate. For all NPD Projects, the Director of the SFT and relevant Directorate should be informed of the launch details.
4.32 The table and reporting requirements at Appendix C must be completed.
4.33 Within the following section of the guidance, we outline how the VfM assessment must be approached during the procurement phases of a project.