| 5 | How can a procurement process avoid a race to the bottom? |
This section explains why and how the procurement processes for identifying and appointing the Principal Designer and the Principal Contractor, and the other dutyholders comprising consultants, and suppliers who prepare Gateway documentation, should demonstrate a balanced approach to value and evidence of suitable competencies. It shows that a balanced approach to evaluating quality and cost does not breach Public Contracts Regulations.
This guidance does not prescribe a particular procurement model in terms of how design and construction responsibilities are allocated or in terms of a particular contract form. Instead, it shows how the timing and method of identifying and appointing team members can avoid a 'race to the bottom' and can improve the safety and quality of project outcomes.
| Key points - Section 5: How can a procurement process avoid a race to the bottom? ■ Avoid a single-stage, fixed price procurement process, especially if there is a risk that the Client may be provided with inaccurate fixed prices based on incomplete or inaccurate information (5.1) ■ Use a two-stage procurement process that enables early provisional appointments following which team members' tender proposals and commitments can be tested and improved upon before full implementation of the project is approved (5.2) ■ Assess competencies carefully against a recognised set of criteria to ensure that dutyholders and other team members can fulfil their commitments and obligations (5.3) ■ Ensure that evaluation criteria are detailed, measurable, weighted and accurately reflect the Client's brief and the principles of value-based procurement (5.4) ■ Demonstrate a robust balance between safety, cost and quality, using evaluation processes that demonstrate value and provide evidence of suitable competencies and insurances (5.5) ■ For public sector Clients, use the provisions of current Public Contracts Regulations that enable a balanced approach to assessing the most economically advantageous tenders (5.6) |
| Dame Judith Hackitt's Independent Review: ■ Recommendations include 'tackling poor procurement practices ... to drive the right behaviours to make sure that high-safety low-risk options are prioritised and full life cycle cost is considered when a building is procured.' (Recommendations, page 13) ■ 'The invitation to tender and the bid process must prioritise building safety and balance the upfront capital cost against quality and effectiveness. The safety requirements must be effectively tested during both the tendering process and the bid review.' (Section 9.12, page 109) |