Some fundamental issues with Public Procurement
3 December 2024
The Procurement Act 2023 is due to go live on the 24th February 2025. And the way contracting authorities have been, and are likely to use this, has flagged up some major problems in my experience as a bid consultant working for many different organisations, bidding to many different contracting authorities.
Here's the points I've raised with Crown Commercial Service’s Customer Service Centre (CSC) about Transforming Public Procurement (TPP):
1. Quality versus price scores
Regulation 19 requires that contract authorities assess bidders that are the ‘Most Advantageous Tender’ opposed to the ‘Most Economically Advantageous Tender’. However, there is no clarity on how this will be enforced for contracting authorities.
The contracting authority can automatically apply full marks on price, to the bidder that scores the highest, but the same rules do not apply to quality.
Example:
| Bidder | Price (40%) | Quality (60%) | Total (100%) |
| Bidder 1 | 28% | 50% | 78% |
| Bidder 2 | 35% | 40% | 75% |
| Bidder 3 | 32% | 39% | 71% |
Price adjustment
Bidder 1 is the highest combined scorer. But the Contracting Authority can award 40% to the highest scoring bidder on price, moving Bidder 2’s scores to 40% price and 40% quality totalling 80%.
Quality adjustment
In that scenario Bidder 1 would achieve 28% price and 60% quality totalling 88%.
Question
Why do contracting authorities not offer the same rules for quality as they do for price?
Action
Is there a case to make sure that if contracting authorities offer this scoring mechanism on price, they must also offer it on quality? Otherwise, it will provide a loophole for contracting authorities to get around the changes to price versus quality balance when the Procurement Act 2023 goes live in February?
2. Feedback and scores
When bidders complete the scored stages of a bid process, those that do not make it through the SQ/Second Stage to the next round receive feedback and scores, but those that the contracting authority puts through to the next round do not.
This also applies to the Final Stage where the losing bidders receive scores, feedback, and benchmarking against the winning bidder, but the winning bidder just receives a letter that they have been successful, and the contracting authority intends to appoint them
The issues this causes
When bidders that make it through the SQ/Second Stage ask for feedback/scores, contracting authorities often reject this request saying it is back to a level playing field. However, the contracting authority has this information; they produced it for all bidders, so why give it to losing bidders and withhold it from the others? Bidders need to be able to understand and assess their positions.
Example bidder scores at SQ Stage:
| Questions | Bidder 1 score | Total available scores |
| Q1 Methodology | 14% | 15% |
| Q2 Programme | 8% | 15% |
| Q3 Resource | 6% | 10% |
| Q4 Social value | 10% | 10% |
| Q5 Carbon Net Zero | 10% | 10% |
| Total | 48% | 60% |
If the bidder makes it through to ITT with these scores, but the contracting authority only tells them they scored 48% out of 60%, this gives them a false impression that they have little to improve on at the next stage and that overall, they scored well. But if the contracting authority’s view is that the bidder cannot meet the programme and doesn’t have the adequate resource, the bidder is not equipped with this knowledge and will continue to provide the same timescales and staff at the next stage. These procurement exercises can be a huge financial commitment to bidding organisations and it should also give them the ability to assess and balance their chances of being successful at the end and decide whether to continue or not.
Similarly, if the winning bidder does not receive detailed feedback and scores that explains why the contracting authority selected them to appoint, they cannot learn where they scored well and higher than other bidders, and where they need to improve in the future.
Question
Why do bidders that do not make it through to the next round receive feedback and scores, but those that the contracting authority puts through to the next round do not?
Action
Can you adjust the regulations to state that a contracting authority must issue scores and feedback to all bidders at SQ/Second Stage regardless of whether the contracting authority invites them to the next stage or not?
This also applies to scoring and feedback for the winning bidder at the Final Stage.
By Alison Zalecki, Mozer