Housing Associations Procurement Objections

The Crown Commercial Service (CCS) brings together policy, advice and direct buying, providing commercial services to the public sector and saving money for the taxpayer by offering public sector bodies a central purchasing policy and advice to:

• Make savings for customers in both central government and the wider public sector.

• Achieve maximum value from every commercial relationship.

• Improve the quality of service delivery for common goods and services across government.

The CCS are responsible for:

• Managing the procurement of common goods and services, so public sector organisations with similar needs achieve value by buying as a single customer.

• Increasing savings for the taxpayer by centralising buying requirements for common goods and services and bringing together smaller projects.

• Leading on procurement policy on behalf of the UK Government.

The Public Procurement Review Service (PPRS) provides a route for internal public sector stakeholders and suppliers to raise concerns about public procurement practice, and carries out spot checks on procurement processes as well as continuing to deal with referrals raised by internal public sector stakeholders, Suppliers and other concerned parties, by:

• Providing a clear, structured and direct route for internal public sector stakeholders and suppliers to raise concerns about public procurement practice (even when attempts at resolving issues with a contracting authority or a first-tier supplier have failed) and provides feedback to enquirers on their concerns.

• Taking a proactive approach through spot checks on procurement documents.

• Identifying areas of poor procurement practice and work with the contracting authority to put them right, and help ensure similar cases do not arise in the future.

• Taking action to reduce the likelihood of similar issues arising in other public sector authorities.

• Identifying examples of good practice that we can share with other authorities

Below are examples of procurement issues that have been raised concerning Housing Associations with the resultant findings.

 

Authority	Subject	Sub Issue	Case Issue	Case Outcome
Sanctuary Housing	Procurement Process	Financial Requirement	A supplier raised concerns about the Sanctuary Housing Architects (Housing) Development Consultancy Framework that included a zero fee clause in its standard contractual terms as they felt it would require architects to carry out substantial amounts of unpaid work. They also queried the specified minimum turnover threshold, as they believed these values to be excessive in view of the likely level of architects’ fees.	Sanctuary Housing,an organisation regulated by the Homes and Communities Agency, confirmed that they had used a zero fee provision as a mechanism to meet the Homes & Communities Agency's requirement to secure best value. They amended their position following requests for clarification from bidders and made it clear that they did not intend the zero fee provision to apply if a detailed planning application was submitted, they confirmed that they will ensure this is clear from the outset in any future procurements. The methodology used to set the minimum turnover thresholds was confirmed as meeting the requirements of the Public Contracts Regulations but they agreed to undertake an assessment on any future procurement to ensure the most appropriate method is used.
Places for People	Procurement Process	Financial Requirement	The supplier expressed concern about a recent OJEU procurement being undertaken by Places for People (ref. 47577-2018) for a Major Projects Hub including construction works and consultancy services. Their concern was that according to the notice it would be awarded to a single supplier.	Places for People confirmed that the works and services will comprise all types of building construction works and associated civil, mechanical, electrical and services works and may also include design and other services required to develop a construction design and build. The Major Projects Hub framework is intended to select a single supplier with the relevant expertise, capacity and experience to manage the supply chain either on behalf of, or in conjunction with the contracting authority. By taking this approach the Authority was attempting to develop projects which otherwise may not have come to fruition.  The supplier met with the Authority and had a fruitful discussion and will now be working together in order to address some of these concerns.
Swan Housing	Transparency	Evaluation	A supplier contacted us with concerns in relation to a ‘below threshold’ procurement opportunity being run by Swan Housing for the provision of mobile phone services. The supplier felt that the award criteria set out in the tender documentation were limited and unclear as they did not disclose weightings. A subsequent concern was raised suggesting that Swan Housing had offered a shorter contract duration in order to ensure the contract value remained below threshold.	The Authority responded fully to both concerns, providing strong justification for the process and structure of the procurement exercise, along with the rationale for the contract duration. The Authority has been found to be fully compliant since the award criteria was clearly contained in the contract documents. We recommended the Contracting Authority consider publishing a more detailed award criteria for complex cases.
Orbit Housing	Procurement Strategy	Lotting	A supplier complained about a Legal Services Framework opportunity with the Orbit Group (a housing association) which they felt was not SME friendly due to there being no lotting structure. The supplier said the structure of the framework - asking bidders to provide a wide range of legal services meant that only a few large legal firms would be able to bid.	The Authority confirmed that they will continue to consider lotting on a case by case basis for future procurements to ensure SME involvement remains at a high level, as is the case currently.
Authority	Subject	Sub Issue	Case Issue	Case Outcome
L & Q Group	Procurement Strategy	Transparency	A supplier contacted us to complain that a recent procurement favoured incumbent providers. The supplier uploaded their bid to the portal on 28th February 2018 and followed up with the procurement team who told them that was all they needed to do. They discovered on 3rd May 2018 that they were not awarded the contract. They received a reply a week later explaining that their application wasn't entered into the bidding process and therefore they had missed the appeal deadline. As a result, they are now effectively locked out of an opportunity for 5 years and this will have a huge impact on their company.	The system's audit trail shows no evidence that a bid was uploaded. The supplier would have seen on screen, a printable receipt when submitting a tender to evidence their submission. As a bid was not made by the supplier they would not have been directly informed of the standstill period, as the proposed award would have been announced to the participating bidders. This was not a public procurement although L&Q ran the process in compliance with the PCR regulations. The Authority confirmed that 39 suppliers expressed interest in the opportunity. Of those, 17 suppliers did submit a tender (9 of which are SMEs); and after evaluations 9 suppliers were awarded contract (3 of which are SMEs.)
Hyde Housing Association	Procurement Process	Advertisement	A supplier contacted the Mystery Shopper team regarding a framework tender for Construction Consultancy Services being procured by Hyde Housing Group. The framework notice was advertised on Contracts Finder as Construction Project Management Services with one access code - 71541000, however the Framework included three Lots with two additional codes.  The supplier disregarded this opportunity based on the information that was published to Contracts Finder.	The Authority confirmed that the procurement was run through their Delta system and covered 3 Lots. Unfortunately the Delta system only allowed for one access code although the Lotting structure was visible when the opportunity was investigated further. The Authority is aware of the problem with the Delta system and is working to resolve it. The Authority had addressed the problem and extra codes were provided during clarification but only to those who were already involved in the tender process.
Northampton Partnership Homes	Technology/Systems	Technical issue with e-portal	A supplier contacted us about procurement ref GB003ZM267175 UK-Bolton: Supply of Non Half Hourly Electricity, Half Hourly Electricity and Gas. The Contracting Authority appeared to be a private company. The supplier wanted to check that the procurement through which Utilities Procurement Group (UPG) Ltd were appointed as agents, that Northampton Partnership Homes (NPH) were aware of their liabilities under this arrangement and that NPH’s constitution allows them to act as a central purchasing body for the purposes of this framework.	NPH confirmed that the process to recruit UPG Ltd as its managing agent for the current utilities procurement exercise was compliant and in keeping with its internal procurement rules , the commercial arrangements were a matter of commercial confidentiality. NPH also confirmed as stated within the Contract Notice, NPH is the Contracting Authority and UPG are NPH’s managing agent responsible for undertaking the framework procurement and contract managing the resulting framework throughout its contract term. NPH did recognise that there may have been an element of confusion as the Contracts Finder advert for this procurement inadvertently and in error, implied that UPG was the lead organisation. This was a software system error not within their control. The links contained within the Contracts Finder advert, when followed, stated NPH as the Contracting Authority. They have taken professional legal procurement advice and have been advised to continue with the procurement process. Mystery Shopper have reinforced the importance of accuracy when placing adverts to ensure this does not reoccur in the future.
Clarion Housing	Procurement Strategy	Financial Requirement	A supplier contacted us regarding an opportunity to join the Authority’s Dynamic Purchasing System - Development 2019 Lot No. 1. The issue focused on the requirement for bidders need to provide a credit reference that would entail registering for an annual membership at a cost of £195. Although the supplier provided their accounts as an alternative they were advised that they will not be considered and that they must have a credit report.	Due to technical issues with their procurement platform the Authority confirmed that incorrect information had been released in the OJEU notice. Clarion Housing confirmed they had made amendments to the Selection Questionnaire process because it was incorrect and not compliant with the Public Contract Regulations 2015. The Authority confirmed that bidders were requested to upload a credit reference but if they are unable to provide this or they feel their credit reference does not reflect current position the Authority would review the bidder’s accounts using a template they had provided. Once identified, amendments were issued via a corrigendum, and the correct information uploaded. Clarion also confirmed that all correspondence rights will only be managed by the Group’s procurement manager for this project to ensure no similar issues occur.
Sovereign Housing Association	Procurement Process	Feedback	A supplier contacted us regarding a Supplier Selection Questionnaire (SSQ) for the project “Planned Gas Boiler and Heating Installations.” The supplier raised that the amount of information required for specific questions was excessive. The supplier felt that they had produced a relevant and high scoring submission, this subsequently failed to progress past the SSQ stage as it was scored low across the range of questions. The supplier has received very limited feedback regarding their submission and despite requesting more meaningful feedback this was refused.	The contract value for Heating Installations is circa £64m over the 5+5 years term. Sovereign confirmed it had used the standard Crown Commercial Services Templates as a basis for the SSQ. Sovereign had provided an overall score compared to the highest score, although the Authority is not legally obligated to provide feedback at SSQ stage . After the Authority had independently reviewed this tender they identified that more information could have been given to the unsuccessful bidders, this will be developed in the future.
Central Housing Investment Consortium	Procurement Strategy	Establishment of framework	PPRS was contacted by a supplier regarding a contract notice advertised by CHIC for Plumbing, Electrical & General Building Goods & Materials Suppliers. The supplier was concerned that the Framework duration was set at 8 years.	CHIC stated that the total Framework Agreement term of 8 years (including extensions) would allow for the supply of materials to be effective and efficient. In most cases the Framework user and supplier would need integrated information technology systems set at a strategic level. This will require significant time and resources (including financial expenditure by way of capital and revenue investment) for both the framework user and supplier to implement integrated systems effectively and to develop comprehensive supply catalogues. The return on the investment to achieve this cannot be recovered in a short term framework and call off contract. The Authority further confirmed that the procurement was undertaken through the OJEU Open Procedure, allowing all interested parties to raise clarification questions. The Authority confirmed that they had not received any challenges regarding the Term of the contract.
Beyond housing	Procurement Strategy	SME exclusion - insurance requirement	A supplier contacted PPRS regarding a tender opportunity advertised by Beyond Housing, reference BH/2020/0044. The supplier was concerned that the minimum Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) per claim of £5 million was excessively high and could prevent smaller enterprises from being able to compete.	Beyond Housing confirmed that interested suppliers could submit a bid and advise what level of PII they would suggest. Bids would not be rejected due to insurance levels not reaching £5 million. Beyond Housing advised all tenderers of this through clarification on their procurement portal. Complaint not upheld.
Sanctuary Housing	Procurement Process	Feedback	A supplier contacted PPRS regarding a Sanction Housing Association opportunity advertised on the Crown Commercial Service (CCS) Digital Marketplace https://www.digitalmarketplace.service.gov.uk/digital-outcomes-and-specialists/opportunities/15089. The supplier was concerned that they had not received feedback on their submission for the opportunity.	Complaint not upheld. CCS confirmed that the procurement team was at the shortlisting stage and would inform all suppliers, whether successful or not, adhering to the DPS guidelines. Complaint not upheld.
Authority	Subject	Sub Issue	Case Issue	Case Outcome
Together Housing Group	Procurement Process	Transparency	A supplier contacted PPRS regarding the Together Housing Group Ltd procurement for Insurance and Related Services (https://www.contractfinderpro.com/doc/YbExX/together-housing-group-ltd/provision-insurance-related-services-together). The supplier was concerned that parts of the Selection Questionnaire (SQ) appeared to be ambiguous as to how responses would be scored. Furthermore, the Find a Tender Service Contract Notice correctly stated competitive procedure with negotiation but the Contracts Finder notice stated Negotiated Procedure giving confusion to the procedure being used.	Complaint not upheld. PPRS contacted Together Housing who were forthcoming with responses and providing clarification/communication logs. PPRS reviewed the information provided from the authority, which confirmed that the points raised had been addressed and the authority had voluntarily extended the submission date. Furthermore, the authority confirmed that errors on the contracts finder website only allows the use of the word Negotiated rather than the full title however it was clearly described in the SQ.
Sanctuary Housing Association	Transparency	Transparency	A supplier contacted PPRS regarding Sanctuary Housing Association DPS for Estate Agency Services (https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/notice/e827f64b-49c1-4a61-aeb1-cd207231e8b1?origin=SearchResults&p=1). The Supplier was concerned that there was a bias towards one bidding organisation under the DPS.	Complaint not upheld. PPRS reviewed a recent competition for Abbey Meadows. PPRS found that the Contracting Authority had not breached the Public Contracts Regulations (2015), this is based on comprehensive information supplied by the authority regarding the overall management of the DPS. This included the process the Authority applied/applies to ensure fairness to awarding contracts and confirmed the process they followed to evaluate suppliers’ bids was in accordance with the Public Contracts Regulation (2015) regulation 34 (23). The Contracting Authority had followed the correct process to ensure conflicts of interest were identified and managed correctly in accordance with the Public Contracts Regulation (2015) regulation 24.
Homes England	Procurement Process	Evaluation	A supplier contacted Public Procurement Review Service (PPRS) regarding Homes England Property and Financial Services Framework - Lot 2 (Procontract Reference: DN562720). The supplier was concerned that their submission was rejected due to lack of content after being asked to drastically reduce the word count in their submission, specifically section 6.	Complaint not upheld. Homes England advised that the supplier was not excluded because of the word count requirement. Their tender was excluded due to providing limited information relating to lot 2 of the scope of services in their Section 6 submission. The supplier submitted a tender for Lot 2, however the focus of the information provided in their Section 6 submission was on lot 1 services which did not form part of the lot 2 Suitability Assessment. The word count of 250 words was stated in the ‘question description’ and also repeated under ‘question help’. The 250 word requirement was the original requirement and had not been reduced at any stage in the competition. All other tenders met the Section 6 requirements including the word count requirement of 250 words. There were 12 other tenders for Lot 2.
Procurement for Housing	Procurement Process	Equivalents	A supplier raised an issue with the PPRS about a live procurement by Procurement for Housing (PfH) for a "National Agreement For: Material Supply and Associated Services" (Agreement Reference: JA / April 2023 / Materials). The supplier had concerns about the pricing mechanism, which included a target price and penalised pricing that was too far above and below this target. They raised concerns that this might prevent best value being achieved. The supplier also raised concerns around the scope of goods. The ITT asks for specific standard goods, with no opportunity to offer equivalent alternatives.	Partially upheld. PPRS notes that some of the lots under this procurement relate to authorities in Scotland and are subject to relevant Scottish law.  PPRS's findings do not relate to those lots as they are out of scope of PPRS's remit. PfH were able to provide a detailed and evidenced based rationale for the pricing mechanism. PPRS is satisfied that the mechanism is commercially appropriate. We do not uphold this part of the complaint. PfH were also able to provide a detailed and evidenced based rationale for specifying named goods rather than generic technical requirements. This is allowed under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, regulation 42(12).  However regulation 42(13) goes on to say where this is allowed “the reference shall be accompanied by the words “or equivalent”.  We therefore uphold this part of the complaint. PPRS would recommend that PfH consider the addition of the words "or equivalent" to the relevant parts of the tender documentation, or that they consider issuing a clarification to bidders to that effect. Suppliers may be required to prove that where they offer alternatives that they are genuinely equivalent, that is, that they meet "the performance or functional requirements of the contracting authority" per PCR 2015 42(16).
Procurement for Housing	Procurement Strategy	SME exclusion - financial requirement	A supplier raised a concern with PPRS relating to the financial thresholds in Lot 4 of the Decarbonisation & Retrofit Framework (reference JL / March 2023 / Decarb & Retrofit) let by Procurement for Housing (PfH). The supplier was concerned that the minimum turnover requirement was £10 million for bidders was across all 11 regions of the UK. They were concerned that this might exclude SMEs from some of the smaller regions of the UK.	Complaint not upheld. PfH was able to provide a detailed commercial rationale for the minimum turnover requirements, and were able to demonstrate the requirement's applicability to the smaller regions of the UK. PPRS are satisfied that the requirement is proportionate and non-discriminatory.

More articles can be found at Procurement and Supply Chain Management Made Simple. A look at procurement and supply chain management issues to assist organisations and people in increasing the quality, efficiency, and effectiveness in the supply of their products and services to customers' delight. ©️ Procurement and Supply Chain Management Made Simple. All rights reserved.

#procurement #procurementtransformation #procurementmanagement #procurementstrategy #supplychainmanagement #supplychain #supplychainexcellence #purchasing #purchasemanagement #commerical #business #managementconsulting