What you are talking about is something we have been working at for 12 years, with a modicum of success. as you point out, construction procurement has changed considerably over that time, from tendering on a contract by contract basis, partnering, frameworks, e-procurement, EU procurement regulations and so on.

This latest attempt by government to get a handle on it is very positive.

The standard PQQ they speak of is PAS91. This is now mandatory for central government, and with Constructionline’s help, we hope to be able to make this cross over into local government. This is the biggest issue for driving policy through in my opinion. The transition from central to local government is where the biggest pain is felt, and the majority of the suppliers who are effected by the changes engage. it is therefore essential that any policy created, is somehow pushed beyond the boundary of central government.

Their main focus is in a few key areas.
Finding the opportunity – Contract Finder (again mandated for central government) will list all opportunities over £10K, and not just in Construction.

The issues listed previously, regarding excessive expressions of interest can be solved, or made infinitely easier with the agenda policy mentioned below.

Procurement – The ‘up-skilling’ of the client to make the procurement more efficient. Suggested approaches here include utilising the open procedure for all contracts under £100K, thus removing the PQQ altogether, and cost benchmarking to give the power back to the client, once a framework is let amongst many others.

This part is where highlighting how Constructionline can help the client is where we are focusing all our attention on these days.
There has been great work done by The North West Construction Hub, P21+ and more where the PQQ process has been effectively streamlined through using Constructionline, but still provides the client with the autonomy to shortlist those suppliers who score best at PQQ stage.

Finally, there is the transparency agenda. Again, Contract Finder is one part of this, helping suppliers find the opportunities in the first place, but this will be extended to include contract award data, and more specific contract data to enable SME’s to get more information, and make more informed decisions on what is actually going on out there in reality.

There is so much more that could be said on this topic, but for now i think it best to see what else comes out from government, and comment accordingly.

Feel free to get in touch if you would like to discuss any of the points above in more detail. @constructline on twitter.

I’m certain that your hesitancy and your frustrations will actually resonate with many people. Your blog is more than appropriately timed coming as it does on the day that the Government’s Construction Strategy has been published. This has the challenge to reduce costs by Public Sector Construction Costs by 20% by the end of this session of Parliament (I’ll be blogging on this shortly), and has procurement reform as one of the key areas to tackle the problem (see Action Point 11 for more detail)
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/government-construction-strategy_0.pdf

I agree with John’s comments and have my own similar experiences of fruitless PQQ’s that didn’t result in any work. What is evident to me is that the PQQ process has a place and in the past decade it has undoubtedly made suppliers more aware of what clients want. (no bad thing) In doing so, many suppliers have established all the relevant documentation to ensure a PQQ can be passed; again no bad thing unless of course this documentation is just part of a tick box exercise (ISO9001 / IIP etc) rather than part of the business DNA.

We’ve even possibly reached saturation point where many companies are all able to pass the PQQ, so how do ‘buyers’ distinguish from the many compliant proposals. So a different approach is needed, set aside from the issues of councils requiring both Exor / Constructionline accreditation – simply moronic! (See Action Pt 3 Governance and Client Skills; not sure this will address effective buying, but maybe…)

I can provide more detail if need be, but I’d also like to highlight that one of my students is currently tackling this issue as part of his undergraduate dissertation. He refers to PAS91 and there is supposed a STANDARD PQQ coming out. I’ve been trying to find some more information on this, but can’t; so I’ll get back to you when I find more info’ – unless anyone else is aware?

Anyway, I appreciate your blog could deemed as potentially challenging the hand that feeds; however when you think about it, we need to survive on more than mere crumbs! So I applaud your blog and for being controversial, it’s needed.

Rob

During my time in construction I have spent many hours going through tenders and helping with tenders and often during the process we know full well it’s a massive waste of time. Plus, these tasks are often carried out well after ‘office hours’ and after a long days work, as I said, we know they’re a waste of time but we dare not ignore the process especially when work is scarce.

What is the answer? Whatever process is involved, there’s always a chance that the decision to who will eventually win the contract may have already been made.

One of the key points that you make about this ‘unjust’ system is the wasted ‘man hours’, people still need paying for their time whether a contract is won or not and how much does all this wasted time and effort cost the industry per annum?? Millions, it must cost absolute millions!!

How do other countries deal with the same problem? Maybe somewhere a little less traditional and a little keener on being efficient will provide the answer?? Scandinavia?? They’re fairly sensible as a rule?? What approach do they take?

Good article, forward thinking always takes a little bravery!!

All the best, Peter