This content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost. Let us know if you find any major problems.
Text in this format is not official and should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments. Please see the PDF for the official version of the document.
JERSEY CONSTRUCTION COUNCIL RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT OF JERSEY PROCUREMENT REVIEW
Overview
To evaluate the procurement process of the Government of Jersey in order to determine whether the process achieved is value for money, to examine the informa on of the relevant control and audit of general recommenda ons with respect to procurement by the Government of Jersey and iden fy any processes made in achieving implementa on of these recommenda ons.
Ariba System
From a builder's merchant's point of view the general view was that the Ariba system is night and day be er than what was in place previously. Placing orders for products and invoicing is much improved and it was felt that delivery was excep onal.
From a self-employed contractor perspec ve the view was that Ariba system has been problema c due to lack of training - so poorly delivered.
It was also men oned that for smaller firms the lack of staff who are trained on the product can be of a disadvantage to smaller businesses.
It was asked as to whether ques ons have been raised not just about Ariba but also about the tendering portal?
Is the tendering portal some mes too complicated for a smaller contractor to be involved with?
More work required on making sure that people are aware that they could be on the portal, so the smaller businesses could actually par cipate at schools or other projects.
The suppliers area is a challenge as there is a requirement to select your criteria and if the project is uploaded onto the portal under a different heading, it doesn't automa cally flag up that the tender has been uploaded.
It was highlighted that hospital is a good example of a project that came out that nobody knew about. Government were chasing around to establish why there was a lack of responses and the answer was because they'd given it an obscure reference.
Fail safe is to ck every op on in order not to miss an opportuni es rather than relying upon an appropriate tag reference.
It was suggested that a response can be that there is a requirement to maybe have an awareness especially for smaller contractors
It was stated that with regards to the states tendering the procurement process is inadequate. General view is that that there are inconsistencies as some mes a good set of documents are issued if it comes from a certain team and other mes the criteria of what you're bidding against will be totally different so it is unsure of what the process is going to be - therefore a more streamlined process is required.
It was asked as to whether the same kind of document is used regardless as to whether it's a 40 million pound project or 40 000 project.
Has the government communicated with you how it plans to address the areas of improvement iden fied?
A really good example re the communica on we have from the new healthcare facility has been poor.
Have there been any barriers to engaging with the procurement process that you are able to highlight?
The point of contact or what is the point of contact was highlighted as a barrier as previously discussed.
The process of uploading and sending works. Consultants have previously uploaded projects for the government and they have got a name of who has received it. There is some mes a requirement for more clarity on whether it's a design element or construct on some of them so consultants end up going back to them asking for further informa on on what is actually required. More defini on within a scope and what feedback mechanisms are there between local businesses and government in rela on to the procurement process.
Are there any ini a ves you would recommend to government aimed at enhancing the supplier and local business par cipa on in procurement?
Longer lead me are needed from government. A lot of last minute requests such as wan ng schools doing in summer holidays is not helpful. It was reported that there have been some delays pu ng a project on the portal and any lost
me seems to be pushed on to the supplier - so if it takes longer the tender period will be really short
Conversa ons undertaken with the construc on industry response team had highlighted that their funding months will start at the end of the year, and if not completed by the end of the year then the whole process starts again.
It poten ally takes three or four months to begin the process but could there be a rolling or biannual evalua on of costs so that the project can actually get completed . Trying to get some of the big projects done in 12 months is an impossible task. Should there be further communica on with some of the smaller contractors about ge ng the informa on onto the portal and b) giving further training about how the system works? This could poten ally make be er use of the private sector.
How do you feel the government is ensuring the procurement process as processes are transparent and fair for all local businesses?
Smaller businesses could poten ally be disadvantaged but it was felt that this has been addressed by having a centralised process and crea ng a more fair and transparent process albeit more work needs to be undertaken.
A drop-in centre or telephone desk could be worthwhile to address IT issues and training to get familiar with the system. Poten ally this could be set up at Digital Jersey or Highlands College.
Can you discuss any successful case studies where supply engagement has significantly improved procurement outcomes?
Could tap into private sector a li le bit more to help them refine the process or scope.
Possible examples of where it could be improved. Certain things have been achieved where visits to to certain buildings have been arranged so that a endees get the proper scope of what's being tendered but this is very intermi ent. If the building is known then there is li le point in a ending those mee ngs. It was noted, however, that some firms have been scored lower because they didn't go to a building that was already know. So there are some anomalies.
There are examples rela ng to government where they have shown a new building to look at the scope for how it is maintained and these are not individual but these are examples of where supplier engagement has actually probably improved in terms of the tender response
Has the government got the balance right for compe ve pricing with the goal of suppor ng local businesses in the procurement process?
There are a lot of examples in construc on of jobs that have not been appointed to local business.
Ques on was asked as to what it was felt the right balance for low spend versus off-island spend should be? Is it only if it's cheaper it should go off-island?
If it goes off-island there is no benefit of a circular economy which is what the whole purpose is.
What are the next steps government should undertake to refine and improve procurement process?
The scope and trying to use local project managers to assist them and engagement . It was felt that if the project is big enough and warrants it, then government should engage by offering up their me to either walk the job, talk about the job, provide informa on on how the procurement is going to look and why the procurement is being undertaken in this way
Be er feedback loops in terms of different projects and how it could have improved on the portal, iden fy systemic issues.
Other ma ers you wish to raise not been covered in the ques ons above, please do not do please to provide these as well.
Conflicts of interest that exist are not included. On certain projects some individuals have a very significant say in what goes in in terms of shaping the tender and the assessment and then a recommenda on is made and not many of these are overturned