Seòmar agus comataidhean

Stacey Dingwall, what are your members’ views on frameworks? Is there too much bureaucracy? Are the wrong folk putting in place the frameworks and the tenders?

You talked earlier about the need for more transparency. The fact that bidders are told that bids have come down to a seventeenth of a per cent is a bit more transparent than it was before, is it not?

Very briefly, is it off-putting for folk that the feedback from different public bodies—say, the 32 local authorities—is different? Should we see if we can come up with a more uniform scheme of feedback to open up transparency?

Good morning. I should begin by saying that I am a bit of procurement anorak. When I was the convener of finance for Aberdeen City Council, I used to have the PECOS software system for procurement on my computer; it annoyed a great number of people, it must be said, but it did teach me a few things.

First, on Colin Smith’s points about frameworks and agreements, it is fair to say that, in my day, I would get frustrated when some of those agreements were more in the hands of the solicitors and accountants than the end users of the product. Is that a frustration for your members?

Just tell us what you think.

We need to get rid of some of that perception, too.

Yes, I am talking about the local authority in this case.

Let us be brutally honest: cost is always going to be an issue, particularly in these tough times. However, what you do not want is additional cost as a result of some of the bureaucracy that you have described. You also do not want additional costs arising from procuring products that, at the end of the day, might not be the best ones.

Let me give you an example of where I was coming from when I talked about things being in the hands of solicitors and accountants rather than the end users. One of the most interesting things that I found was that the folks who were the most canny and who knew what they wanted were the school cooks. You could see in the system exactly what they were going for and what they were choosing to miss out; they knew what was best in following the guidance at that point. What you saw at points, though, was that the framework for procuring certain foodstuffs did not match the needs of the school cooks, who I think knew best, because others were involved in the procurement who should, quite frankly, have probably kept their noses out. Is that something that you and your members have found?

I think that we get the point. Basically, what you are saying is that some of the regulation does not make sense at the moment, because the product is not available and it is not what people want anyway.

That brings me to the next part of my question, which is about feedback to unsuccessful bidders. Has that improved? Is there room for further improvement? What do your members think about what they are told after an unsuccessful bid?