After prevaricating for nearly two years and being wrong-footed by the EU, from which organisation the UK is now supposed to be exiting, the English Government’s Cabinet Office Crown Commercial Service has finally, and rather suddenly, issued its guidance on the new look Standard PQQ, which it is now renamed “Selection Questionnaire (SQ)”.
It is normal for important government actions to be preceded by a period of open consultation with the potential targets of such action, but that doesn’t appear to have happened on this occasion. Of course, consultation is often ignored; witness the reduction in Feed-in Tariffs, when the consultation period ended after the FiTs were reduced. So why would CCS bother with such an unnecessary step? Well if they had consulted, they might have avoided some of the apparent gaffes that have been published.
Gaffe No. 1:
The Policy Procurement Note – Action Note 8/16, is dated 9th September 2016, the date from which we all assume that the Guidance is effective. Unfortunately, the document was not published until 26 September 2016. So all of you who have published Contract Notices in the intervening period are subject to challenge for not using the SQ about which you had no knowledge. And anyone who doesn’t immediately use the new SQ is also subject to a rap over the knuckles from CCS and similar challenges.
Gaffe No. 2:
CCS describe supplier selection as a key stage in public procurement, where we procurers gather information on and make assessments of the prospective bidders’ credentials before considering tenders. “This includes gathering information about companies’ track records, financial credentials, whether they have been involved in corruption, whether they meet various selection criteria, and so on”. It’s this “and so on” that is virtually glossed over in the guidance and questionnaire.
Where are the questions and guidance on the evaluation of selection criteria underskills, efficiency, experience and reliability. [EU Article 58.(c) and (4). UK Reg 58._(1)(c) and._(18)]?
Like the European Single Procurement Document, there are no questions under Technical and Professional Ability regarding skills, efficiency, experience and reliability. Merely lists of works, technicians, systems, records, compliance certificates “and so on”.
These facts cannot be solely used to fully evaluate, at selection stage, the following:
- Skills – merely that people are qualified to perform skills, not that they have them.
- Efficiency – not one question about how they achieve efficiency.
- Reliability – merely that they may have had some satisfactory sign-offs, and selected referees have confirmed that.
Will procurers take the trouble to create their own project specific questions, or will they merely follow the standard questions?
Gaffe No. 3:
CCS typically use the words “should” and “may”, rather than “shall” or “must”. This allows the reader to believe he/she may be obliged to carry out the requirement, but when push comes to shove, there is no such obligation. If CCS believe that a certain thing must be carried out, why is that not unequivocally stated?
For example, under Technical and professional ability: Past Performance “You mayevaluate the past performance of a potential supplier.” Under Suppliers Past Performance – central government organisations: “This advice should be followed for relevant central government procurements.” But under Q8.4 Suppliers’ Past Performance, this question should only be included by central government contracting authorities.
Also in guidance paragraph 25. “You should use the PAS91 PQQ for works contracts (including the procurement of goods and services needed in relation to the works).” So is that “you should, but we know that PAS91 hasn’t been updated to comply with ESPD, PCR 2015 and CDM 2015, and we also know that the EU Directive and the Public Contracts Regulations suggest you shouldn’t use PAS91”?
Gaffe No. 4:
Under Guidance paragraph 47. CCS suggests that credit checks may be used (but not exclusively) as a means of selection. Wasn’t this the very form of financial selection criteria that was decried a few years ago as non-transparent and therefore unfair? Is CCS really giving procurers the green light to what was widely objected to, particularly by SMEs and their trade organisations?
Gaffe No. 5: (and possibly the worst of all)
Under Guidance paragraph 3. CCS suggests that the Selection Questionnaire is compliant with the requirements of the ESPD, and para 8. suggests three ways in which the Selection Questionnaire may be used:
- Using the Selection Questionnaire provided.
- Direct candidates to the EU electronic ESPD (and provides a mind numbing description of the ESPD process)
- Provide access details to an e-procurement system that asks the standard Selection Questions. How many systems offer that off-the-shelf facility from 9 September?
If CCS wanted to produce an ESPD compliant standard Selection Questionnaire, why did they not just use the ESPD format in the same way that Scotland did? The Scottish ESPD may have its faults, but at least it tries to ensure that procurers can comply with Public Contracts Regulations without challenge.
Positives
There are some positives – Apprenticeships are included, Supply Chain Management is referred to and Project Specific Questions are encouraged. However, I’m not convinced that this new Guidance and Questionnaire is clear, or even encourages SMEs as was Lord Young’s original intention.
Could try harder.
Tim Oakley 
Leave a comment