Category: Purchasing Insights

Handcuffs and leathers

6/28/2018

I've written here before about what I perceive to be the lamentable state of public sector procurement in the UK. Indeed, our survey last year into "Bidders' Views of Buyers" confirmed that most on the sales side take a dim view of the skills and tactics of their buyer counterparts, whatever their sector.

The latest example of purchasing ineptitude was flagged last week by the Daily Mail - not, I confess, a paper of which I'm usually too fond. They'd done some digging into police force spend across England and Wales, and the results were staggering (even, perhaps, allowing for some journalistic spin).

Take handcuffs. For the same item, North Yorkshire police pay £10. West Mercia pay £23.50.

Motorcycle leathers? More than a sixfold difference. Helmets? Yours for £12.59 if you're buying them in Derbyshire, but £36.32 not far away in Staffordshire. Electricity? 8.7% more expensive per kwH in one East Anglian force than for their immediate neighbours.

Some reading this might praise the salespeople involved. After all, if the buyer allows you to make more margin, why wouldn't you? But, actually, it just frustrates me. This little army of pompous procurement bureaucrats dotted across the UK - all thinking they know best, all running tortuous procurement processes, all being paid good salaries from the public purse -are simply wasting the money of bidders and taxpayers alike.

And what of the more senior folks, who are supposed to oversee public sector procurement? It's hardly rocket science to analyse spend and spot anomalies. The system's rotten from the top down.

We're seeing signs of change - our friend Steve Mullins, who works with us to educate sales teams to understand and influence buyers - is engaged on a project right now to assess the calibre of various key procurement people. But it's time that the government and civil service made genuine and speedy efforts to put their own house in order, and to consult with the bidding world as they do so.

1 Comment

Survey: bidders' views of buyers

7/8/2017

1 Comment

Posted by Jon

What do sales and bid teams really think of the way they're engaged via their clients' procurement processes?

I get to see several hundred proposals a year - and, in parallel, very many of the RFPs to which they're responding. And whilst the proposals vary from poor to very good, I'd argue that the RFPs vary from very poor to... well, mediocre at best.

Further, I'd argue that very many buying teams fail to solicit the best proposals - and best offers - from the supply market as a result. Sub-standard RFPs within poorly managed purchasing processes therefore directly damage their organisations. (The 2016 Strategic Proposals white paper on "The World's Worst Procurement Awards" shares further perspectives on this - available free on our downloads page, if you're interested).

But those are my personal perspectives. What do you think?

We've just launched our latest survey, soliciting the views of those involved in bidding - whether bid / proposal professionals, salespeople, subject matter experts of senior managers - of their prospects' procurement processes.

It should only take a couple of minutes to complete: do click here and let us have your thoughts. (Please encourage colleagues to complete it, too. The more views, the merrier!). It's aimed primarily at UK-based teams, but we'd welcome contributions from elsewhere, too.

We'll be following this with the flip-side survey later in the year, soliciting buyers' views of bidders.

We've had a fabulous response already since the survey launched a few days ago. That's great, because the more responses we get at this stage, the more likely procurement folks are to respond later in the year. So we'd really appreciate your views, and will share the conclusions later this summer.

1 Comment

The Garden Bridge and the art of qualification

4/7/2017

0 Comments

Posted by Jon

Well, I've just been laughing aloud. See, the report by Dame Margaret Hodge into the proposed 'Garden Bridge' over the Thames has just been published. And the procurement process that it describes is so flawed as to be almost beyond belief.

Download it here, and start at paragraph 35. In essence, the company run by the rather wonderful designer Thomas Hetherwick had been involved from the very outset in the plan to build a gorgeous tree-lined pedestrian bridge over the river. Before too long, people realised that there'd need to be a 'fair and open' procurement process, as public money was involved.

So, on 8th February 2013, three firms were notified that an ITT for the bridge design services contract would be issued five days later. And, to quote today's report: "They were given a deadline for their submissions of 25th February. Heatherwick had been working on the project for around five months; the other two firms were given eight working days,"

Guess who won? You guessed it: the company who'd influenced the spec, and worked alongside the decision-makers. And I'm not for a moment criticising Heatherwick. Actually, the folks who made me laugh were the other two bidders, for deciding to respond to the ITT.

See, here's the thing. If you learn about an ITT out of the blue, at the last minute, and haven't had any involvement with the customer up to that point, the alarm bells should be ringing. Because if they've not been talking to you, they've surely been talking to one of your competitors.

And if you're also given a ridiculously unrealistic period in which to respond - the bells shouldn't just be ringing, they should be deafening you. It's a classic sign of a procurement team who are going through the motions, with a preferred vendor already very much in mind. Far too many companies bid for deals simply because they're there, or for fear of saying 'no' to the client.

That said, the real blame here lies with those involved in such a shoddy procurement process. There really is no excuse. And, sadly, it seems as if a project that could - done right - have been a wonderful London attraction is now dead in the water, rather than spanning it for all to enjoy.

0 Comments

The woeful state of public sector procurement

2/11/2014

3 Comments

Posted by Jon
I think my mission in life for the year ahead ought to be to destroy public sector procurement as it now functions in the UK.

The job of buying on behalf of government? I have no idea if there’s a grand, centrally-held mission statement somewhere in Whitehall, or in town halls across the nation. But were I to have a go at drafting it at my desk early on Saturday morning before my first coffee of the day, it’d read something like:

Professionally sourcing solutions from the market that enable the most effective and most efficient delivery of public services to those who depend on them.

It should be about drawing out excellent offers via excellent proposals from competent bidders, in a well-managed, fair and cost-effective way. As founder of a business, I’d like to hope it helps smaller and local businesses (and disadvantaged groups) to thrive.
As a taxpayer – both personally and through our company – I’d also hope it would be about ensuring value for money: not necessarily the cheapest (for cheap is rarely cheerful), but the option that delivers the best overall use of scarce public funds. That has to be a holistic view – not just the costs billed by the eventual supplier, but factoring in the time and cost of those on the government side of the procurement and delivery too.
To give just a few illustrations of how the inept cadre of so-called procurement ‘professionals’ operate right now in the UK public sector from deals we’ve worked on in 2014 to date:

Numerous local councils across the country needing to replace a supplier that’s quitting the market, each conducting entirely separate procurement exercises in parallel; each developing their own (typically very second-rate) ITT with different specs and questions about what is fundamentally a very simple commodity purchase.
A major government department issuing 300 pages of questions for a contract worth under £1m – and for which there are already robust and toughly-negotiated framework agreements in place that they could have used.
Documents issued to bidders in late December, with a response date in early January, with the added fun that clarification questions couldn’t be answered until a couple of days before proposals were due in “because everyone’s on holiday”.
A project that has huge implications on a local community, being awarded purely on the basis of the short written proposal that bidders are required to submit, with no meetings whatsoever between the agency concerned and potential suppliers to discuss their proposed approaches.
Laughable word-count limits on answers in eTendering systems. Because, you know, it’s obviously possible for a supplier to explain in full how a highly sensitive service protecting the most vulnerable people in our society can be delivered from a technical perspective within the 250 word box you’ve provided – especially when the question you’ve posed is itself three pages long and itself contains numerous contradictions and errors.
Bids on which several suppliers score “100% for quality”. Utter nonsense: I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a truly perfect proposal, not least when the buying teams aren’t that clear or realistic about what’s needed for success and their RFPs are so badly-written. But, hey, if we’re not bright enough to differentiate between potential solutions, let’s lazily score them all high and just argue about price.
An eProcurement system that offers two settings: the standard view, and an alternative view for the visually-impaired. Praiseworthy, save for the fact that the way of making the ITT easier to respond to for the visually-impaired is simply to leave the question numbers on the screen but delete all of the questions.

Duplicating and wasting effort. Running ridiculously complex processes that merely seem to protect or generate jobs for civil servants. Treating the supply market with contempt. And, as a result, no doubt resulting in poorer public services for those who depend on them, and wasting taxpayers’ money. Who’s in control of this stuff? And is it any wonder that if things are done so very badly on smaller and medium-sized projects, we hear tell of so many disasters on major procurement exercises?

Actually, I’m not sure I blame the individuals: when ineptitude is so widespread, it has to be the system to blame – the very role of the purchasing function; the processes it follows; the calibre of staff recruited (partly tied into the salaries and grades for the job); the training offered; the way feedback from the market is handled.

Of course, it’s easy to pick on isolated examples of poor practice – and this post is designed to be provocative: something of a Modest Proposal. There are, of course, many incredibly diligent, top-class procurement folks working in the public sector. But life for them must be very lonely.

Any thoughts? Or am I standing on this soapbox alone?

3 Comments

The festive season?

1/2/2014

5 Comments

Posted by Jon
Two questions on my mind, as I start back at work in 2014:

- what proportion of proposal people ended up working on bids over the festive season?
- and why on earth are very many procurement people so disrespectful of the staff working for their suppliers as to set deadlines at the very start of January?

I can offer my own perspective on the latter, from my days in purchasing (before I switched sides of the negotiating table, back in 1999). Running a very large (multi-hundred-million pound) global outsourcing deal for a major bank, our project plan included the eminently reasonable target of completing our RFP by the end of the year – before we broke for Christmas and the New Year.

What we then did surprised the shortlisted vendors: once the document was finalised (around the 18th, if I recall correctly), we refused to send it to them. Our rationale? Firstly, that we wanted the bid teams to be fresh and creative when preparing their responses. And secondly that expecting people to work over the holidays was entirely inconsistent with our stated aims of genuinely finding a ‘partner’ who could help us to bring about change to the way in which services were delivered to our organisation. That’s why our project plan was always clear: complete the RFP before the holidays; issue it at the very start of January, and then give the bidders sufficient time to respond professionally. Good for them – but, ultimately, helping to draw out the best propositions from the market for us.

I rather suspect that’s an unusual approach for a procurement manager to take – but, then again, this was a somewhat unusually forward-looking and strategic purchasing function, many of whose members have gone on to do other wonderful things in their careers since. Your more typical – junior, tactical, arrogant buyer – is far less likely to care, or even to think through the consequences (for them!) of their actions when issuing a Yuletide document.

So, if you’re in a part of the world where this has been a holiday season, did you end up working flat out right through the end of December, or heading straight back into the office on the morning of 1st January? And, do you think the potential clients concerned got the very best of your organisation in the offer and proposal that you submitted as a result?

5 Comments

When you choose the wrong supplier

4/14/2011

0 Comments

Posted by Jon
OK, so the following isn’t about bids per se, but as an illustration of the consequences of choosing the wrong supplier for a job, this (forwarded to me by a non-work friend the other day) really made me laugh…

Read the text before looking at the photograph:

You may be asking for trouble when you commission taxidermy work from someone who is unfamiliar with the species. That was just the case for King Frederick I of Sweden in 1731.

The lion was a gift, but after it died, the pelt and bones were presented to a taxidermist who had never seen a lion. You see the result looks more like a cartoon character than the king of beasts. The stuffed lion is still on display at Gripsholm’s Castle.

0 Comments

“The Buyer’s Guide to Bidding”

2/9/2010

1 Comment

Posted by Jon
What do evaluators really think of the proposals they receive from bidders? Prior to presenting to a recent UKAPMP chapter meeting alongside Steve Mullins (Chairman of Strategic Proposals), we conducted a survey to canvass the views of senior figures in the world of procurement. We posed three questions to them:

how important are proposals
how good are the proposals that you receive
what advice would you offer to proposal teams.

The results were quite fascinating: in essence, proposals are clearly a vital part of customers’ decision-making processes, yet few vendors submit truly excellent documents. (Since we were presenting to the UK chapter of APMP, those who participated in the study were in the UK and continental Europe, but I have no doubt that similar conclusions would be reached from a similar survey in other geographies).
Here are my ten favourite quotes:

“A good written proposal, in itself, might not win you business but a badly conceived and written one may put you out of the race.”
“It is never enough to say “I’m qualified.” So is everyone else. The point is “Pick me because I’m different.”"
“The easier the seller makes it for us the better for them.”
“Some are articulate, really have got under my skin, are really convincing – whereas others look mechanical, dull, pre-written and could have been meant for anyone.”
“They vary from excellent (rare) to awful (quite common), but most of them are mediocre.”
“Your ability to do what is required of you at proposal stage reflects upon your ability to perform once in contract!”
“Buyers are not idiots. They read good proposals thoroughly and they are not amused at fluff, being patronised, inconsistency, arrogance or shabby editing.”
“They are seeking a reasonable deal with low risk to themselves (oh yes, and their employer).”
“Clearly understand the problem to be solved. Then and only then can you provide the appropriate solution.”
“If the customer wants the responses written in quill, printed on papyrus with a bow around it, please conform. Comparing proposals that don’t follow the templates requested is often a long and difficult task… and does lower the tolerance levels of those marking.”

We’ve put together a white paper containing all of the responses that we received; click here if you’d like to download a free copy (and here if you’d like to see a copy of the presentation we gave to UKAPMP). Feel free to share the white paper with colleagues – this is precisely the sort of stuff that your VP Sales needs to read to understand the importance of strong proposal management. And, as ever, we’d be fascinated to hear your comments.

1 Comment

The buyer’s hopes and fears

7/9/2009

2 Comments

Posted by Jon
What’s it like being a purchaser? As regular readers will know, I started my career in procurement before moving into the world of proposal management – and I still spent a fair proportion of my time with buyers and evaluators. I thought a few insights into life on the other side might be of interest:

1) The enemy lies within. Somewhat bizarrely, the easiest discussions for a buyer are with their potential suppliers. It’s far tougher trying to align resources, budgets and views internally. Running the procurement process is often a precarious high-wire act.

2) Powerless purchasers. The evaluation team will formulate recommendations as to which supplier to choose – but they’ll rarely sign off the decision. Making the presentation internally to the “great and the good” can be a daunting prospect. And, as a buyer, I’ll probably choose whichever bidder I think I can sell internally most easily.

3) “I’m the buyer. Stupid.” Most procurement people are acutely conscious that they know far less about the subject matter of the bid than their potential suppliers. (If this is what their organisation did, they wouldn’t need to ask you to do it for them!)

4) “Your fate is in my hands.” I have the power of life or death over your bid. Win, and you’ll get the glory and our money. So you bidders had better be grateful, respectful, deferential and nice to me. (After all, my colleagues internally aren’t!).

5) I’ll have to live with the consequences of the decision as to which bidder we choose – and those we reject. Thinking short-term, I’ll select whichever company will make me hit my performance objectives, whatever they may be. And in the medium term, I’ll want the bidder who’ll minimise the risk of things going wrong and maximise the probability of me looking like a hero. (And, incidentally, debriefing unsuccessful suppliers can be a terrifying prospect – especially losing incumbents).

6) Making it up as I go along. Only a small minority of purchasers have ever been trained in writing RFPs and leading evaluation workshops. I’ll copy and paste, I’ll use the last document I wrote; it was probably good enough then, and it’ll probably get me through now.

Cynical and jaded? Moi? No wonder I prefer working in proposals!

2 Comments

Yes, they did really say that…

5/5/2009

4 Comments

Posted by Jon
[Those of a sensitive disposition, look away now!]

I ran an event recently for a group of purchasing managers, discussing the proposal process – and sharing thoughts on how they could engage bidders more effectively and write better RFPs. (The unofficial sub-title of the course is “What Jon wishes he’d known when he worked in procurement”!)

The conversation turned to proofreading, and one of the buyers shared her most embarrassing mistake in this regard. She’d just led the evaluation team on a major tender, and was presenting to the Board with their recommendations.

She clicked onto the slide titled: “Weighting and Ranking” – only to find that she’d accidentally swapped around two very important letters….

It reminded me of the all-time worst proofreading error I’ve seen in a proposal – which, fortunately, was noticed at the very last minute. The team was bidding to a major city’s “Mass Transit Authority”. Some content contributors had decided to merge the two words together – “Masstransit”. And a document manager, tight for time, had simply accepted the word processor’s recommended correction.

The result? All the way through the proposal, the bidder had referred to the customer as the “M*sturb*te Authority”.

4 Comments

A purchaser’s view

2/20/2009

0 Comments

Posted by Jon
It’s always fascinating to hear from those on the buying side. I started my career in purchasing before switching to proposals, and still spend as much time as possible with those who evaluate our documents, listening to their views. (Actually, it strikes me that there’s an important question to ask proposal consultants hoping to work with your organisations: “When did you last have a paid engagement with purchasing folks, or publish research based on their views?”)

That’s why I was delighted when Kevin Treeby, Director of Procurement for the House of Commons, agreed to give the keynote presentation at the recent conference, “Taking proposals to the next level.”

I sat at the back of the room, noting down as many of his comments as I could. Here are a few of my favourites:

“We have a fear and distrust of people who sell us things.”

“I hate people who shuffle the answers” and whose proposals don’t reflect the structure of the RFP.

“Don’t tell me it can’t go wrong. Tell me what you’ll do if it does.”

“Don’t hold anything back” from your proposal to your presentation. “There’s no such thing as a nice surprise in a bid presentation.”

“It all comes down to confidence” in the bidders and their teams.

“Many buyers are frightened – I daren’t risk a legal challenge.”

And finally, one I particularly loved. “This is a great game, people – enjoy it!”

0 Comments

<<Previous

Articles by Topic

Authors

BJ Lownie and Jon Williams are the co-founders of Strategic Proposals.

SP News

Strategic Proposals News

RSS Feed