7. WORKING TOGETHER DURING THE CONTRACT
7.1 Contract monitoring
The research indicates that (prior to the Order) few authorities have been monitoring the workforce arrangements of contractors – however, this may become more common once the legislative changes have taken full effect.
“Workforce matters have never been monitored in the past but they will be in the future” (authority) Conversely, some suppliers are concerned about authorities starting to monitor their workforce practices – suppliers see it as an unnecessary burden.
“Contractors need to know what monitoring would take place so they can cost for this in their bid; however, experience so far is that Councils do little or nothing in terms of monitoring workforce matters” (supplier)
The discussion groups revealed that supplier participants have concerns about how authorities will interpret workforce – for example, levels of retention and recruitment can be influenced by a variety of extraneous factors. Several supplier participants state that they expect authorities to monitor outputs and outcomes, like service quality, rather than inputs or methods. They see any direct monitoring of staffing arrangements to be a waste of client time and an imposition on suppliers’ contract managers.
“It’s possible to check on appraisal, transfer, promotion, consultation; but authorities shouldn’t try to check on work practices” (authority) "If an authority thinks that tracking any workforce matters contributes to quality, then why not leave it entirely up to the contractor and just monitor outcomes?” (supplier)
"The client really needs to focus on outcomes; ……;any good contractor is happy to demonstrate this to the client – with a fixed price contract it is absolutely in the contractor’s interest to ensure skilled and motivated staff who will deliver as required” (supplier)
Similarly, the survey results suggest that suppliers are slightly wary of having their workforce practices closely monitored. Respondents were asked which method of monitoring they would prefer in relation to workforce management arrangements. Perhaps unsurprisingly, suppliers tend to prefer approaches like submitting regular returns and reports to spot inspections - see Figure 21 for more detail. Similarly, few authorities support the idea of spot inspections – perhaps, because of the burden of carrying them out and/or the detrimental effect such an approach may have on relationships with contractors.
Figure 21: Table showing preferred methods of monitoring workforce matters
Method The authority view - proportion expressing preference The supplier view - proportion expressing preference Agreeing targets for changes 26/36 (72%) 23/53(43%) Regular returns and reports 25/36 (69%) 33/53 (62%) Periodic audits 25 /36 (69%) 29/53 (55%) Spot inspections 18/36 (50%) 12/53 (23%) The research revealed a strong feeling that the authority-supplier relationship is the key to the successful contract and support for developing an informal approach to contracting, based on trust. Many suppliers suggest that a partnership approach is the best answer, with supplier and authority working together to achieve workforcerelated targets. It was pointed out that many partnerships have now adopted an "open book" approach to sharing essential information.
“It’s high time that clients and contractors got together to agree KPIs and worked on the basis of two-way monitoring” (supplier)
The discussions revealed prevailing tensions between some local authorities and suppliers, and a lack of understanding for, and confidence, in the way each other operate – this is particularly true in relation to workforce issues and arrangements. Some authorities revealed a degree of antipathy towards private sector provision of public services. And, some suppliers are critical of the way authorities approach tender evaluation. Where such poor relations exist it is often the case that suppliers are negative about authorities looking into, and monitoring, suppliers’ own workforce arrangements – they believe that to do so is irrelevant and intrusive.
“Is a client competent to evaluate given the increased sophistication that the Order may introduce? Shouldn’t there be an independent evaluator and shouldn’t evaluation results be more open? Currently there is great suspicion among many contractors over the fairness and professionalism of local authority processes.” (supplier)
It was generally agreed that relations between authorities and suppliers must become more open and collaborative, if the Order is to successfully promote best value, rather than simply complicating what is often seen as a difficult and expensive process – for more detail see Chapter 6.
7.2 Working together to Improve Performance
The research considered how a more open exchange of workforce information between authorities and suppliers might promote partnership working and collaboration on staffing issues – specifically, equal opportunities and training.
One idea emerging from the group discussions was that authorities and suppliers should undertake a joint commitment to upgrading the skills of a workforce. It was agreed by a number of authorities that the skills likely to be in greatest need of development are:
Technical competence, especially where new methods and equipment are introduced.
Good practice in customer service.
Management and supervisory methods.
“We must focus on skills needed to deliver the service – not generalised stuff; so we need to specify required skills and then monitor the training plans”
It appears, however, that such collaboration may be difficult because some suppliers are quite sceptical about the ability of authorities to effectively develop their own workforce. For example, a number of suppliers are of the opinion that the private sector is more successful at assimilating and promoting employees from ethnic minorities. Some suppliers highlighted the problem of having to take over an incompetent and de-motivated workforce from an authority.
“Authorities often think they’re ahead of the private sector on equal opportunities – but this is not supported by evidence” (authority) Despite this, some agreed that joint training may well be the best way forward, but there seems little experience of this happening in the past – the legislative changes may promote such arrangements.
“Longer term contracts would encourage training spend – and a long contract generally encourages a partnership approach” CONCLUDING COMMENTS
To varying degrees, consideration of workforce matters information has been a part of authorities’ procurement activity in the past. However, there is clear recognition from those participating in this research that, as a result of the Order, such considerations will increasingly (and more formally) become part of the procurement process.
The research findings point to the importance of workforce matters for authorities and suppliers and an acknowledgement from both of the link between good employment practice and reliability as a supplier. There is an appreciation from authorities that being able to make more informed choices about tenderers can lead to improvements in the quality of services provided. In addition, authorities and suppliers expect the Order to influence the style of contracting towards longer contracts and partnership agreements - probably as a result of the improved scope for more open relationships between authorities and suppliers. Many suppliers welcome the opportunity to demonstrate their ‘good’ management practices and hope it will allow them to compete more effectively. The Order should also improve the exchange of information during employee transfers, which can, reportedly, be incomplete and/or inaccurate.
A clear message from this research is that workforce information should be collated, analysed and monitored in a way that minimises the burden for client and contractor. Authorities and suppliers are concerned about the growing complexity of the procurement process and the associated increases in procurement/tendering costs. In particular some regard the need to acquire further procurement/tendering skills (at a cost) as an inevitable consequence of the legislation. Both authorities and suppliers recognise that small/new businesses might be especially vulnerable to demands placed on them as a result of the Order. Respondents (particularly suppliers) were less positive regarding the idea of monitoring workforce arrangements. These reservations arise from suppliers’ concerns that authorities may not have the capacity to effectively monitor workforce practices and also the view that authorities should measure outcomes and not inputs.
It would seem that both authorities and suppliers anticipate that the Order will yield a number of advantages. However, the key to fully realising all these potential benefits may lie in addressing practical issues, such as the time and complexity of procurement, as well as the various concerns of both authorities and suppliers, for example around the collection and use of information during contracts.
Published 6 August 2002
Return to Local and Regional Government Research Unit Index
Return to Local Government and the Regions Index
Return to Local Government Finance Index
Return to Home Page
Web site terms