2 Improving local government procurement |
Role of procurement in serving
7. Whilst councils spend most of their budgets in-house,
procurement from other parties makes up a significant proportion
of local government spending on the goods and services needed
to serve local communities. Of total expenditure of £162
billion, it is estimated
that councils in England spend some £45 billion annually
on procuring goods and services from third parties.
Witnesses told us that further procurement via third parties,
for example through outsourcing contracts for service delivery,
could deliver significant savings. The National Outsourcing Association
(NOA) told us that "an entirely new approach" to public
sector outsourcing, including the use of direct sourcing, shared
services or mutual organisations, could deliversavings of 15-30%
(or a conservative estimate of 10%, worth some £8.2 billion
a year if achieved consistently across the local government sector).NOA
cited various examples where outsourcing had cut costs, including
Birmingham City Council's savings of £500 million through
its joint IT venture with Capita.
Other witnesses disagreed. Unison, for example, highlighted a
"catalogue of failures of large strategic service partnerships"
from recent months and years,
and recommended that councils should by default investigate the
value for money case for 'in-sourcing' of contracts when they
came up for renewal.The
Audit Commission had a mixed view of outsourcing and warned that,
whilst third-party arrangements could bring significant financial
and other benefits to councils, complex arrangements carried risks
that need to be managed corporately.
Procurement improvement initiatives
8. The LGA told us that local government understood
the important role that procurement played in delivering value
for money and councils sought to procure "the right services
and goods at the right price". The LGA stated that local
authorities faced a "42% real terms reduction in funding
across this Parliament and a widening financial black hole
of £2.1 billion a year," hence councils had prioritised
efficiencies from smarter procurement both individually and collectively.The
local government sector had itself been leading reformthrough
approaches such as the National Procurement Strategy and the 'Local
Government Procurement Pledge'.We
received evidence of a range of successful approaches to improve
the value for money achieved through procurement by councils including
Halton Borough Council, Birmingham City Council, Hampshire County
Council and Sheffield City Council.
9. However, some witnesses considered that councils
had so far failed to improve. The Specialist Engineering Contractors'
Group (SEC Group) told us that construction procurement was "generally
inefficient and wasteful for both council taxpayer and the supply
side"since approaches had not fundamentally changed in decades.
The local authority procurement body, Scape, claimed that local
authorities were as a consequence wasting more than £1 billion
a year on their construction activities.
Other witnesses considered that some progress had been made, albeit
inconsistently across the country. The Audit Commission told us
that councils were now changing their business models as they
restructured to make large-scale savings.
The Society of Procurement Officers in Local Government considered
there to be "pockets of excellence" in local government
and the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply (CIPS) told
us that there had been some excellent initiatives. Nonetheless,
CIPS concluded that overall local authority procurement was failing
to provide value for money.
10. These concerns point to considerable underperformance
by many councils. A key question we asked during this inquiry
was what further savings could be unlocked if all councils achieved
maximum value for money in their procurement. However, data on
procurement savings is not collated by the LGA nationally for
Examples from witnesses of current savings gave us an indication
of potential future savings through particular improvements. The
LGA cited savings of over £100 million which the West Midlands
Regional Improvement and Efficiency Partnership had achieved for
its 33 local authorities through its collaborative approaches.
The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) told us that the three
London Boroughs of Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster, and Hammersmith
and Fulham were each estimated to be saving more than £2
million annually from a joint facilities management contract.
The CBI also drew attention to LGA estimates that some £280
million had been saved through joint commissioning by councils
across the country via some 325 shared-service agreements.
However, although these examples give a sense of the likely level
of savings, specific factors apply to each contract, so figures
cannot simply be scaled up to give an accurate estimate of what
could be achieved more widely across the local government sector.
11. We recognise that local government is aware
of the need to improve procurement practice across the sector
and that some councils are adopting effective procurement approaches
which deliver savings to local communities. We are, however, concerned
that more needs to be done and that not all are procuring so as
to achieve maximum value for money. Councils must ensure that
they have appropriate mechanisms in place to enable them to measure
the costs and savings of their procurement exercises so that they
can evaluate the extent to which they are using optimum approaches.
We conclude that the Local Government Association should provide
a forum for sharing data on successful approaches and the information
should also be used to inform its programme of support for councils.
12. There are various models for council procurement
ranging from individual councils conducting their procurement
completely independently, through collaboration amongst councils
to conduct joint procurement, to integration of council purchasing
via a centralised body. In this section we examine a range of
approaches starting with centralisation.
13. The extent of centralisation of procurement has
been at the core of central government's consideration of procurement
since the 1980s. The Government set up a Buying Agency in 1991
as the main agency for non-specialist commodities and services
to let framework agreements. This Agency, via several changes
of remit and name, was transformed into the Government Procurement
Service (GPS) in 2011. In July last year the Government announced
that a new Crown Commercial Service (CCS) was to be created tobring
the Government's central commercial capability into a single organisation.
For central government, the CCS will also centralise the management
of common suppliers and take a lead role in the letting and management
of significant contracts.
14. If this approach were applied to local government,
it would mean giving the responsibility for procurement to an
external body working on behalf of councils to deliver their procurement
objectives. Councils would monitor the performance of the body
against specified outcomes but not control its day to day activities.
The key attraction for central government of using a centralised
model is to drive down the costs of procurement. The Cabinet Office
told us that its work to streamline procurement, including through
development of the CCS, would "fundamentally change the way
we procure to improve efficiency, savings and service delivery".
It told us that its approaches to date had delivered savings of
up to 10%: in2012-13the GPS managed £11.44 billion of public
spending, delivering £1.1 billion in savings. This included
savings of some £100 million for local authorities from a
spend managed by the GPS of some £1.25 billion.
15. The Cabinet Office noted that councils were increasingly
taking up GPS services as "more compelling examples of success"
became more widely known. It said that there was a "significant
opportunity" for increased use by local government of centralised
procurement services without compromising the "localism agenda
and the critical need to support economic growth of businesses,
in particular SMEs, in local areas". The Cabinet Office cited
the centralised deals for commodities, such as energy, which had
been established through central government buying power and which
entailed contracts and key suppliers being actively managed, noting
that this directly freed up council budgets and capacity to focus
on specialist and key strategic procurement projects that supported
local front-line service delivery. It further highlighted GPS
work with a number of local government buying organisations to
drive additional savings on common goods and services through
increased aggregation and that this had resulted in a number of
collaborative procurements. The Office cited the example of a
joint framework for multi-functional devices with Eastern Shires
Purchasing Organisation (ESPO) and YPO which was delivering average
savings of 46% on hardware and 49% on service costs through standardising
16. Wales is taking the GPS model further and is
establishing a Welsh National Procurement Service to manage contracts
across more than 70 organisations across the public sectorincluding
all local authorities, health boards, universities, colleges,
fire and rescue and police authorities in the Principality. The
Welsh Assembly Government stated that it expected to see reduced
expenditure, elimination of duplication and increased efficiency
from co-ordination of the 20-30% of the total £4.3 billion
Welsh budget spent on "common and repetitive goods and services".
We received evidence that a centralised model for council procurement
could generate significant savings for local authorities. Our
adviser, Colin Cram, calculated that additional cost savings of
13% could be achieved from this type of fuller integration of
council procurement when compared to current savings from collaborative
17. The International Association of Contract and
Commercial Management (IACCM) told us that there should be "selective
centralisation of activities and support" to enable establishment
of a "critical mass, the dissemination of best practice and
coordinated learning and knowledge transfer".
Centralised bodies would employ a specialised staff with commercial
skills which some individual councils might struggle to match,
although access to commercial support could also be achieved via
other means including the use of collaborative bodies and/or programmes
of support led by the sector. (We address skills provision further
in chapter 0 below.)
18. Many witnesses were opposedto integration of
council procurement into a centralised body or bodies. Their concerns
focussed on five grounds. First, centralisation would erode the
opportunity for locally flexible approaches. For example, the
Association of Play Industries told us that, as play spaces and
playgrounds were "not commodities like paperclips",
tenders for such services needed to be bespoke according to "locality,
the communities they serve and the outcomes delivered to children".
The LGA was concerned that a body not under direct local democratic
control might limit local choice and flexibility and might have
negative impacts on local economies. The LGA said that each of
the more than 370 councils needed to be responsive to their voters
and their residents, and be held to account for the price they
paid as well as the quality they delivered.
19. Second, we heard that not all goods and services
were good candidates for centralised purchasing. Paul Smith from
YPO warned that,whilst products such as energy could be obtained
under "very good deals" when bought at a certain level
of volume, some categories were "best bought locally".However,
Mark Robinson from Scape noted that central purchasing need not
preclude support for local firms and that Scape's delivery partners
committed to spend locally: "we have national arrangements.
We set them up nationally but we deliver locally".
20. Third, it was argued that local authorities'
procurement arrangements needed to be tailored to locally specific
factors, such as requirements for contracts to deliver social,
economic or environmental value to the local area. We consider
these requirements in detail in chapter 3 but note here that if
a council wishes to deliver best overall value, then it is necessary
to consider not only how contracts can be secured at the lowest
price, but also how they can be linked to the delivery of a council's
strategic objectives. Making such linkages effectively requires
each council to be able to retain sufficient control over the
outcomes for each procurement exercise. A centralised approach
could militate against this.
21. Fourth, aggregation of spend can have negative
consequences. The LGA noted that:
aggregation is not necessarily the best solution
as it does not always guarantee lower costs and can have a detrimental
impact on local jobs. In situations where a few large suppliers
dominate the marketplace and where global reserves and market
speculators dictate the prices, then even if there was one buyer
for all of government it still might not guarantee lower costs.
22. Fifth, implementation might not be straightforward.
There have been difficulties in integrating procurement, as demonstrated
by central government's experiences. The National Audit Office
(NAO) Improving Government Procurement report concluded
that the Government was not maximising the potential for savings
through centralised procurement since, although it had succeeded
in increasing spending through central contracts from £2.6
billion in 2009-10 to £3 billion in 2011-12, this still represented
less than half of its spending on common goods and services.
Compulsion to centralise
23. We received evidence for and against compelling
councils to centralise their procurement. In favour were witnesses
such as Alasdair Reisner, representing the Civil Engineering Contractors
Association (CECA), who told us that the absence of compulsion
meant that change happened only slowly in the local government
sector and meant that many useful initiatives were blocked, including
publication of a 'pipeline' of planned future local authority
construction projects which would enable construction companies
to plan better.Mark
Robinson from Scape recommended that an umbrella organisation
be set up across the UK with delegated authority to deal with
local authority procurement, organised for example either centrally
or in regional hubs. Since he considered that consistency in council
approaches could not be achieved in a "nice collaborative
way" he said that it would be necessary to "make"
local authorities procure in a different way.
24. On the other side, Ian Taylor, representing the
North East Procurement Organisation (NEPO), told us that "imposing
a way of doing things on local government would be inherently
The Audit Commission also considered that, whilst centralised
procurement carried "powerful weight," compelling all
councils to use a centralised body might be seen as a "crude
NAO noted that, although the Cabinet Office requirement for all
government departments to buy through particular routes had led
to savings, there was a "complicated set of factors to take
into account" for the local government sector, "not
least local accountability".
We also heard commercial arguments against compulsion. Simon Hill
from YPO told us that he did not support mandation of centralisation
since this generated complacency. He argued that a purchasing
body should operate commercially, convincing each buyer that it
offered the best deal, and that compelling everybody to use one
central body could lead to the creation of "some bureaucratic
monolith" that did not offer efficiency to the public sector.
Sheffield City Council's Director of Commercial Services endorsed
this view noting that the council considered all options for each
procurement, using a blend of central buying via the GPS, regional
buying via bodies such as YPO and NEPO, and local buying where,
as well as best value, the council made decisions on the basis
of supporting local SMEs and delivering social value.
Ed Walsh from ESPO, whilst critical of the disparate choices made
by councils and recognising the benefits from the rationalisation
of choice, conceded that local commissioning strategies needed
to recognise different local priorities and that "you will
not have any friends in local government if it is mandated centrally
that they have to do x or y and it offends their commissioning
25. We conclude that local authorities' focus
on meeting the needs of local communities requires councils to
retain control over their procurement operations. Local freedom
and flexibility would be lost if they were compelled to adopt
a centralised model of procurement such as that adopted by central
government in its Crown Commercial Service.
26. We recognise that there are potential savings
to be gained by increased aggregation and even national arrangementsfor
example, for purchasing energybut it has to be for local
authorities to decide what provides the best value for money when
weighted against their local needs and to enter such arrangements
voluntarily. To assist local authorities, we consider that the
Local Government Association should review current procurement
spend on key categories to identify potential routes to increase
the use of aggregated spend for these products and services.
27. Greater voluntary aggregation, if necessary up
to a national level, would build on collaborative approaches currently
spreading through local government. There have been alarge number
of joint council procurement initiatives and regional collaborations
established in recent years. The LGA told us that the number of
shared procurement services had doubled during 2011-2012 with
75 councils now in 16 formal joint purchasing arrangements.
Witnesses told us of the potential for increased collaboration
across local authorities to deliver benefits, including reduced
costs of procurement exercises and lower prices for goods and
services, as well as improved access to specialist commercial
skills. For example, the Audit Commission considered that collaborative
procurement could save significant sums of money for councils
since aggregating demand would generate discounts, although the
amounts varied according to the markets involvedwhether
national, local or regionaland the range of suppliers that
was active in each.
The LGA cited the example of 313 councils purchasing energy in
eight consortia in order to buy at the "simplest and cheapest
The LGA was also funding work on councils' three biggest spend
categoriesenergy, construction and ICTto investigate
how the sector could collaborate more effectively so as to "understand
the markets; work better with the suppliers; quantify future planned
spend; map and promote existing frameworks; and identify opportunities
to make savings".
The LGA further noted that significant cost reductions could be
achieved by increasing the capability of procurement teams through
sharing of resources.
28. Procurement organisations told us of the benefits
to councils from using collaborative approaches. NEPO cited a
reduction in one council's procurement spend in 2013-14 of over
26% through a combination of factors including "reduced settlement
grants, putting local business first, partnership/outsourced contracts
and other changes to the landscape".Scape
stated that its joined up approach to procurement had delivered
savings of £200 million, with average savings of 14%, when
compared to 'traditional' tendering approaches under which councils
On average procurement bodies estimate collaboration amongst councils
to be generating savings of 10-15%. Applying this to the approximately
15-20% of total third-party procurement budgets currently spent
this way, we calculate that nationally savings of 2% may already
be being generated.Making
better use of current collaborative approaches could lead to further
savings, in some witnesses' estimation. Our adviser, Colin Cram,
calculated that using collaborative agreements as a default would
lead to total savings of £2.5 billion, i.e. additional savings
of £1.8 billion per annum.
Barriers to collaboration
29. Witnesses were, however, concerned that maximum
use was not being made of collaboration to deliver value for money.
CIPS noted that only 15% of procurement spend by local authorities
was currently channelled through procurement hubs despite this
route securing long-term service and cost benefits for local taxpayers
and their local economies.A
joint report by the Audit Commission and the NAO, A Review
of Collaborative Procurement Across the Public Sector, noted
that, with nearly 50 professional buying organisations as well
as individual public bodiesrunning commercial and procurement
functions, the public sector procurement landscape was fragmented.
30. The Audit Commission said that, although care
needed to be taken over some locally specific services such as
contracted-out provision for looked-after children, councils needed
to be very clear as to the reasons why they did not collaboratesince
they needed to be sure they were obtaining better value for goods
such as stationery, vehicles and travel.
DCLG stated that local authorities must take advantage
of collaborative deals on specific categories of spend, particularly
in high cost service areas. The Department expressed frustration
at the stance taken by some councils and referred to the household
waste Weekly Collection Support Scheme which had offered councils
£250 million to allow them to take advantage of joint procurement
deals. It had identified that many councils were buying similar
goodswheeled bins and refuse collection vehiclesat
a similar time and considered that economies of scale would mean
that products could be obtained more cheaply for those collaborating.
It had organised workshops, with the LGA and other partners, to
promote this but was disappointed that authorities had not taken
"sufficient advantage of the procurement opportunity created
from the Scheme". DCLG said that "excuses included:
working to unique timescales; local sovereignty; and existing
contracts, and these were complemented by a lack of understanding
of processes and in some cases disinterest a tunnel vision
focused solely on the processes of their local authority".
It further noted that where local authorities had joined up, the
advantages had been "obvious" citing for example the
London Waste and Recycling Board joint procurement of food waste
caddies and caddy liners which had saved 25%, with one authority
achieving savings of 68% over the costs of procuring alone.
31. Even where collaboration was seen to be the optimum
approach in principle, witnesses identified a range of factors
hindering its effective implementation. The Audit Commission warned
that "market complexity, along with the variety in size and
type of council", had hindered collaboration in many cases
but noted that these were not insuperable obstacles.
Witnesses referred to the need to identify the appropriate scale
at which to collaborate.
Ian Taylor of NEPO considered that, of the North East region councils'
annual £2.6 billion spend on goods and services, only some
10-15% could be bought nationally, some 25% would be best bought
from regional suppliers, and about 50% was supplied through local
SMEs, and this last category would be very difficult for a national
organisation to manage.Furthermore,
during our visit to Sheffield we were told that collaboration
could have negative effects on more effective councils which were
working with less effective authorities since such unequal partnerships
could bring more benefits to one party than the other where not
all parties were performing at optimum levels.
32. Some witnesses considered that councils should
be compelled to collaborate with other councils since joint approaches
achieved savings. Although of the view that collaboration among
councils in the North East of England was good, NEPO said that
the lack of a requirement on councils to collaborate was a barrier
since each collaboration was dependent on the commitment of many
local authorities. It told us that its attempt to implement a
model under which a lead local authority would conduct procurement
for all members, on behalf of NEPO, had met with limited success
as local authorities lacked the capacity to manage 11 partners.
Nonetheless, many other witnesses argued against compulsion due
to the constraints this would place on local councils' ability
to deliver local priorities in a locally accountable manner and
the arguments they advanced were broadly similar to those we outlined
above against compulsion to centralise.
33. It is clear that many local authorities are
already conducting procurement in collaborationeffectively with
other councils, either through initiatives established between
individual authorities or groups of authorities, or via procurement
organisations on a regional basis. Enhancing such approaches is
a sensible way forward. We can understand the Government's frustration
that authorities' responses to its funded collaborative initiatives
have not been as expected. But the answer is not compulsion. As
we have already stated, councils are answerable to local people
and have to retain control over the delivery of local services.Nevertheless,
we consider that there is scope for much greater work to join
up approaches and deliver economies of scale without compromising
local authorities' ability to deliver locally appropriate services,
accountable to their communities. We conclude that the Local Government
Association should conduct a review of collaborative approaches
and produce best practice guidance for authorities on the most
effective means of joining up procurement to deliver savings which
reflect local priorities.
COLLABORATION WITHIN LOCALITIES
34. We received evidence on the benefits of public
sector bodies within localities collaborating on the procurement
of common goods and services. The LGA noted that the next challenge
beyond inter-council collaboration was collaboration across community
organisations such as the health and police services, using community
budgets for example.
Ian Taylor told us that NEPO had helped a growing number of charities
in the north east of England to reduce procurement costs using
its contracts, and perceived growing signs of collaboration between
health and education bodies.
Scape considered that community budgets were a good way of forcing
people to work collaboratively if used in the right way.
Birmingham City Council told us that it had joined forces with
the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce and other local public sector
organisations to set up a cross-sector community interest company,
Buy for Good, which helped social landlords, local authorities,
schools, socialenterprises and emergency services to benefit from
the reduced prices that the council could secure as the UK's largest
35. There is scope for greater joining-up of approaches
to deliver economies of scale by linking the procurement approaches
of public sector bodies within local communities. The Local Government
Association should conduct a review of collaborative public sector
approaches at a local level and produce best practice guidance
for authorities on the most effective means of joining-up procurement
budgets across a range of local public sector bodies to help deliver
joint local priorities.
36. Framework agreements offer the potential to deliver
savings without requiring councils to develop or join new procurement
bodies. The existing EU rules define these as:
an agreement or other arrangement between one
or more contracting authorities and one or more economic operators
which establishes the terms (in particular the terms as to price
and, where appropriate, quantity) under which the economic operator
will enter into one or more contracts with a contracting authority
in the period during which the framework agreement applies.
One significant advantage of a framework agreement
is that the purchasing authority does not have to undertake the
full Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) process every
time services or goods are required. Having to go through the
tender procedure once rather than several times reduces tendering
cost and shortens the time required to conduct a procurement exercise.
KeepMoat referred to the North West Construction Hub as a "prime
example" of a framework that had delivered value for money
in a number of ways, for example by enabling the appointment of
"competent, committed" contractors in a shorter timescale.
37. However, not all witnesses wholeheartedly supported
the use of such framework contracts. The Federation of Small Businesses
(FSB) noted that the use of long-term framework agreements often
led to the use of very limited numbers of suppliers and significantly
reduced competition pressure for the duration of the contract.
Market Dojo, a small e-sourcing software company, also noted that
frameworks could present problems for SMEs and micro-businesses,
citing a tender from ESPO which excluded tenderers who could not
offer one or more elements of a wide variety of services.
NEPO noted that frameworks could speed up processes but had drawbacks
in that they might not meet specific local needs or include local
suppliers and could lock new or improving suppliers out for the
period of the framework.
38. Some councils have taken steps to make framework
contracts more manageable so as to retain economies of scale without
such larger-scale contracts disadvantaging smaller firms. Staffordshire
County Council, and
Halton Borough Council divide contracts into smaller units allocated,
for example, by districta process known as 'lotting'.
Hampshire County Council has adopted a "blended" approach
to balance delivery of larger and more specialist contracts by
larger companies with the use of SMEs for smaller contracts.We
also note that the new EU Directive on public procurement would
render discriminatory processes that hamper small businesses illegal.
39. We recognise that framework contracts can
deliver cost savings in certain circumstances but have concerns
about the impact on smaller firms. When using framework contracts,
councils should consider the potential for sub-dividing at least
part of the contract to enable smaller organisations to bid for
smaller parcels of work. The Local Government Association should
produce guidance on how the measures in the new EU Directive on
public procurement could be used to encourage smaller companies
to engage in procurement opportunities with local authorities.
5 Department for Communities and Local Government,
Local Government Financial Statistics England, no. 23 2013,
May 2013. This figure is for 2011-12. £45 billion is
an estimate of likely annual spend via third parties from evidence
to this inquiry. See footnote below Back
Colin Cram (LGP 81) £45 billion includes £10 billion
on social care. In addition to the £45 billion, a further
£15 billion is spent by educational establishments. The UK
public sector as a whole spends £227 billion annually on
procuring goods and services, of which £45 billion is spent
by Whitehall, and £45 billion is spent by local government.
See Public Administration Select Committee, Sixth Report of Session
2013-14, Government Procurement, HC123,p5 Back
Outsourcing has various definitions but in this inquiry we broadly
interpreted it to mean the procurement of a service or goods from
a third party rather than delivering or producing that good or
service in-house. Back
National Outsourcing Association (LGP 21) Summary Back
National Outsourcing Association (LGP 21) paras 8-10 Back
Q73 [Peter Challis] Back
Unison (LGP 27) Appendix 1 Back
Audit Commission (LGP 11) summary and para 7 Back
Local Government Association (LGP 17) para 2 Back
Local Government Association (LGP 17) para 3 Back
See Halton Borough Council (LGP 26), Birmingham City Council (LGP
45), Hampshire County Council (LGP 03), Sheffield City Council
(LGP 66) Back
Specialist Engineering Contractors' Group (LGP 60) para 2 Back
Scape (LGP 36) Back
Audit Commission (LGP 11) para 2 Back
Society of Procurement Officers in Local Government (LGP 47) para
Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply (LGP 39) Back
As above Back
Confederation of British Industry (LGP 59) paras 12,13 Back
Confederation of British Industry (LGP 59) para 12 Back
Cabinet Office (LGP 15) Back
As above Back
Cabinet Office (LGP 15) Back
"Welsh Government launches National Procurement Service",
Supply Management, 21 November 2013 Back
Colin Cram calculates that this would be equivalent to additional
savings of £4.75 billion. He argued for a fundamental re-structuring
of the organisation of procurement, suggesting that a feasible
model could be that of a local authorities' owned mutual, phased
in over perhaps five years Back
International Association for Contract and Commercial Management
(LGP 14) Back
Association of Play Industries (LGP 62) Back
Q55 [Brian Reynolds] Back
Q309 [Paul Smith] Back
Q122 [Mark Robinson] Back
Local Government Association (LGP 17) para 11 Back
Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Improving Government
Procurement, HC 996, February 2013, p7.The Cabinet Office's
most recent forecast is that this would grow to £5.3 billion
in 2012-13 Back
Q159 [Alasdair Reisner] Back
Q119 [Mark Robinson] Back
Q119 [Ian Taylor] Back
Q309 [Simon Hill] Back
Q309 [Barry Mellor] Back
Q122 [Ed Walsh] Back
Q2 [Brian Reynolds] Back
Audit Commission (LGP 11) para15 Back
Local Government Association (LGP 17) para 21 Back
Local Government Association (LGP 17) para10 Back
North East Procurement Organisation (LGP 34) para 8 Back
Scape ( LGP 36) Back
Colin Cram calculates that this is equivalent to £716 million
annually on the overall procurement spend of £35 billion
This is based on: CIPS estimates that 15% of procurement is collaborative,
i.e. £5 billion from a total non-social care procurement
spend of £35 billion Back
Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply (LGP 39) Back
National Audit Office and Audit Commission,A Review of Collaborative
Procurement Across the Public Sector, May 2010, p5 Back
Q395 [Mark Wardman] Back
Department for Communities and Local Government (LGP 63) Back
Audit Commission (LGP 11) para 17 Back
North East Procurement Organisation (LGP 34) para 12 Back
Q119 [Ian Taylor] Back
North East Procurement Organisation (LGP 34) para 20 Back
Q147 [Ian Taylor] Back
Q148 [Mark Robinson] Back
Birmingham City Council (LGP 45) Back
Office of Government Commerce, Guidance on framework agreements
in the Procurement Regulations, September 2008 Back
Steve Edgington (LGP 35) para 1.3 Back
Federation of Small Businesses (LGP 30) Back
Market Dojo (LGP 67) para 13 Back
North East Procurement Organisation (LGP 34) para 6 Back
Staffordshire County Council (LGP 57) Back
Hampshire County Council (LGP 03) para 1.6 Back
Directive 04/18/EC will be repealed following adoption of the
new Directive/2014/../EU of the European Parliament and of the
Council on public procurement Back