1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 The Service Commissioning and Procurement Survey was designed to find out more about the views, attitudes and experiences of procurement and commissioning staff working in Local Authorities, particularly in relation to the enterprising third sector. The survey was available between mid-March and mid-April 2009 and attracted 80 responses. Respondents were self-selecting and multiple responses were possible from individual local authorities, so findings should be considered indicative rather than necessarily representative of procurement and commissioning staff as a whole. The findings of the survey will be used to develop training for procurement staff across local authorities.
1.2 This report shows a general awareness and some understanding of the third sector amongst respondents. More than half of respondents described their authorities' relationship with the third sector on procurement as 'good' or 'very good'. Only around one in seven felt the relationship was 'poor' or 'very poor'. More than half of respondents also indicated that their authority engaged with the sector in the development of services and eight out of ten had let contracts to the third sector. Similarly, half of respondents said that they considered the additional value that the sector offers in its tender proposals as part of day-to-day team practice.
1.3 Although there were positive findings about how authorities maximised opportunities for the third sector to compete for public contracts, six in ten respondents still felt that commissioning and procurement could be improved to allow the sector to compete more equally. A range of thoughtful comments were made on how this might be achieved, including better training for the sector and for procurement staff, better communication from local authority procurement, and improving procurement practice to ensure that service quality was taken into account in the tendering process.
1.4 Many respondents seemed unsure how particular authority policies/strategies informed procurement decisions, with others unsure whether particular strategies were actually in place. There was also some uncertainty as to whether contracts were directed to deliver key priorities in the single outcome agreement ( SOA) and whether external contract timescales fitted with SOA timescales. One third of respondents were not clear how individual contracts fitted with strategic outcomes.
1.5 A relatively high number of respondents said that their authority did not often actively liaise with other bodies to ensure continuity of quality and cost, and a minority seemed unsure that their authorities were providing a value for money service, or delivering quality contracts.
1.6 There was a low awareness of community benefit clauses. Nearly half were not very aware or not at all aware of these: this would appear to be a key area for awareness-raising. The fact that there would also appear to be a very low number of designated community benefits champion in any area of procurement might be a contributory factor in this.
1.7 The need for additional training emerged as a recurring theme in the survey responses, particularly in the 'free-text' sections of the questionnaire. Training both for third sector organisations and for procurement staff was identified as a need, so there is clearly a gap which action stemming from these findings can fill.