Scottish Government

Brief explanatory note

Most of the questions presented respondents with the following options: 'very dissatisfied', 'satisfied', 'neither/nor', 'satisfied', 'very satisfied', and 'don't know'. The tables presented in this report combine the 'very satisfied' and 'satisfied' responses under the 'positive' heading, and the 'very dissatisfied' and 'dissatisfied' responses under the 'negative' heading. Moreover, the tables summarising responses throughout the report do not include the number and percentage of 'don't know' responses, as these were only introduced in the survey to avoid 'neither/nor' becoming artificially inflated. 'Don't know' responses are only highlighted where there was a high number of such responses. Finally, the name 'Scottish Executive' was used in the survey (instead of the current name the 'Scottish Government', used throughout this report), as the name change had not taken place at the time of the data collection stage.

Overall evaluation of the new procurement procedures

Only 56% (n = 37) of those respondents who had engaged with the Scottish Government Social Research since March 2006 had been aware of the new procurement procedures. Those who were aware of the changes were asked about the extent to which contractors thought the procedures were appropriate for selecting the best people for the job; for promoting innovative research; for providing value for money; were consistent across the organisation, and were transparent and fair. Responses to these items are summarised in Table 1.

As can be seen from Table 1, responses to the first set of questions on the overall evaluation of the new procurement measures yielded mixed results. Responses to four from the six initial questions showed responses spread evenly across all response categories: selection of the best people for the job; promotion of innovative research; value for money and consistency. This would suggest that individual contractors have had very different experiences of the new research procurement procedures.

Responses to the question whether the new procurement procedures were transparent yielded more positive response, with 16 (53.3%) respondents rating themselves 'satisfied' or 'very satisfied', and only 6 (20%) rating themselves 'dissatisfied' or 'very dissatisfied'. Around a quarter of respondents returned a 'neutral' response, suggesting that there is still a degree of uncertainty regarding transparency.

The final question in this section concerned the extent to which the new procurement procedures were perceived as fair. Again, this yielded a largely positive response, with over half of the respondents rating themselves 'satisfied' or 'very satisfied', and only 4 (14.8%) rating themselves 'dissatisfied' or 'very dissatisfied'.

Further comments in relation to the overall evaluation of the new procurement procedures

Contractors who were aware of the new guidelines were asked to comment further on the changes. These comments were extremely useful in shedding light on some of the reasons behind the mixed responses received in the structured section.

In particular, contractors were critical of the way in which administrative information is collected and used. In the same vein, another respondent criticised the fact that experienced contractors are still asked to 'jump through hoops', often being asked to provide the Scottish Government with information and support on an informal and unpaid basis. Finally, another contractor commented that the new procurement procedures place too much emphasis on administrative information, and too little on technical and the intellectual capabilities of contractors for undertaking the work. Suggestions for improvement in this section included storing administrative information on a database instead of repeatedly collecting it with every new project.

Another theme evident in the comments gathered related to the information contractors received in research specifications. Contractors criticised the research specifications for being too rigid, and not making the best use of contractors' expertise, with one respondent commenting that the new procurement guidelines make it risky for small contractor firms to engage in innovative research. It was suggested that the Scottish Government should inform contractors of delays in decision-making throughout the procurement process, and another criticised the lack of flexibility in post-tender negotiations, and the inconsistencies between departments on this issue. Furthermore, one contractor expressed concern that the criteria for evaluation were not always clear and unbiased. Suggestions for improvement included providing budget guidelines, which would help contractors develop more appropriate proposals. Finally, one of the contractors echoed the earlier uncertainty by commenting that they were not clear about the exact nature of the changes to the procurement procedures.

The survey then asked respondents for their views on the different stages of the procurement process, beginning with the project being advertised on the Social Research web-pages through to the award of the contract.

Evaluation of the advertising stage

The next section was asked of all 65 contractors who had engaged with the Scottish Government Social Research since March 2006, and focused on the advertising of research contracts.

The first question in this series asked respondents about how they had found out about Scottish Government Social Research projects for tender. The question provided the respondents with a series of options, out of which they had to select all that applied. The responses are summarised in Table 2.

As can be seen from Table 2, email alerts from the Scottish Government departments constituted by far the most popular option (chosen by 78.5% of respondents), followed by the Scottish Government Social Research Website (41.5%); word of mouth from a work colleague (33.8%), and from a contact working at the Scottish Government (27.7%). The Official Journal of the European Union came as the fifth option (out of 12 options available), being selected by 20% of respondents.

The next series of questions asked respondents to evaluate the extent to which adverts for the work had been easy to find, clearly written, and had provided enough information to put forward an expression of interest. Responses are summarised in Table 3.

As can be seen from Table 3, responses to all three questions yielded a high level of satisfaction with adverts for work. Over 60% of respondents were positive about the adverts being easy to find, clearly written and sufficient in content to prepare an Expression of Interest. It should however be noted, that at least 25% of respondents recorded a 'neutral' response to each of these questions, indicating that there may be uncertainty surrounding these issues.

The Expression of Interest stage

The next series of questions asked respondents to evaluate the extent to which Expression of Interest (EoI) forms were easy to find; easy to complete; clear/make sense, and were comprehensive/cover everything. Responses to all four questions are summarised below in Table 4.

As with the previous section, responses revealed a generally high level of satisfaction with EoI forms, with only small numbers (less than 10%) expressing dissatisfaction. The only exception to this was in relation to the sub-question asking whether the form was comprehensive/covers everything, where 20.8% of respondents (n = 11) gave a negative response, and 41.5% were 'neutral'.

Further comments in relation to the Expression of Interest stage

Contractors were again invited to comment further on the EoI stage. Apart from one respondent who said that everything works well at the EoI stage, most of these comments focused on suggestions for improvement.

A number of the same issues were highlighted by several contractors. These suggestions were: to provide more space on the form; to provide more guidance on the length and the level of detail required; to specify budget and scale so contractors know whether worth applying for; and so they submit more appropriate proposals; to be more consistent across the different Scottish Government units; to provide more clarity on how the proposals are evaluated; to make the aims and description of research clear, making it easier for contractors to select relevant experience; and to provide feedback when unsuccessful.

Other suggestions included making the forms easier to find; to hold off from asking for expressions of interest applications until the project is confirmed to run; keep a database of contractors expertise to save contractors time; to specify whether the work is renewal of contract; and finally, to solve technical difficulties.

Evaluation of the research specifications

Contractors who had earlier indicated that they had not tendered for contracts since March 2006 were directed to later questions, as this section did not apply to them. Therefore, the sample for this particular section was 57.

The first question asked respondents to evaluate the extent to which the information in the invitation to tender since March 2006 had been easy to understand; comprehensive/covered everything; clearly set out the timescale; and clearly set out the criteria for how tenders would be assessed. Responses to all five questions are summarised in Table 5.

As can be seen from Table 5, ratings were very positive in relation to the extent to which the invitation to tender is easy to understand and clearly sets out the timescale. Responses in relation to these items showed that over three-quarters of the sample rated themselves satisfied or very satisfied, with only a small minority expressing dissatisfaction.

Responses generally positive about the extent to which the form is comprehensive, and whether the criteria for tender assessment are clearly set out. However, these aspects of the tender process attracted a slightly more uncertain response from contractors with 11.8% of respondents expressing dissatisfaction over the extent to which the form is comprehensive, and 16% over the extent to which the criteria for assessment are clearly set out. Nevertheless, even for these two items the positive responses far outweigh the negative ones, as for both items over 65% of respondents rated themselves as being satisfied or very satisfied.

The following question focused on the information in the research specifications, asking participants to evaluate the extent to which they were satisfied that the information in their research specifications was easy to understand; comprehensive/covered everything; clearly set out the timescale; and clearly set out the criteria for how tenders would be assessed.

As can be seen from Table 6, responses were again largely positive, with over 60% of the sample rating themselves satisfied on all aspects of the information received, and only a minority rating themselves dissatisfied.

Areas for improvement focused on the comprehensiveness of the information provided and the clarity of the tender assessment criteria. While 32 (61.5%) respondents rated the extent to which the information was comprehensive positively, 19.2% rated the item negatively and a further 19% were neutral. Similarly, although 35 (70%) respondents rated the clarity of the assessment criteria positively, 8 (16%) respondents rated it negatively and 7 were neutral.

Evaluation of the e-tendering system

The first question in this series asked respondents whether they had used the e-tendering system. Of the 59 people who answered the question, only 40 (67.8%) had used it. This question was used to direct those respondents who had not used the e-tendering system to the next section, as this section did not apply to them. Due to this, there were only 40 contractors who were asked to answer this section.

The first question on e-tendering asked respondents to evaluate how easily accessible and 'user friendly' the system is. Responses for both items are summarised in Table 7.

Both questions generated a generally positive response, as over 60% of respondents rated themselves satisfied or very satisfied, and no more than 5 contractors rated themselves dissatisfied. There was perhaps some ambiguity over the 'user-friendly' element of the system however, as almost 30% of respondents returned a neutral response to this aspect of the question.

The next question focused on comparing e-tendering with the old (paper) system in terms of evaluating the extent to which e-tendering makes tendering easier, saves organisations time, and represents an improvement on hard copy tendering. Responses to these items are summarised in Table 8.

Responses about the extent to which e-tendering makes tendering easier were broadly positive, with 16 (47.1%) respondents rating themselves satisfied or very satisfied, and only 4 (11.8%) expressing dissatisfaction. Notably, however, 14 (41.2%) chose the neither/nor option, perhaps indicating some mixed feelings about the system.

Responses about the extent to which e-tendering saves organisations time in tendering were more mixed. While most (40%) respondents gave a positive response, 9 (25.7%) respondents rated themselves dissatisfied or very dissatisfied and a further 12 (34.3%) chose the neither/nor option.

Finally, the majority of respondents felt that e-tendering represented an improvement on hard copy tendering, with 19 (55.9%) respondents rating themselves satisfied or very satisfied, and only 4 (11.8%) respondents rating themselves dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. Once again, the number of neither/nor responses is noticeable, with 11 (32.4%) respondents choosing this option.

Following the structured questions, respondents were provided with space to comment on the e-tendering system in their own words. Most of the criticisms made concerned technical aspects of the software system: several respondents commented that e-tendering had not worked when they had submitted applications, and two respondents said they had had password-related problems (e-tendering failing to recognise password). Other technology-related comments were that one contractor was unsure whether it was possible to amend the tender after submitting it; and another contractor said that they had had problems getting started and although the helpdesk had been helpful, an "idiot's guide" would be needed. Another comment stated that e-tendering does not save paper on preparation, but that it does save on courier fees and on producing multiple tender copies. In contrast, another contractor complained that e-tendering did not represent progress, but rather another layer of bureaucracy. Finally, one contractor stated that e-tendering system works better than others, and another had found the technical support staff helpful..

The next question asked whether respondents had sought any advice on using the e-tendering system. Of the 59 people who answered the question, only 19 (32.2%) had sought advice from the Scottish Government on using the e-tendering system. Those who had not sought advice were routed directly to the another set of questions, thus responses to this set of questions are from a sub-sample (n = 18),

Respondents were asked about the extent to which they thought the advice they had received had been clear/made sense, was comprehensive, was tailored to the specific project, was useful, and was timely. Responses to these items are summarised in Table 9.

As can be seen clearly from Table 9, responses to these items asking about the quality of the advice on e-tendering were extremely positive, with only 2 respondents rating themselves dissatisfied across all of these items. Once again however, it should be noted that the 'comprehensiveness' of the advice received attracted a more neutral response (41%).

The next question asked all 65 respondents who had been involved with the Scottish Government Social Research since March 2006 whether they had attended the training event in November 2006 on using the e-tendering system. Surprisingly, only one of the respondents to this survey had attended the event. This participant was very satisfied with the extent to which the event had been clear/made sense, comprehensive, and useful. It is important to note that 38 (58.5%) of the 65 respondents had not been aware of the event, indicating that any future events of this kind should be better publicised.

Evaluation of the interview stage of procurement

The first question asked all 58 respondents who had indicated they had tendered for the Scottish Government whether they had been invited for an interview to discuss the tender prior to contract award. This question was used to route respondents to later questions in cases where they had not experienced the interview process. Of the 58 respondents, only 11 (19%) had been invited for an interview prior to contract award.

Those respondents who had attended an interview were asked to evaluate the extent to which the interview process had been transparent, fair, and necessary. Responses for all three items were overwhelmingly positive, and are summarised in Table 10.

Finally, those who had taken part in the interview process since March 2006 were invited to comment on the interview stage of procurement. Only two comments were received. One contractor related their own positive experience, but reported that they were aware of another case where the contractors had been allowed little time to prepare responses in advance, despite bidding for a large contract. The other comment stated that there had been a conflict of interest at the interview stage, which should have eliminated the contractor who was eventually awarded the contract.

Evaluation of the decision-making process on tender applications

The first question in this series asked respondents to evaluate the extent to which the decision-making process on tender applications since March 2006 was clear/made sense; transparent (contractors are kept updated on their application); fair; and effective (selects the best people for the job).

As can be seen from Table 11, contractors were relatively negative about this aspect of the procurement process. The strongest criticism was levelled at the extent to which decision-making was transparent and contractors were kept up to date during the assessment process, with 30% of respondents returning a negative rating and a further 26% unsure (neutral response). Other aspects of the decision-making process received more mixed responses. Overall, the responses suggest room for improvement in communicating with contractors during the tender evaluation process.

Finally, respondents were again invited to comment on the decision-making process. There were a number of criticisms, reflecting contractors' perceived lack of clarity in the decision-making process.. One respondent suggested that there is a need to establish central criteria for assessment; otherwise, if no flaws are identified it is difficult to understand why proposals are unsuccessful. Another contractor reflected on their own experience, commenting that they had not been successful with a tender application due to being honest, whereas another contractor who had over-promised was awarded the contract.

One respondent criticised the emphasis on procedure rather than performance and track record, and suggested that this favours firms that invest in marketing and tendering departments, rather than those that focus on quality. Another contractor also criticised the prioritisation of research experience in the Scottish context over expertise in issues and method. Finally, one contractor suggested that due to the prioritisation of the price of the contract, the procurement process does not select the most qualified people for the job.

Many of the comments received in this section related to the time lag between the different stages in the procurement process. In particular, one contractor suggested that contractors should be informed if there is a delay in the decision-making process. The short notice on contract of award was also criticised, as this led successful tenderers to experience difficulties with recruitment. Finally, a number of contractors commented that feedback should be given to unsuccessful tenderers automatically, even if not asked for.

Evaluation of the feedback on tender applications

The next section focused on feedback on tenders, and was asked of all 59 contractors who had indicated that they had submitted a tender application since March 2006.

The first question asked respondents whether they had ever requested feedback on the tender application (whether the tender had been successful or not). This question was used to route those who had not requested feedback to later questions, as the ones in this series did not apply. Of the 59 respondents, 39 (66.1%) indicated that they had asked for feedback since March 2006.

The 39 respondents who had requested feedback were then asked to evaluate the extent to which the feedback had been clear, fair, useful, and tailored to the specific tender application. The responses to all four sub-questions is summarised in Table 12.

Most contractors responded positively to all questions on the feedback provided on unsuccessful tenders. Respondents gave slightly more neutral responses to the questions regarding the extent to which feedback was fair and useful. It may be the case that this is related to earlier comments on the perceived lack of clarity and transparency in the tender assessment criteria.

Respondents were subsequently provided with space to comment on which parts of the feedback were most useful and why. Contractors' responses suggested that the more detail included the better; specific feedback is useful; feedback on why tenders were unsuccessful is most useful; feedback on what was lacking in the application was very helpful and that feedback should be more prompt. Contractors also suggested that more specific information is needed about why the successful contractor was better. Contractors also requested more advice on how to improve tenders, on strengths and weaknesses, and on price and presentation.

Other comments were that feedback needs to be more comprehensive, and to provide frank reasons why unsuccessful. One contractor commented that research procurers should have better awareness of the subject area which they are procuring for. Finally, one contractor commented that the Scottish Government staff provide very clear feedback.

Contractors were also provided with space to comment on how the feedback could be improved. Three contractors commented that they had not received any. Another contractor suggested that feedback needs to be standard practice, rather than being given on an informal basis. Feedback should also be useful to the contractor, not just another box to be ticked by the Scottish Government. Moreover, one contractor suggested that the feedback be face to face rather than in writing; on the other hand, another contractor suggested that it needs to be offered in writing rather than on an informal basis. One contractor also suggested that the feedback needs to be provided in more detail, and another one suggested to include anonymised reports from those who reviewed the tender as part of the feedback.

Contractors felt that feedback should be mapped on to the individual criteria, and be better related to the requirements of the research brief, otherwise scores are meaningless. Feedback should provide scores and explain what the Scottish Government is looking for, and also provide information on who was awarded the contract. It should provide honest reasons for being unsuccessful rather than the 'official' story, and it should make clearer to contractors why they were unsuccessful. It should also provide guidance on how to improve the tender.

Evaluation of the terms and conditions, and of the contract letter

The next section focused on the terms and conditions and the contract letter used since the introduction of the new procurement guidelines. Only the 40 respondents who had earlier indicated that they had worked on a contract were routed to this series of questions, as this series did not apply to the other respondents.

The first question in this series asked respondents whether they were aware that the Scottish Government Social Research terms and conditions had changed in early 2006. This question was used to route respondents who had not been aware to later questions, as they would not be able to answer the next two questions. Of the 40 respondents who had worked on a contract, only 10 (25%) said that they had been aware of the changes.

The next question asked those 10 respondents to what extent they were satisfied that the new terms and conditions were an improvement on previous versions. The question yielded a largely negative response, as only one (10%) person was satisfied with the new terms and conditions, whereas 5 (50%) of the respondents rated themselves as very dissatisfied. Three (30%) respondents chose the neither/nor option.

The next series of questions asked respondents to evaluate the extent to which the new terms and conditions were easy to follow, clear/made sense, comprehensive, and provided a fair deal for the organisation. Responses were more positive, and are summarised in Table 13. It should be noted that contractors returned a more mixed response on the extent to which they were satisfied that the new terms and conditions 'provided a fair deal for their organisation' (50% neutral responses). This is perhaps again related to earlier comments on a perceived lack of clarity in Scottish Government advice and information on tendering.

The next question focused on the contract letter, through a series of items asking respondents to evaluate the extent to which they were satisfied that the new contract letter was easy to follow; clear/makes sense; useful; and comprehensive. Responses to these items where generally positive and are summarised in Table 14.

Evaluation of Scottish Government project managers

The 40 contractors who had stated they had worked on a Scottish Government Social Research contract since March 2006 were asked to evaluate the extent to which the project managers had been easy to contact, had provided relevant information on the process, had set realistic budgets for the work, and had set realistic timescales for the work. Results are summarised in Table 15 overleaf.

Respondents were broadly positive about the ease with which they were able to contact project managers and the relevance of the information that managers provided. They were however more critical of the extent to which project managers were able to set realistic budgets and timescales for work. The majority (53%) of respondents felt that budgets were not realistic and over 40% were negative about realistic timescales.

Finally, contractors were provided with space to comment in relation to Scottish Government project managers. Unrealistic timescales and budgets were mentioned by a number of contractors. In addition, one contractor mentioned that the timescale was unrealistic during tendering, but that once the contract was awarded it was open to discussion. Another contractor also commented that while tenderers are given very tight timescales, the Scottish Government takes a lot of time to reach decisions (therefore implying that there is an asymmetrical relationship between contractors and the Scottish Government). The delays in reaching decisions were also seen by another contractor as leading to delays in completion.

Project managers were also criticised for changing key requirements, such as the research question, and advisory groups were criticised for adding unnecessary detail, both of which lead to delays in completion on the part of the contractor. Another contractor also mentioned a case when the nature of the project was completely altered by the project managers because they had hitherto been unaware of something else that was going on in the Scottish Government at the time. Finally, one respondent commented that more attention needs to be given to the cost of research in university settings, and that larger budgets are needed to pay anyone above the junior level.

The short notice on award of contract was also identified as a problem in terms of finding good staff, particularly in relation to ensuring equality of opportunity. Another contractor commented that the interim report was a waste of time, and should be replaced with a brief report. Other comments were that procurers need to show more awareness of the research process. They also need to make sure that the requests they make in terms of revising the report are appropriate, and that contractors are not required to make changes which are only based on personal preferences, especially as the house style is so variable.

Respondents commented that project managers need to make sure that the research questions made sense, and showed awareness of the audience that the research would be disseminated to when requesting reports. Further criticism was levelled at evaluation research, where the evaluation was requested too early. There were also comments suggesting that it is not always entirely clear who the project managers are (i.e. analysts or policy colleagues) and great variability between project managers. Other contractors said they have had a positive working relationship with all project managers over the years; that project managers have been positive, helpful and collaborative; and that repeated absences by staff due to sickness or other reasons has sometimes been problematic, but also understood that such occurrences are not under Scottish Government control.

General evaluation of new procurement procedures

The next section asked all 65 contractors who had had some involvement with Scottish Government Social Research since March 2006 to evaluate the new procurement procedures at a general level. In particular, respondents were asked to what extent the procurement system had changed since March 2006, and to what extent they thought that the changes had improved the system.

Responses in relation to the extent to which the procurement system had changed since March 2006 revealed that 22 (33.8%) of the respondents thought the system had changed quite a lot; these were followed by 12 (18.5%) contractors who thought the system had changed little, and by 2 (3.1%) contractors who thought the system had changed very little. None of the contractors said that the system had changed very much or not at all. Notably, 29 (44.6%) of respondents chose the 'don't know' option.

Responses in relation to the extent to which the changes had improved the system were somewhat mixed, with 8 (12.5%) respondents saying the changes had improved the system quite a lot, while at the other end of the spectrum 3 (4.7%) respondents said they had not improved the system at all. In the middle range, 12 (18.8%) respondents said they improved the system a little, and 8 (12.5%) respondents said they had improved it very little. Half the sample (51.6%), however, chose the 'don't know' option, which suggests this might have been a difficult question to answer.

The next series of questions focused on the way in which the Scottish Government was perceived in terms of having staff who deal with enquiries and requests promptly; promoting a consistent approach to commissioning and managing research with all organisations; and promoting regular dialogue with contractors. Responses to these sub-questions are summarised in Table 16.

In relation to the question about the extent to which Scottish Government staff deal with enquiries and requests promptly, there was a generally positive response, with 46 (75.4%) respondents rating themselves satisfied or very satisfied, while only 4 (6.6%) respondents who rated themselves dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. Contractors were less positive about the extent to which the Scottish Government promotes a consistent approach to commissioning and managing research with all organisations. While just over half of respondents (51%) rated themselves satisfied or very satisfied, 16 respondents (31.4%) rated themselves dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. Similarly, respondents were less certain on the extent to which the Scottish Government promotes regular dialogue with contractors, with responses spread across all response categories.

Positive comments in relation to the new procurement process

Contractors were subsequently asked to comment on what works well with the procurement process. Most aspects of procurement were praised including: adverts on the Social Research website; the short expression of interest form; the fair and helpful feedback on unsuccessful EoIs; increased transparency and clarity, and the fact that the information is generally comprehensive. By far the most praise was received in relation to e-tendering, in that it is quick and reliable, easy to access, easy to use and understand, and the procedure for formatting and submission is generally easy to use.

Other praise related to the fact that there is good support in tendering, and that some project managers are very approachable and helpful. The Scottish Government was described by one contractor as being particularly strong in responding to queries and engaging in positive and supportive dialogue with contractors during the procurement process. The Scottish Government procurement system was also seen as better and more user friendly than another system with a similar remit, which is used by many departments in England and Wales. The introduction of call-off contracts was also seen as a positive change.

Criticisms of the new procurement process

Respondents were subsequently asked to provide suggestions on what improvements could be made to the procurement processes. Several contractors suggested a simple guide to the new system and requested that upcoming contracts be better promoted.

Other comments related to the need to open up the tendering process to more people. In particular, one contractor commented that they have not been invited to tender on areas where they excel. Another remark was that experienced research centres with well established track records have to spend too much time providing information, when this is already well known. One contractor commented that often it seems like there are preferred contractors and the expression of interest stage is simply helping satisfy a procedure with the veneer of impartiality.

Contractors should also be given more information about what feedback they can request. They expressed the need for more realistic budgets and timescales, for robust and ethically appropriate research. Respondents also expressed the need for less prescriptive research briefs to encourage innovation, and more guidance on risks and equality impacts and what is being looked for.

On the tender documentation, contractors commented that these should be more carefully thought out in order to make sure they are entirely realistic and will produce high quality outcomes, as unrealistic budgets and timescales will not lead to good value for money. There is also a need for better interaction within the Scottish Government about drawing up the tender documentation, and a consistent approach is needed in relation to the extent and the format of the information required. In particular, at times inconsistent information in the specifications about the scoring of tenders and their weighting is problematic.

Comments also suggested that requests for clarification with intellectual content should not be circulated to all contractors, as the circulation of all questions and answers used to clarify points in tenders via e-tendering process acts as a deterrent and gives away competitive advantage. It is also inappropriate to take ideas from unsuccessful tenders and to discuss them with the successful person, particularly when the unsuccessful person may not be aware of this happening.

Another major issue by some contractors was the Full Economic Costing for universities, which sometimes leads to university funds being used to subsidise research. As a result, quality tenders may be ruled out because of costs.

The lack of communication from the Scottish Government staff was also criticised. In particular, it was suggested that here is a lack of transparency on decisions, and a faster response rate on tender is needed. The Scottish Government was also criticised for being impersonal. A suggestion was made that it needs to adopt a more responsible attitude towards potential contractors' need for information. One contractor in particular commented that they have been through a long and uncertain time at application stage, but then The Scottish Government wanted the work to start straight away. This makes it difficult for academic institutions which tend to need longer for recruiting staff.

Finally, respondents were asked for any general comments in relation to the new procurement guidelines. Suggestions included producing an executive summary and an "idiot's guide"; to make the process more transparent; to put advertisements on central points on the website; to keep a database of prequalified firms; to use the Scottish Procurement Directorate route for procurement and to ensure that the project will take place before asking for expressions of interest. More feedback was requested on unsuccessful expressions of interest and tenders.

Further suggestions included projects being thought through more thoroughly before being advertised, and for budgets and timescales to be more realistic. Procurers should also make sure that e-tendering works, and to allow flexibility if tenders need to be submitted in other formats. The project managers sometimes go off on holiday just after putting out a brief, which means they are unreachable until just after the closing date. This is problematic as they are not available to answer contractors' queries. Greater access is needed to project managers, and there should be more discussion at tender stage. One contractor also suggested that there is a need for more openness and joint working.

It was suggested that when making decisions on tender applications, performance be prioritised over procedure. Other comments included that interim reports should be abolished. Another suggestion was for call-off contracts to be developed, and also for more framework agreements to be introduced. Finally, one contractor remarked that the Scottish Government should allow for proactive / unsolicited research proposals.

Barriers to engagement with Scottish Government Social Research

The questions in relation to this section were answered by the 10 respondents who indicated that they had not engaged with Scottish Government Social Research since March 2006. The first of the questions asked respondents to select the statement that best matched their reason for non-involvement. The options were: not interested in advertised research projects; deadline had passed; do not have a track record in advertised research; and other (please specify). Three of the participants selected the 'not interested in advertised research projects' option, while the other seven participants selected 'other'. However, none of the respondents specified the 'other' reason in the textbox provided.

Barriers to engagement with Scottish Government advertised research projects were further explored through the other two questions, which were both open-ended. The first asked participants to provide suggestions for how the Scottish Government could encourage more people to express interest in supplying research for the Scottish Government; the other question asked them to make any other suggestions for improvement.

Responses to both of these questions gave useful insights into perceived barriers to engagement. In response to the first question, one participant suggested that the Scottish Government needs to show a better understanding of commercial organisations; in particular, this respondent expressed concern that the payment schedules are geared to higher education institutions, and that the milestones are inappropriate for organisations which do not start out with core funding. By contrast, another participant expressed concern that deadlines for starting research are very tight for academic institutions, particularly when research assistants have to be appointed. Both of these comments, although coming from different types of contractors, suggest the need for the Scottish Government to show greater flexibility in order to accommodate the different needs of a wide variety of research contractors.

Contractors suggested that the Scottish Government seek out some 'original' research and less after-the-event justification of policy making, and similarly be less risk averse. Finally, one respondent emphasised the need to make sure that all major relevant email lists are used for advertising, and that contractors are provided with further feedback when unsuccessful.

Particularly illuminating was a comment received to the third open-ended question, from a respondent who expressed concern about the bottom line clause saying that the Scottish Government can prevent publication. The respondent said that this had been a barrier in applying for certain projects, due to the fear of signing away future publication potential.

Previous | Contents | Next