Labels and Tags

Accountability (66) Adequate documentation (4) ADR in procurement (3) Allocation of risks (5) Best interest of government (11) Best practices (19) Best value (14) Bidder prejudice (9) Blanket purchase agreement (1) Bridge contract (2) Bundling (6) Cancellation and rejection (2) Centralized procurement structure (12) Changes during bid process (13) Clarifications vs Discussions (1) Competence (9) Competition vs Efficiency (27) Competitive position (2) Compliance (32) Conflict of interest (28) Contract administration (24) Contract disputes (1) Contract extension or modification (8) Contract terms (2) Contract types (6) Contract vs solicitation dispute (1) Contractor responsibility (18) Conviction (3) Cooperative purchasing (3) Cost and pricing (13) Debarment (4) Determinations (8) Determining responsibility (32) Disclosure requirements (7) Discussions during solicitation (9) Disposal of surplus property (3) Effective enforcement requirement (34) Effective procurement management (3) Effective specifications (35) Emergency procurement (13) eProcurement (5) Equitable tolling (2) Evaluation of submissions (20) Fair and equitable treatment (13) Fair and reasonable value (23) Fiscal effect of procurement (13) Good governance (8) Governmental functions (26) Guam (14) Guam procurement law (12) Improper influence (11) Incumbency (12) Integrity of system (29) Interested party (7) Jurisdiction (1) Justification (1) Life-cycle cost (1) Limits of government contracting (4) Lore vs Law (4) market research (6) Materiality (3) Methods of source selection (28) Mistakes (3) Models of Procurement (1) Needs assessment (10) No harm no foul? (8) Other procurement links (14) Outsourcing (31) Past performance (10) Planning policy (33) Politics of procurement (46) PPPs (6) Prequalification (1) Principle of competition (87) Principles of procurement (20) Private vs public contract (15) Procurement authority (5) Procurement controversies series (75) Procurement ethics (17) Procurement fraud (27) Procurement lifecycle (9) Procurement philosophy (15) Procurement procedures (29) Procurement reform (56) Procurement theory (11) Procurement workforce (2) Procurment philosophy (6) Professionalism (17) Protest - formality (1) Protest - timing (10) Protests - general (35) Purposes and policies of procurement (8) Recusal (1) Remedies (16) Requirement for new procurement (4) Resolution of protests (3) Responsiveness (11) Restrictive specifications (3) Review procedures (12) Scope of contract (16) Settlement (2) Social preference provisions (59) Sole source (45) Sovereign immunity (2) Staffing (7) Standard commercial products (1) Standards of review (2) Standing (5) Stays and injunctions (6) Structure of procurement (1) Substantiation (9) Surety (1) Suspension (6) The procurement record (1) The role of price (8) The subject matter of procurement (22) Trade agreements vs procurement (1) Training (32) Transparency (59) Uniformity (5) Unsolicited proposals (2)

Monday, February 25, 2013

Even without rules, procurement principles lead the way

It appears the British government is going to roll out a decentralized, electronic (telecommunications) delivery system for health services across the country. It will span government, government supported and non-government providers, if I interpret the story accurately. 

This article describes an overview of the procurement regime required for the roll-out. The part I found most interesting is the advice given to those institutions caught up in the roll-out who are not strictly liable to the procurement regulations. The advice is consistent with the American Bar Association Model Procurement Code, which Guam follows, that admonishes, stated principles must be used to both interpret and apply the procurement law.

As usual, I cut and paste and rearrange or paraphrase all or parts of the article, so refer to the source if you are truly interested in the subject.

This article is posted on the Mondaq website by the authors Paul Barton and Emily Parris of the firm Field Fisher Waterhouse, in the form of a Q&A discussion.
The government has confirmed its policy commitment to telecare and telehealth services, first, through the NHS Mandate, published on 13 November 2012, and second, through Secretary of State for Health, Jeremy Hunt's announcement that telehealth services are to be rolled out to 100,000 people during 2013. A competitive tender process will begin in the New Year through which seven "pathfinder" NHS organisations and local authorities (including Clinical Commissioning Groups) will commission telehealth products and services at no upfront cost. This is an important first step towards the 3 million lives target. Against this background, Paul Barton and Emily Parris of Field Fisher Waterhouse answer questions on the regulatory framework for the procurement of telecare and telehealth products and services.

What are public procurement rules and who must comply?

The legal framework governing procurement of goods, services and works by the public sector is multi-layered. It comprises European Directives, the national laws of EU Member States implementing those Directives, as well as principles from the EC Treaty and case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union. In the UK, the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 implement the Public Sector Directive ((2004/18/EC) into UK Law. Central government, local authorities, bodies governed by public law, as well as associations formed by any of these must comply. Registered Social Landlords including Housing Associations are considered to be bodies governed by public law and are therefore caught by the Regulations. The new Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), which will assume full commissioning responsibilities from April 2013, are also in scope. All of these organisations must assess whether their particular procurement is subject to the Regulations. This will depend on what is being procured, and whether the estimated contract value is above or below the specified financial thresholds that bring the Regulations into play.

The Government Procurement Service Framework Agreement for Assistive Technologies (RM784) was recently extended and will now run until August 2013. With some 55 suppliers across six lots covering broadly, telecare, telehealth and telecoaching products and services as well as full managed services, it provides for further competitions, reverse auctions between participating suppliers, as well as call-offs direct from a catalogue provided it is possible to determine from the catalogue which supplier represents best value for money against the buyer's requirements.

What if the Regulations are not applicable?

Even if a public sector body assesses that its procurement falls wholly or partly outside the Regulations, for example, because it is covered by one of the exclusions under the Regulations, or is below the relevant financial threshold, the procurement should still be conducted in accordance with principles established under the EC Treaty (as should regulated procurements). These principles require public bodies to (i) conduct procurements in a transparent way by advertising so that the market is open to competition, (ii) treat bidders equally, so for example, allowing one bidder alone to amend its tender would infringe this principle, (iii) ensure that any requirements imposed on bidders are proportionate, and (iv) recognise products, services and equivalent standards of other EU Member States.

What if a public sector body judges that it is preferable to buy "off-framework"?

That depends on what is being procured and the estimated contract value. Assuming the relevant financial threshold is met, public procurements of supplies, works and so called "Part A" services must comply with the full regime under the Regulations; whilst "Part B" services, which include health and social care services, are subject to lighter regulation. In order to determine to which category a procurement belongs, it is important to look at what is being procured, rather than the use to which the relevant supplies, works or services are to be put. This was made clear in a case called Jobsin Internet Service v Department of Health1. In that case, the provision of a website for NHS recruitment was held to be a "Part A" computer service, rather than a "Part B" recruitment service. So for example, if a housing association wishes to procure alarm installation and monitoring services for sheltered accommodation, the fact that the alarm system is for the purposes of a social care service is not relevant.

For a mixed contract covering the procurement of supplies (for example, the alarm kit), works (installation of the kit) and other services (for example, monitoring, call centre and paramedic support), then it is essential to identify where the main value of the contract lies. If the main value lies in the services and the services include Part A and Part B health and social care services, then it is necessary to identify whether the main value lies in the Part A or Part B services.

No comments: