SUPPLY CHAIN DEVELOPMENT & SUBCONTRACTING POLICY
Version 1
11 March 2014
Peterborough Plus: Supply Chain Policy (v1/11 March 15)
1
1. Introduction & Scope
1.1 This policy covers the Peterborough Plus supply chain development and
sub-contracting process, including internal tender protocol.
2. Supply chain development and sub-contracting process
2.1 The default option for both ‘negotiated commissions’ (i.e. non-competitive)
and contracts won by competitive tender is that these opportunities should be
offered to Peterborough Plus members only, except in exceptional
circumstances at the discretion of the Board.
2.1.1 Members are welcome to make a case to the Board as why a
particular non-consortium member should be included within resource
allocation procedures.
2.1.2 There may be occasions where the Board wants to make an
exception, on a case by case basis. This would encompass the inclusion
of public and private (i.e. non voluntary sector) providers in the supply
chain where there is clear evidence of (a) a gap in the Peterborough Plus
supply base and (b) the potential for such supply chain extension to add
value to the consortium supply base.
2.2 There are 2 possible primary methods in the context of supply chain
development and sub-contracting:
-
Joint Delivery Planning (JDP)
Internal Tendering (IT)
2.3 The JDP primary method has a competitive variant, ‘Competitive JDP’1,
which incorporates certain of the features of the IT approach.
2.4 The consortium Board will need to use its discretion to judge which is the
most appropriate approach to adopt on a case by case basis, based on a
range of internal and external environmental conditions.
2.5 The use of different commissioning techniques by the statutory agencies
(e.g. non-competitive/‘negotiated commissioning’ or more open and
competitive approaches) is deemed to be neutral in effect. In other words, the
adoption of a particular supply chain development/sub-contracting method
within Peterborough Plus is not intrinsically linked to the choice of
commissioning technique by the commissioning body.
1
Expediently, there is no inverse collaborative variant of the IT primary approach,
due to the lack of time once the contract has been won to factor in collaborative
approaches to internal tendering.
Peterborough Plus: Supply Chain Policy (v1/11 March 15)
2
2.6 What each method entails, and the environmental conditions that would
influence the adoption of a particular method, are outlined in the table
overleaf:
Method
Indicative environmental conditions
External
Joint Delivery Planning
Nature of service specification
requires or at least clearly lends
What this entails:
itself to a unified or joined up
approach by providers, e.g. there
A single JDP is agreed by
is a requirement for a single
consortium members and used client gateway or referral point
as the basis for drafting the
There is a good lead-in time for
Peterborough Plus tender
bidding, therefore allowing
submission
sufficient time to bring member
organisations together to
produce a JDP
There is no insistence by the
commissioner on ‘second tier
procurement’ or contestabilitybased sub-contracting
Internal Tendering
Nature of service specification
does not require or clearly lend
What this entails:
itself to a unified or joined up
approach by providers, but
Contract is won in advance of
instead can be readily, and
determining supply chain
without detriment to outcome
Members are invited
delivery, disaggregated through
individually to submit internal
multiple sub-contractors
tender proposals
functioning consistently but more
Individual sub-contracts are
or less discretely
awarded on strength of
There is a limited lead-in time for
internal tender proposals
bidding and therefore insufficient
time to bring member
organisations together to
produce a JDP
There is insistence by the
commissioner on ‘second tier
procurement’ or contestabilitybased sub-contracting
Competitive Joint Delivery
Nature of service specification
Planning
requires or at least clearly lends
itself to a unified or joined up
What this entails:
approach by providers
There is a good lead-in time for
Members are invited to
bidding, therefore allowing
collaborate to produce multiple sufficient time to bring member
JDPs on a competitive basis
organisations together to
One JDP is then selected to
produce a JDP
form the basis for drafting the
Peterborough Plus tender
submission
Internal
The level of interest
expressed by members can
be accommodated within the
stated contract value and
aligns with the service profile
Peterborough Plus is
confident that all relevant
members will be included in
the JDP process
The level of interest
expressed by members
cannot be accommodated
within the stated contract
value and does not align with
the service profile
It is clear that all relevant
members cannot be included
in a JDP process
The level of interest
expressed by members
cannot be accommodated
within a single JDP framework
Peterborough Plus: Supply Chain Policy (v1/11 March 15)
3
2.7 A prerequisite of all 3 approaches is the development and maintenance of
a comprehensive central database of member organisations’ (a) ‘contract
readiness’/PQQ (Pre Qualification Questionnaire) information (i.e. the
information that has been generated through completion of the membership
application form) and (b) individual service profile (resulting in a Joint
Directory of Services). This database will provide the consortium hub with the
information needed to be able to complete relevant PQQ and ITT documents,
and to support consortium members to engage in Joint Delivery Planning
exercises.
3. Joint Delivery Planning
3.1 Indicative Process
 Tender opportunity is advertised/announced
 Expressions of interest are sought from contract-ready consortium
members
 Assuming that the level of interest expressed can be accommodated
within the stated contract value and service profile (see section 5 on
Competitive Joint Delivery Planning for alternative process where the
level of interest outstrips the extent of funding available and fails to
align with the service profile), a meeting/working group of interested
members is convened in order to respond to the tender opportunity
 At this meeting the partners would work through a JDP template (see
Appendix 1 for an outline framework for this)
 The resultant JDP would be submitted to the consortium hub and the
hub would overlay the plan with the contract management and wider,
added value functions that Peterborough Plus would input:
 Accountable body functions
 Area-wide strategic overview
 Providing links into other initiatives etc
 Tender proposal is submitted by Peterborough Plus, based on the JDP
 If the proposal is successful, Peterborough Plus establishes subcontracts with the partners to the JDP, based on the schedule of
provision set out within that plan
3.2 Key Features
-
Membership-driven
Lends itself to unified service model
Cluster of members agree JDP in response to published tender
opportunity
Peterborough Plus: Supply Chain Policy (v1/11 March 15)
4
-
JDP sets out pattern of supply that subsequently becomes inscribed
within the tender proposal and, if successful, the sub-contracts
3.3 Perceived Advantages & Disadvantages
Advantages
-
Led by members
Work of sorting out delivery is done up front
Avoids internal competition
Lends itself to unified service model and more likely to encourage
joined up services
More likely to encourage innovation at the frontline
Good way of offsetting what might be limited human resource capacity
within the consortium hub
Patterns of supply (and associated supply chain links) are set out
clearly, transparently and unambiguously within tender proposal
Could up-skill members
Disadvantages
Relies on:
-
Alert and proactive membership
Members possessing negotiation skills, along with real commitment to
the ‘give and take’ of a joint negotiation and bargaining process
There being sufficient time within the tendering process for members to
come together to agree a joint approach
There being sufficient funding available so that don’t end up with
excess of internal supply/suppliers
The buyer not prescribing ‘second tier commissioning’ as desired
outcome
Also:
-
Might end up de-skilling the consortium hub
No guarantee that joint delivery planning will be a fair, open and
transparent process – certain of the more proactive members could
end up dominating, ‘delivery cliques’ could form, approaches adopted
could be inconsistent and unsystematic
Summary of strategies for addressing disadvantages
 Provide training for members in negotiation and
bargaining skills
 Deploy the consortium hub to provide facilitative
interventions
 Influence commissioners to extend tendering timelines
Peterborough Plus: Supply Chain Policy (v1/11 March 15)
5
 Ensure the process is fair, open and transparent through
the application of rigorous protocol and the use of hub-led
facilitative interventions
4. Internal Tendering
4.1 Indicative Process
 Tender opportunity is advertised/announced
 Expressions of interest are sought from contract-ready consortium
members
 Where feasible (accounting for time constraints), consortium hub holds
consultation exercise with interested members on the sorts of activities
that might be delivered through the contract (NB this is not joint
delivery planning but a brief consultation on broad parameters); this
exercise could involve a face-to-face meeting or could be email-based
 Peterborough Plus submits tender proposal, based on outcomes of
consultation exercise and high level management information
contained in the Joint Directory of Services/database
 If the proposal is successful, the consortium hub drafts a follow-on
members’ Invitation to Tender (ITT), which includes the specific criteria
against which resultant internal proposals will be assessed
 This internal ITT is ratified by the Board (or at least the Chair of the
Tender Approval Panel – see below) before circulation
 The internal ITT is circulated to all members and sub-tender proposals
invited
 The consortium hub receives and collates resultant proposals
 The consortium hub convenes a Tender Approval Panel (TAP),
consisting of disinterested (i.e. non-tendering) consortium Board
members/wider consortium members, and possibly external,
independent stakeholders; this TAP operates as a sub-group of the
consortium Board and is vested by the Board with the delegated
authority to make recommendations on which consortium members
should be awarded sub-contracts
 The TAP is chaired by a disinterested consortium Board member
 Internal tender proposals are appraised by the TAP, based on a clear,
objective and transparent scoring system
 A tender evaluation report is drafted by the consortium hub, including
recommendation of highest scoring proposals for approval
Peterborough Plus: Supply Chain Policy (v1/11 March 15)
6
 The tender evaluation report is submitted to the consortium Board for
ratification, with the Board making the ultimate decisions on the award
of sub-contracts
 Consortium hub announces who the successful bidders are
 Sub-contracts are agreed with successful bidders, based on the
respective schedules of provision set out within the internal tender
proposals
 One-to-one debriefing surgeries are organised for failed bidders, with
the consortium hub meeting with a representative of the bidding
organisation and providing detailed written and oral feedback on why
the bid failed, areas that need to be addressed and other opportunities
that the member might benefit from in the future
4.2 Key Features
-
Hub-led
Based on agreed protocol that embodies certain principles and values,
e.g. objectivity, impartiality etc
Precise pattern of supply is determined post-tender
4.3 Perceived Advantages & Disadvantages
Advantages
-
-
Contingently, may be the only option open to the consortium, given (a)
lack of time within the tendering process, (b) limited funding (leading to
over-subscription) or (c) the buyer’s desire for a ‘second tier
commissioner’ approach
If protocol is adhered to rigorously, then guarantees fairness, openness
and transparency
Competitive system could sharpen up practices of consortium
members, improving quality and output in the process
Disadvantages
-
Could end up with vagueness and ambiguity in describing patterns of
supply (and associated supply chain links) within tender proposal
Based on internal competition
Less likely to encourage joined up services
Less likely to encourage innovation at the frontline
Relies a lot on what could be limited human resource capacity,
especially in start-up phase, within the consortium hub
Doesn’t up-skill members
Peterborough Plus: Supply Chain Policy (v1/11 March 15)
7
Summary of strategies for addressing disadvantages
 Ensure Joint Directory of Services/database contains
good quality, up-to-date information about services on
offer through the membership and use this to cite
concrete examples of proposed service provision within
the tender proposal
 Ensure that expressions of interest and consultation
exercise (when undertaken) generate clear, robust and
relevant information
 Deploy the consortium hub to provide facilitative
interventions; thereby building the capacity and
commitment to deliver innovative and joined up service
delivery
 Ensure inputs are properly quantified and costed
 Solicit pro bono board input into the process, where
feasible
 Ensure appropriate mix of supply chain development
methodologies to encourage skills development within the
membership
5. Competitive Joint Delivery Planning
5.1 Indicative Process
 Tender opportunity is advertised/announced
 Expressions of interest are sought from contract-ready consortium
members
 Assuming the level of interest outstrips the extent of funding available
and fails to align with the service profile (see section 3 on Joint Delivery
Planning for an alternative process where the level of interest can be
accommodated within the available funding envelope and service
profile), interested members are invited to form working groups to draft
competing JDPs
 The consortium hub receives and collates resultant JDPs
 The consortium hub convenes a Tender Approval Panel (TAP),
consisting of disinterested (i.e. non-tendering) consortium Board
members/wider consortium members, and possibly external,
independent stakeholders; this TAP operates as a sub-group of the
consortium Board and is vested by the Board with the delegated
authority to make recommendations on which JDP should be selected
as the basis for Peterborough Plus’s tender submission
 The TAP is chaired by a disinterested consortium Board member
Peterborough Plus: Supply Chain Policy (v1/11 March 15)
8
 Competitive JDPs are appraised by the TAP, based on a clear,
objective and transparent scoring system
 A tender evaluation report is drafted by the consortium hub, including
recommendation of highest scoring JDP for approval
 The tender evaluation report is submitted to the consortium Board for
ratification, with the Board making the ultimate decisions on the award
of sub-contracts
 Consortium hub announces which JDP has been selected to form the
basis of Peterborough Plus’s tender submission
 The consortium hub overlays the selected JDP with the contract
management and wider, added value functions that Peterborough Plus
would input:
 Accountable body functions
 Area-wide strategic overview
 Providing links into other initiatives etc
 Tender proposal is submitted by Peterborough Plus, based on the
selected JDP
 If the proposal is successful, Peterborough Plus establishes subcontracts with the partners to the JDP, based on the schedule of
provision set out within that plan
 Where feasible, group-based debriefing workshops are organised for
failed JDP bidders, with the consortium hub meeting with
representatives of the bidding organisations and providing detailed
written and oral feedback on why the JDP failed, areas that need to be
addressed and other opportunities that the members might benefit from
in the future
5.2 Key Features
-
Membership-driven
Groupings of members formulate JDPs in response to published tender
opportunity
Element of managed competition as a result of over-subscription
Successful JDP sets out pattern of supply that subsequently becomes
inscribed within the tender proposal and, if successful, the subcontracts
Peterborough Plus: Supply Chain Policy (v1/11 March 15)
9
Advantages
-
Led by members
Work of sorting out delivery is done up front
Lends itself to unified service model and more likely to encourage
joined up delivery
More likely to encourage innovation at the frontline
Good way of offsetting what might be limited human resource capacity
within the consortium hub
Patterns of supply (and associated supply chain links) are set out
clearly, transparently and unambiguously within tender proposal
Could up-skill members
Competitive dimension should increase potential for JDP process to be
fair, open and transparent – reducing the chances of ‘delivery cliques’
forming and of approaches adopted being inconsistent and
unsystematic
Disadvantages
Relies on:
-
Alert and proactive membership
Members possessing negotiation skills, along with real commitment to
the ‘give and take’ of a joint negotiation and bargaining process
There being sufficient time within the tendering process for members to
come together to agree a joint approach
The buyer not prescribing ‘second tier commissioning’ as desired
outcome
Also:
-
Involves element of internal competition
All round, most complex and time-intensive methodology
Might end up de-skilling the consortium hub
Summary of strategies for addressing disadvantages
 Provide training for members in negotiation and
bargaining skills
 Deploy the consortium hub to provide facilitative
interventions
 Influence commissioners to extend tendering timelines
6. Performance management
Irrespective of which approach (joint delivery planning [competitive or noncompetitive] or internal tendering) has been adopted, the consortium hub will
be responsible for collecting relevant monitoring and performance
management information from sub-contractors on a regular basis, collating
this to form a single, unified monitoring report for the commissioning body.
Peterborough Plus: Supply Chain Policy (v1/11 March 15)
10
The hub will design suitable, fit-for-purpose monitoring/performance
management systems for this purpose. These systems will need to reflect the
requirements within the prime contract.
The aim will be for systems to be email-based to aid ease of information/data
transfer (backed up, as necessary, by paper-based documentation as
supporting/auditable evidence).
The payments model will reflect an appropriate balance of financial and cash
flow risk between the consortium and the individual sub-contractor.
Peterborough Plus: Supply Chain Policy (v1/11 March 15)
11
Appendix 1: Framework for Joint Delivery Plan
 Details of Partners Involved
All partners will need to be able to demonstrate that they meet relevant PQQ
criteria (this could be based on a ‘passporting arrangement’ linked to the
central PQQ database maintained by the hub).
 Description of services/activities to be provided by each partner
(Schedule of Provision)
This should also include description and quantification of the resultant outputs
(e.g. number of service users benefiting), outcomes and projected wider
impacts
 Implementation plan
This should include a timeline, key milestones and nominated responsibilities
 Description of agreed pricing strategy
 Overview of delivery risks and challenges
Approved by the Peterborough Plus Board
Approval Date: XXX
Renewal Date: XXX
Peterborough Plus: Supply Chain Policy (v1/11 March 15)
12