Bid Process for 2010 - ASA documents

April 2010 - Bidding for Social Welfare Contracts - ASA summary of LSC proposals
 
Sharing your toys - ASA report on advice agencies working together
 
ASA's full response to LSC consultation on future of contracting
 
Summary of ASA response to LSC consultation
 
ASA has responded to the consultation on civil bid rounds for 2010 contracts. The response is detailed but our major concerns can be summarised as follows:
 
Quality
 
We are extremely concerned that proposals concerning the future procurement of publicly funded legal services make scant reference to quality. We are disappointed that peer review scores will not be taken into account when choosing between providers.
 
Timetable
 
ASA has two concerns in relation to the timetable. Firstly, the proposal to procure Social Welfare Law (SWL) services in all procurement areas at the same time holds significant risks for the LSC and, more importantly, for potential users of the service.
 
In our response we suggested that the LSC should take an incremental approach to the introduction of competitive procurement. This would have the advantages of making the process more manageable and less disruptive for providers and the LSC, giving the LSC a more realistic sense of the market and giving the LSC and providers the opportunity to learn from experience.
 
Secondly, we think that the proposed timetable is unrealistic. To be able to bid, providers will need to know details about the services the LSC wants to buy in their area. This means that the LSC will have to publish and consult on procurement plans for each area before starting the bidding process. They will then have to allow time for providers to decide whether they need to develop consortia relationships with others and to set up those consortia.
 
Given the complexities of partnership working, we do not think the LSC has allowed enough time for all this work to be done and we therefore think implementation should be delayed.
 
Monopoly contracts
 
There is no mention in the consultation of the number of SWL contracts that the LSC wishes to procure in each procurement area. The selection criteria suggest that, in a competitive bidding situation, the bidder that scores highest could bid for and receive all the new matter starts available.
 
We believe that the disadvantages to clients of this approach will greatly outweigh the benefits. We acknowledge that there are possible benefits to some clients in having a range of services provided by each supplier, or by a network of providers, but we strongly disapprove of monopoly contracts for social welfare law services in each procurement area.
 
"Social welfare law"
 
We are concerned that the LSC's definition of SWL is too narrow. In particular, we think that services in housing, employment, welfare benefits, debt and community care have been artificially separated from services in immigration, education and mental health. We suggested that other combinations of categories should be considered to allow providers to meet the needs of their clients.