Many thanks to the members who responded to our recent survey ‘Our Future Profession’. The results have been discussed at Council and will be used as the basis for shaping our future strategy for the next 3–5 years. I will be posting a summary of the results on the website soon, together with some suggestions for what the implications are for the LI.
One of the things members expressed strong views about in the survey is procurement, particularly in the public sector. This is something we have already taken up with the new coalition government in Westminster and will pursue with devolved governments as well over the coming year.
The single biggest complaint we have heard is about local authorities demanding ridiculously high levels of insurance cover from small landscape architecture practices doing fairly small-scale projects. I have spoken to the firm that provides the LI’s insurance cover and he confirms that there is a general upward drift in the levels of insurance cover being required – and that it is difficult to see any good reason for it. There may just be a general trend towards ever more risk-aversion, or it may be that setting high thresholds is a useful way for procurement managers to screen out potential applicants and give themselves fewer people to deal with.
At almost exactly the same time as the survey was being reviewed, Communities Secretary Eric Pickles and his cabinet colleagues began a campaign to remove unnecessary red tape and improve value for money for local authorities. The value for money argument is an important one for this government, and it is one the LI will be emphasising strongly in its campaigning on this issue over coming months.
Small local landscape architecture practices can often offer excellent value for money to local authority clients. Their overheads are usually lower than those of a larger business and they often know a great deal about the background and context of a site or a project because they live there or use it regularly. However, they cannot be reasonably expected to carry enormous levels of PI cover for the sake of an occasional local government job, or to be constantly adjusting their insurance levels from project to project.
The result is that small practices often find it difficult or impossible to compete, and larger firm with higher overheads will pick up the work at a higher price. At a time when local government is under such financial pressure, this is just not sensible.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change contacted the LI to ask for proposals on how to reduce red tape and we responded with a call for insurance requirements to be reviewed. I will be taking this up next with Eric Pickles, asking him to direct local authorities in England not to set arbitrarily high levels of insurance in their procurement processes. After this, the campaign will move on to other Westminster departments and devolved governments.
Among the other bad procurement practices that members have complained of recently are abuse of the OJEU process and speculative competitions. The OJEU tendering process is supposed to be used to endure free movement of services across the EU for contracts of high value. There is some evidence, however, that local authorities find it easier to have a “one size fits all” procurement process, and just use the burdensome and laborious OJEU format for contracts of much lower value.
This too puts people off and helps restrict the pool of tenders, making it less likely that the local authority will get good value for money. Some councils are particularly cheeky in holding a design competition when they don’t have the funding in place to deliver the project, and then using the winning entry as the basis for a fundraising initiative. This may all work out in the end (though it often does not), but it can often lead to a practice putting a lot of work into a competition, winning it, and then finding nothing ever happens and no work comes their way.
I would like to hear about any other bad procurement practices that are making it difficult for landscape architecture practices to compete effectively. The more we have, the stronger the case we can make for change. If you have fallen foul of a particular procurement process or have examples to share of practices that unfairly exclude you, please let me know about them.