Omnishambles Update 43

The slow-motion train-crash that TR is rumbles on and we know potential bidders both big and small are dropping like flies. We know this because Ian Lawrence told us in his pre-strike email to all members:-

"The number of bidders has fallen from 50 to 26 and is dropping almost daily.  In some areas there is only one serious bidder which is not even approaching the legal definition of a competition."

and the Clinks website tells us that the MoJ's desperate search for Tier 2 and 3 bidders has been extended indefinitely:-

The MoJ has recently confirmed that the 31st March registration deadline for potential Tier 2 and 3 providers has now been removed and registrations will continue indefinitely. If you are considering subcontracting under the TR programme you are strongly advised to register to ensure that any subcontracting arrangements you enter into use the Industry Standard Partnering Agreement (ISPA); contact MAS@justice.gsi.gov.uk to request a registration form. Organisations that are registered will receive an email from the MoJ by the end of this week, if you have previously registered and do not receive this email you are advised to query this by contacting MAS@justice.gsi.gov.uk.

I understand that one of the problems has been getting hold of some cash as this blog from January on the Social Enterprise Live website explains:-

In autumn last year, partnerships interested in bidding to be Tier 1 providers had to complete a Pre Qualification Questionnaire (PQQ) to get through to the next round of bidding.

In order to get through the PQQ, partnerships needed to be able to demonstrate that they would be able to raise the working capital needed to deliver the contract in the event that they won it: “Potential Bidders must demonstrate access to funding equivalent to 50% of the indicative annual contract value of any one lot they wish to bid for.”

Evidence of this access to finance could include: “funding in principle letters, provided by a lender”.

Keen to avoid doubt, the MoJ made clear that: “For the avoidance of doubt, bidders who cannot demonstrate available funding of at least £5.85m (equal to 50% of the indicative annual contract value for the smallest lot within the competition (Norfolk and Suffolk) will be awarded a ‘fail’ and not be invited to proceed to the next stage for any lot or to refresh their lot preferences.”

Given that the contracts themselves are still to be determined the question being put to social investors was effectively ‘in the event that this social enterprise consortium was in a position to (a) win a contract and (b) convince you that the as yet undetermined numbers stacked up, would you in theory be in a position to provide them with a significant proportion of the working capital they need to deliver the contract?’

On that basis, Mike Harvey, chief executive of Northern Inclusion Consortium (NIC), a new company formed by 5 social organisations based in the North with strong track record in supporting people with complex needs, decided to ask some of the UK’s leading social investment intermediaries whether they could provide a letter offering ‘funding in principle’.

The answer was “no”. Or, as Harvey explains: “even where the answer was a tentative ‘possibly yes’, that was caveated with ‘but not at this point in time’ – i.e. when it was actually needed for the PQQ, and this was after the market had supposedly been warmed up months in advance by the MoJ, so is perhaps again indicative about the social investment market’s ability (or inability) to respond at the pace required by most procurement exercises.”

Undeterred, Harvey then approached a range of other social investors from the BSC list and beyond. The responses from included (expressed in Harvey’s words):

“reasonably positive but ultimately came back to say they didn’t have a fund available to provide cover, could potentially have a fund in the new year, but it would be capped”

“no funds until spring 2014”

“told us to approach our own banks first, and at best could get to £2m in investment but not in the timeframe”

“understood our issues but were capped at a max investment of £350k”

“said they could invest up to £1m, then said they couldn’t do a covering letter in the necessary timeframe”

A dickie bird tells me that civil servants are privately horrified by some the organisations bidding, such as a large cleaning company in Wales that's in pole position. It seems the Welsh Office is not impressed by the prospect, but that's the reality of this TR omnishambles. 

I don't know why, but I wasn't aware of this until I saw it buried in Mactailgunner's latest weather report over on the Napo forum pages:-

Enhanced VR Scheme

There are some very fed-up senior managers around the country - Chief Execs, Heads of HR etc. NOMS have dictated that this scheme cannot be accessed until after June (for reasons that they aren't being entirely honest about). It was promised, like now - indeed some Trusts started to invite expressions of interest. These invites have had to be withdrawn. Grievances are bubbling and it is probably only a matter of time before someone takes the matter to an ET - unfair or constructive dismissal - jobs disappear = redundancy situation. This will particularly affect senior staff in Trusts merging to form one CRC 

Finally, I saw this on twitter and am mightily impressed by it. A simple infographic that helps explain it all:-




It would seem that the decision to shaft probation goes right back to the very beginning of the coalition alliance. The Tories wanted to privatise the whole thing, but the Lib Dems were not happy. The Tories were sensibly wary of getting too involved in trying to supervise all the under 12 month people, so a deal was struck. Only part of the Service was to be privatised, in return for buying off the Lib Dems with mandatory supervision of all the under 12 month people.

It was decided right from the beginning and it's the Lib Dems who should never be allowed to forget that it was they who so ignorantly and comprehensively laid the foundations for the present bloody mess we find ourselves in. No wonder we never got anywhere trying to lobby that weasel bunch.