Annex 1: Summary of Contracts / Questions Asked

Self-Declaration Form

Case Study

Introduction

In 2012 Cardiff Council launched a collaborative Source Regional Project which includes senior representatives from the University of South Wales, Caerphilly Council, Rhondda Cynon Taf Council, Torfaen Council and Welsh Government. The Project aims to simplify and improve how public sector organisations procure with the aim of improving access to, and availability of procurement opportunities, for SMEs.

Cardiff Council has been piloting a self-declaration form developed by the Source Regional Project. This case study provides details and lessons learnt from the pilot which has been used on 11 contracts to date.

Background – How was the form developed?
The self-declaration form is one of the key products developed by the Source Regional project. The key aim of the project is to improve and increase opportunities for Small Medium Enterprises (SMEs). Other than increasing the advertisement of low value contracts, simplifying the qualification process is key to encourage SMEs to bid for work.
The form has been reviewed by the Welsh Government’s Policy Team and they fully support the concept. One of the key recommendations within the revised EU Directive is increased use of self-declaration. The EU Directive will be transposed and implemented in to Welsh legislation this year (2014).
Form Design – What is it? / How should it be used?
Qualification / Selection Process / The Self-declaration form is not a replacement for a standard Pre-Qualification Questionnaire (PQQ) but is an alternative option to selecting suitably qualified suppliers (if a restricted tender procedure is used), or selection stage questions (if an open tender procedure is used).
Questions included (SQuID application) / The form is designed mainly for low-medium risk contracts, typically valued below £100,000; questions included on the form reflect this having applied the Supplier Qualification Information Database (SQuID) risk matrix. However, if deemed appropriate the form can be used for contracts valued above £100,000.
Questions are taken from SQuID but reworded in a way that suppliers need only answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ meaning that text responses and/or supporting documentation is not required at submission (tender) stage.
By submitting a completed form, suppliers are ‘declaring’ that they meet all the necessary requirements.
Supporting evidence & documentation / The buyer will only need to request evidence/further information from the successful/preferred supplier prior to contract award. This will save suppliers from having to submit numerous certificates and documents when they may not even win the work.
Section A and B / The form is divided in to two sections.
Section A is mandatory for all contracts which includes questions on Supplier Acceptability. Although not mandated for contracts below OJEU thresholds it is recommended by Welsh Government (in SQuID) and Cardiff Council’s Commissioning & Procurement Team that these questions are included for all procurements of any value.
Section B acts more like a template which can be adapted to suit each particular contract. Questions issued to suppliers should be proportionate to the risk and value of the contract requirements. It may be necessary to remove certain questions from the template or add further questions.
Aims
·  To make the qualification stage less resource intensive and time consuming for suppliers to complete, therefore making it more attractive for SMEs to bid for work.
·  The form is designed so that suppliers are able to quickly identify whether they meet the necessary minimum requirements or not, with the aim that suppliers will de-select themselves from the process if they do not meet the requirements.
·  To speed up the process for suppliers and make the evaluation process less time consuming for buyers.
Possible areas of concern / issues
Suppliers falsifying their responses / There are concerns that suppliers could respond ‘yes’ to every question and say that they have the necessary requirements / accreditations in place when they do not.
The pilot suggests that suppliers would not waste their own time submitting a bid if they don’t have the necessary supporting documentation. This has yet to be a problem but is something that will be monitored and addressed if it does occur. The instructions to suppliers on the form clearly state that if:
§  chosen as the preferred supplier they will be requested to submit the relevant evidence and supporting documentation prior to contract award.
§  they cannot provide the information within the timescale given then the buyer will go to the next preferred supplier.
These instructions should also be highlighted in the contract notice and any other tender documents/packs.
High volumes of forms returned with no way to filter/reduce the number of suppliers invited to tender / Due to the ease of completing the self-declaration form (i.e. tick box ‘yes’/’no’) there are concerns that high volumes of forms will be returned and due to there being no scored element, the number of suppliers invited to tender cannot be restricted.
(This situation would apply if a restricted procedure is undertaken and instead of using a standard PQQ the self-declaration form is used).
The form has been piloted on 10 contracts and so far this has not been an issue. However, out of these contracts only 2 have been openly advertised, the remainder were by invite only.
The idea of the form is to encourage SMEs to submit bids and therefore increase competition. If there is a large supply base and the buyer knows that there is likely to be a high level of submissions then it may be better to stick to using a standard PQQ.
Alternatively, the self-declaration form could be used but a couple of scored questions included, for example a text response regarding past experience. This would allow for the buyer to filter out suppliers who don’t score highly enough at selection stage and therefore restrict the number of suppliers invited to tender.
The remaining questions will still require a ‘yes’/ ‘no’ response and supporting documentation / certifications will only be requested from the preferred supplier at point of award. This will ensure the process remains less burdensome for both suppliers and buyers at evaluation stage.
What contracts has the form been used?
1)  Installation, Maintenance and Removal of Festive Lights (£95k)
2)  Design, Build & Install an Exhibition Stand (£15k)
3)  New Theatre Mailing Brochure (£34k)
4)  Sale of Garage Equipment (£20k)
5)  Purchase of Replacement Sluice Protection Boom (£29k)
6)  Supply of Spotlighting for New Theatre (£23k)
7)  Installation and Maintenance of a commercial weighbridge at Bessemer Close HWRC (£55k)
8)  Leisure Centre lockers (£50k)
9)  Contract and Maintenance of 4 Forklift trucks (£85k)
10) Supply and installation of Evacuation Pager System (£20k)
Ten contracts have piloted the form, two of which were advertised – (Sale of Garage Equipment and Contract & Maintenance of 4 Forklift trucks). For each contract the form was adapted accordingly and the number of questions included varied between contracts depending on the requirements suppliers had to fulfil.
For further details on the number of suppliers invited / number of tenders returned and a summary of the questions asked for each contract please see Annexes 1 and 2.
Feedback from users/procurement team and suppliers
Procurement Team / The form’s design has been well received by staff who have used it for tenders.
It has enabled a more focused approach regarding questions selected, ensuring they are proportionate to the risk and the actual requirements of the contract. A couple of lessons have been learned regarding one or two tenders (highlighted below), but on the whole feedback has been extremely positive.
Suppliers / The form has been well received by suppliers. Some suppliers have completed a feedback questionnaire all of which have responded in the same way as the one attached below.

For those suppliers who have not received and/or returned the feedback questionnaire, there has been no negative feedback received or queries raised, therefore implying that the process has been understood.
Lessons Learned & Recommendations
Lessons Learned / 1) Past Experience Question
When suppliers were asked to provide examples of previous contracts delivered – clear instructions of what is required should be provided to avoid confusion and delays at contract award stage. In one pilot the preferred supplier only provided contact details for references as opposed to providing written examples, this inevitably delayed the process.
2) Time given to allow the preferred supplier to return supporting evidence
Short notice was given to run one of the tenders and therefore a quick contract award was required. In this case it would have been useful to have the information at point of tender submission, not at tender award as the time period given for the preferred supplier to submit documents delayed the award.
This however, was not a criticism of the form, just a reminder to allow for time to be built in to the tender process from the start.
Recommendations / 1) If the buyer would like to include a question regarding examples of previous experience/contracts delivered then it may be better to have this as a text response at time of tender and scored if necessary, (as explained in the concerns/issues section above).
2) If the contract is urgent or there has been short notice provided in order to run the tender, then a standard PQQ should be used. However, the principles of risk and proportionality should still remain and therefore proportionate and relevant questions should be included. (The SQuID and the SQuIZARD tool can assist with this).
If the requirement is not urgent and/or enough notice has been given, then the buyer/contract manager must ensure that enough time is built in to the process to allow for the preferred supplier to submit their supporting evidence / documentation. This could be between 5 and 10 days depending on what the buyer deems reasonable for their tender.
Revised EU Directives - Note
One of the key recommendations involves the use of self-declaration in order to ‘simplify the process of assessing bidders’ credentials and reduce documentation requirements, whereby only the winning bidder should have to submit various certificates and documents which prove their status’.
This will reduce cost for suppliers and authorities, and encourage SMEs and wider competition. This provision is welcome and consistent with the UK Government’s reduction of pre-qualification questionnaire burdens.
Although there are some differences between what is proposed in the revised EU Directive and the self-declaration process that has been piloted in the Council, there are some distinct similarities. Therefore, utilisation of the form now on lower value/risk contracts will allow users (both buyers and suppliers) to familiarise themselves with the process and principles.
What next / Moving Forward
To date the form has been used successfully in the above tenders with the exception of one where a couple of lessons have been learned. Had the lessons been realised prior to undertaking the process this would not have posed an issue.
Self-Declaration should continue to be used in tenders where deemed appropriate as an alternative to the standard PQQ or selection stage. Any issues that arise should be documented and raised with the Strategy & Development Team and the form’s use may need to be reconsidered.
Ideally we would like to see the form piloted in tenders which are advertised in order to begin to determine whether suppliers de-select themselves from the process if they do not meet the minimum requirements. As documented, concerns have been raised that high levels of forms may be returned due to the ease of completing the form; however, until the form is piloted on advertised tenders there will be no evidence to suggest this will happen. In general terms staff fear that advertising low-value contracts openly will result in high levels of tender returns. However, research and evidence collated form Authorities who advertise low value tenders frequently suggest that, although high levels of expressions of interest may be received, tender submissions are far lower.

For further information on the Self Declaration Form please contact

Annexes

Annex 1: Summary of contracts / questions asked

Annex 2: Full self-declaration form / tender document (attachments)

Source Regional Project – Self Declaration Form Case Study

- 1 -