[ Update: PQQs ]
Question time P
Standardising commonly asked questions on prequalifi cation should be a priority – so it’s about time PAS 91 became a full British Standard, says Paul Reeve
ut simply, there are too many pre- qualifi cation schemes and questionnaires in the industry. All this excess paperwork costs suppliers (and, ultimately whoever pays for construction) hundreds of
millions of pounds in wasted time and fees. A very good way to stop this waste is to standardise the commonly asked questions, and PAS 91:2013 Construction prequalifi cation questionnaires (PQQ) does just that. PAS 91 is very good at showing ‘what good looks like’ for basic, common enquiries about suppliers’ capabilities. The document, which has wide government support, is ‘fi t for purpose’. PAS 91 is already sponsored by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), while the Cabinet Offi ce’s 2011 industry strategy said: ‘The use of PAS 91 standardised PQQ wording has been mandated within government. [We want to] ensure that the approach spreads through the public sector.’
Gaining ground Despite a frustratingly slow start, PAS 91 now seems to be gaining ground, not just with government but also with other buyers such as local authorities – and even some pre- qualifi cation schemes. However, it is continually at risk from new government PQQ initiatives and an array of supply chain schemes. Take for example, this autumn’s government consultation on ‘simplifying public sector PQQs’. This made some very helpful comments about simplifying
PAS 91 now seems to be gaining ground, not just with government but also with other buyers
PAS 91: 2013
PQQs, and even attached a draft PQQ template. Unfortunately, the template looks suitable for fi nding someone to change the water dispenser, but it is absolutely useless for a construction job. Somehow, someone forgot about PAS 91. Meanwhile, too many industry PQQ and similar schemes would like to bypass PAS 91 for commercial reasons (‘use my scheme on your suppliers – it’s tough, it’s diff erent and that makes it the best’). Despite this, PAS 91 (which is eff ectively a draft standard) has too much to off er for us to lose it in the pre-qualifi cation melee. What it needs now is a further boost, and that boost could be provided by moving it up to a full British Standard.
De facto If we also make the new standard a specifi cation, it would be the industry’s de facto PQQ scheme, since suppliers can then be assessed against it, and show any other buyer they have achieved it. ‘One scheme, many providers’ is a very appealing prospect. A new British Standard will take some work, and plenty of consultation, but we should start as soon as possible. Perhaps there is a BS number out there right now, just waiting for a decent construction PQQ standard.
About the author
Paul Reeve is director of Business Services at the ECA and was a contributing author to PAS 91, which is free to download from the BSI website
December 2013 ECA Today 43
ANDREAS G. KARELIAS/SHUTTERSTOCK
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68