This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
FINAL THOUGHTS


CHRIS MARRIOTT


As more councils outsource the management of their leisure facilities, it’s vital that they choose the most appropriate procurement route, says Capita Symonds’ Chris Marriott


T


he message that local authori- ties can make big savings by outsourcing the management of their leisure facilities has


been received loud and clear. Activity in the leisure outsourcing market has increased markedly since my article in Leisure Management last year; so much so that it seems appro- priate to continue with the theme. The proportion of leisure facilities operated directly by local authorities looks set to rapidly reduce from around 60 per cent to perhaps 40 per cent over the next couple of years. Councils managing in-house will be in the minority.


ATTRACTING INTEREST Over the next six months there will be a feast of opportunities pre- sented to the contractor market. The question for a local authority is how best to present their portfolio. How they do this is fairly straightfor-


ward. Leisure contractors will base their decision on whether to bid for a partic- ular contract on a number of criteria. Geographical location and the size of portfolio are two factors that a coun- cil can’t do much about. What councils do have control over, however, is the amount of preparation they do before going out to market. If contractor bid- ders are suspicious that very little thinking has been done before launch- ing the process – a ‘let’s see what the market comes back with’ approach – then councils may find themselves with limited interest in their portfolio. A client with a clear idea of what they


want is more attractive because the risk of delays and additional bidding costs are considered so much lower. The other factor councils have control over is how they procure their operator.


74


Local authorities are highly risk-averse. They don’t want to risk making a bad decision, particularly by choosing the wrong contractor partner to deliver their service. It’s this risk aversion that has contributed to the ever-increasing pace of the juggernaut that is compet- itive dialogue, which appears to have become the default mode of travel for local authority officers in getting to their procurement destination. The reason it’s become so popular is that it pro-


“Local authorities are highly risk averse. It’s this risk


aversion that’s contributed


to the pace of the juggernaut that is competitive dialogue.”


vides plenty of opportunity for councils to discuss, debate, and challenge pro- spective partners. The problem with competitive dia- logue is that it can be expensive and time-consuming. The recent Review of Competitive Dialogue by HM Treasury (November 2010) recommended how to improve the public procurement process generally. Given the impera- tive for councils to achieve better value for money and shorten delivery times, the review refers to the 2008 guidance advising that competitive dialogue should only be used where a project is “particularly complex”. There are a few examples either cur-


rently in the market or about to be launched that are patently not complex but still insist on using the competitive dialogue route. Indeed it’s even being used by those local authorities who


Read Leisure Management online leisuremanagement.co.uk/digital


are merely re-tendering an existing lei- sure management contract for which they have a clear idea of what out- comes they want to achieve.


TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE So what? Why should local authori- ties care? Well, given that there are going to be unprecedented numbers of opportunities in the market over the next few years, bidders may con- sider those councils using the shorter restricted procedure or negotiated procedures to be more attractive bets. Councils preferring competi- tive dialogue for seemingly no good reason risk attracting less interest and jeopardising their chances of achieving best value for money. The message is therefore that using competitive dialogue shouldn’t necessarily be considered the low-risk procurement option. One final point: we’re seeing a number of council briefs issued to lei- sure procurement consultants where time is of the essence in securing an operator. Councils are under pressure to deliver savings early. However, this hasn’t deterred some from expressing a clear preference for competitive dia- logue, a process which doesn’t lend itself to a shorter timeframe. There are likely to be some very


attractive leisure portfolios coming onto the market soon. Through out- sourcing its leisure service and making a long term contractual commitment, a council can secure two key objectives: significant annual cost savings and the sustainability of its leisure facilities. Local authorities should ensure they help maximise the potential of achiev- ing these two objectives through their choice of an appropriate – and attrac- tive – procurement route. l


ISSUE 2 2011 © cybertrek 2011


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  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76