Procurement and other ailments

[this was written for RTPI Insite Magasine - a publication circulated to Irish members of the RTPI]

While its hard not to think of the Irish “smart economy” or “smart planning” as a complete oxymoron, on a par with “military intelligence”, it is nonetheless a pretty serious concept as we now start to scrape ourselves to our collective feet. Repetition of a mantra doesn’t make it a reality. The Daily Show’s slogan “maybe we can’t” is a particularly devilish turn on Obama’s epiphany. How do we encourage innovation, creativity and efficiency that will make this country truly competitive? Well, one of the lessons of economic recoveries in Finland and New Zealand is the importance of supporting small indigenous, creative companies.
One area of our economy that is desperately in need of a spring clean is procurement. The system of tendering for projects in Ireland is an administrative dinosaur. It is wasteful of resources, time and energy. It is slow, inefficient and opaque. It is unfair and stifles creativity, in favour of status quo and propagation of doing things as they have always been done.

This is because, even for the most basic job, public liability insurance thresholds are typically of the order of 3 million, annual turnover of the company is usually required to be in excess of €1m per annum. Businesses irrespective of the personnel involved are required to have long established trading records. This is not a question of smaller firms being placed at a disadvantage, its effect is that such firms cannot even contemplate competing for projects, because they will fail at the first hurdle irrespective of all other criteria.

The consultancy sector in Ireland has been broken up into a multitude of small firms, alliances and sole traders. People are rolling up their sleeves and adopting to the new realities of the IMF of Ireland, but they have to be given a fighting chance.

We also need to look at the practices of local authorities and private interests who procure work. For example a western county who recently advertised for a PPP road scheme project (design), invited approximately 20 consultancies to interview. The amount expended on tendering, and appearance at the interview by the firms was more than the project was worth. There was also the incidence of a harbour company inviting architectural firms from across Europe to come up with plans for redevelopment, without any statutory basis for the project. It was basically a beauty parade to serve the directors own misguided egos. This sort of practice wastes everybody’s time, and deflects them from addressing their daily duties. Firms cannot employ staff on the basis of putting in tenders, as there is no income from it to justify such appointments. There a complete lack of transparency.
What is more important for a developer commissioning a planning consultant, Health and safety, project management practices, or the ability to give good advice?
As an Institute we need to consider a set of rules, and instruct both the client and the consultant what should be reasonably expected in procurement and negotiation.
Is there a price beneath which a piece of work should not be done? Is it acceptable or ethical for consultants to undertake projects at a cost or on a loss making basis. Should the Institute write to architectural and engineering practices that offer free planning advice? Is it ethical for a local authority to appoint professional planners to undertake a project at a fee level that does not allow the payment of household bills? Should we have standards for consultations- where we charge a fee for professional consultation as any doctor or lawyer?

We also need to be conscious of the non-payers. Should the institute possess a book of clients with a record of poor payment or non-payment (in both public and private sectors)? Whatever about competition, none of us wants to see rogue operators getting away with sharp practices to the loss of colleagues in the Institute. No allegations need to be set down in writing, but it may be sufficient to flag an issue, that would allow a phone call to be made.

Planners need to compete for work on a fair, ethical and transparent basis. Current practices and rules are unacceptable and detrimental to the profession. The RTPI has an important role in firstly recognising a vastly changed planning sector and supporting its development.