As multi academy trusts continue to grow in scale and complexity, procurement has become a strategic function rather than a purely operational one, writes Kevin Parker in his latest article
Whether commissioning catering, estates management, IT services or curriculum support, the way we run tender processes has a direct impact on value for money, compliance and ultimately, educational outcomes. With regulatory changes on the horizon and increasing scrutiny on public spending, it is vital that MAT leaders understand both the opportunities and risks within procurement.
Understanding Frameworks and Purchasing Routes
One of the most effective tools available to MATs is the use of frameworks and compliant purchasing solutions. Framework agreements, whether established by central purchasing bodies, or independent providers, allow trusts to access pre-approved suppliers who have already passed quality, financial and compliance checks. This can significantly reduce the time and cost associated with running a full tender process.
In addition to frameworks, dynamic purchasing systems are becoming more prevalent. These are more flexible than traditional frameworks, allowing suppliers to join over time and enabling MATs to run competitions for specific needs. For trusts seeking innovation or operating in fast-moving sectors like IT, DPS can be particularly advantageous.
However, while these routes offer efficiency, they do not remove the need for due diligence. Trusts must ensure the chosen framework is compliant and appropriate for their requirements.
The Changing Landscape: The New Procurement Act
The introduction of the new Procurement Act marks a significant shift in how public sector procurement is regulated. Designed to simplify and modernise existing rules, the Act places greater emphasis on transparency, flexibility and value.
For MATs, one of the key changes is the increased requirement for transparency throughout the procurement lifecycle. This includes publishing notices not just at the award stage, but also during planning and contract management. The intention is to open up public procurement to a wider range of suppliers, including SMEs, while ensuring accountability.
The Act also introduces a more flexible competitive procedure, allowing trusts to design procurement processes that better suit their needs. While this is a welcome change, it also places greater responsibility on procurement leads to ensure processes are robust, fair and well-documented.
Importantly, the principles underpinning procurement: fairness, equal treatment, non-discrimination and proportionality, remain central. MATs must ensure these are embedded in every stage of their procurement activity.
Benefits of Frameworks and the Risks to Manage
Frameworks can deliver significant benefits: speed to market, reduced administrative burden and access to vetted suppliers. They also provide a level of assurance around compliance, which is particularly valuable for trusts with limited procurement resource.
However, these benefits can be undermined if frameworks are used incorrectly. A common misconception is that frameworks remove all risk; in reality, the responsibility for a compliant and defensible procurement still sits with the trust.
One key risk is misalignment between the framework scope and the trust’s requirements. If the services being procured fall outside the original framework specification, this can expose the trust to legal challenge.
Another consideration is value for money. While frameworks provide convenience, they do not always guarantee the best outcome. Trusts should critically assess whether a direct award represents the most economically advantageous option or whether further competition is warranted.
Getting the Fundamentals Right: Specification, Evaluation and Consistency
At the heart of any successful procurement is a clear and robust specification. This is where many processes succeed or fail. A poorly defined specification leads to inconsistent bids, unclear expectations, and ultimately, unsatisfactory outcomes. Trusts must invest time in articulating their requirements, both technical and operational, and ensure these are aligned with strategic objectives.
Equally critical is the evaluation process. Once criteria and weightings are set and published, they must be adhered to without deviation. Changing evaluation approaches mid-process, or applying criteria inconsistently, is one of the most common causes of legal challenge. Evaluators must be properly briefed, scoring must be evidence-based, and moderation processes should be documented thoroughly.
Consistency is key. Every bidder must be treated equally, given access to the same information, and assessed against the same standards. Even well-intentioned actions, such as clarifying a point for one supplier but not others, can undermine the integrity of the process.
Finally, documentation cannot be overlooked. A clear audit trail is essential, not only for internal governance but also in the event of a challenge. Transparency is no longer optional; it is a fundamental requirement.
Procurement in MATs is no longer just about compliance. It is about making strategic, informed decisions that deliver long-term value. Frameworks and new purchasing models offer significant opportunities, but they must be used with care and understanding. With the new Procurement Act raising the bar on transparency and accountability, trusts must ensure their processes are robust, consistent and well-governed.
Be the first to comment