Extracting optimum value from the Fairness Role
Recently, all levels of governments and public institutions have increased their reliance on the fairness role for large complex or contentious procurements. The primary objective of involving fairness resources is to provide objective evidence that the process has been run in a fair, open and transparent manner. This is by no means a reflection on the sound and experienced internal procurement teams who have been providing the role directly or indirectly in the past. Simply put, it adds a degree of impartiality, by engaging independent, neutral and objective observers or advisors experienced in this aspect of public procurement. Often the bidder community expresses greater confidence in the procurement process when a qualified fairness resource is involved.
The fairness role is still in its infancy and as a result, many organizations are struggling to identify when a fairness resource is good value for money. Furthermore, given there are no set standards or entrenched associations, it is difficult for public institutions to know what qualifications align best to the type of procurement they are undertaking.
Going back to the basics, three fundamental types of fairness roles exist in this market sector. Firstly, the most comprehensive role is that of a Fairness Advisor. They participate at the earliest stage before the solicitation is released and provide added value by testing the procurement process that has been laid out against its ability to achieve the desired outcome. They do not design the procurement; however, they provide proactive advice on unbiased measures that will help lead to the desired results and ensure that the key principles are clearly articulated so that all participants, both the client team and the bidders understand their roles and responsibilities.
The Fairness Monitor, on the other hand, only confirms that the process that has been adopted has been followed. They are often engaged after the procurement documents are finalized and they sign off only on the internal team’s compliance to the process described in the documents. This is a narrowly defined role - reflective more of a tick in the box approach.
The last key role consists of the Fairness Auditor, who reviews the procurement process after its completion certifying that it was conducted in a fair, open and transparent manner. They review the records and interview participants to gain an understanding of the steps that were followed in order to confirm that the process and outcome were not influenced by any biases.
Generally, Fairness Auditors are most useful in cases where the outcome has been contested or the public body realizes, during the process, that there may be concerns related to the award. Fairness Monitors really are most effective when the individual procurement is one in a series of similar procurements and does not introduce deviations from an established and tested process. For example, where the procurement authority is involved in a large program of work, it may use a Fairness Monitor for the latter projects. Projects where innovations are sought, that are complex in nature or could be – by their design – perceived to be directed to a specific bidder are best served by the involvement of Fairness Advisors.
It is important that the fairness resource has the responsibility, as well as the opportunity to identify potential flaws and risks in the procurement process early enough to be corrected before they become problematic. Both the procurement authority and the fairness resource would prefer to be able to conclude the procurement successfully with a clean fairness report. However, the fairness resource must remain impartial and must report conditions or events that are detrimental to the overall fairness of the procurement initiative.
Public bodies have been struggling with the best means to select their fairness resources. Sadly, there is no industry standard definition of a fairness advisor role. There are no established qualifications or certifications for a fairness advisor. Consequently there is little consistency in the definition of the role, the perspectives or the tools and techniques that are used by the fairness advisor to perform their role and bring value to the client, the supplier community and of course the tax payer. Some government organizations have started to describe the fairness role by using a consistent scope of work in vendor of record agreements.
The true value add of Fairness Monitors may be questionable. Have we come to a point where we have so little trust in our public sector that we chose to have repetitive and straightforward procurement scrutinized by third parties? Surely, internal governance and segregation of duties within the public sector could accomplish much the same objective. Do we need the assurance of an external consultant to rubber stamp the decisions of accountable public officials?
For the Fairness Advisor and Auditor roles, on the other hand, the benefits can be clearly demonstrated. In both these cases, it is important that the fairness resource is in a position to understand the public entity’s perspective, the procurement process that will be followed and the reasoning behind it as well as the bidders’ perspectives. Without necessarily being subject matter experts, they should understand the market sector where the procurement is being conducted and know the dynamics that may exist within the bidding community. Criteria such as PWGSC’s mandatory requirement in past procurements for fairness monitors to have a minimum of 75 employees seem arbitrary and certainly do not take into consideration where the bulk of expertise for this function currently resides.
So where does all this leave us? In order to achieve best value in the fairness role, it is important to match the initiative to the most appropriate role (scope of work description) and seek out the most appropriate resources that are qualified to provide the services. Until there is an established association or industry, public entities will have to rely on the ability of the consultants offering fairness services to demonstrate that they have been involved in similar procurements; that they have the qualifications for the work; and finally, that they will assume their role without impeding the procurement process by meddling in areas that have no bearing on the fairness in the process or outcome.
To learn more about how PPI Consulting can benefit your organization, contact us, or visit the PPI consulting website.