Print Buying
Three-quarters of SMEs 'not bidding for government contracts'
Three-quarters of small- to medium-sized businesses (SMEs) rarely or never bid for government work, according to a recent survey by three leading industry bodies.
The report, published by the British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association (BVCA), the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) and the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), urged the government to ensure a greater proportion of public sector contracts are awarded to SMEs.
John Wright, FSB national chairman, said that opening up government contracts to SMEs would boost the economy. "Small businesses offer great value to communities and by using them, money is kept within the local community," he said.
"Small businesses should be made aware of the practical steps they need to take to improve their bids; without government support they are put at a disadvantage."
The report found that three-quarters of the 500 SMEs who took part in the survey felt there was a lack of responsiveness and too much formality in the procurement process, while over half said the tendering process and timescale require too many resources to respond effectively.
Professor Russel Griggs, chairman of the CBI SME council, said: "This survey reveals that small and growing businesses need to be given fair access to winning these contracts by removing barriers in the procurement process."
The study comes as printers are backing PrintWeek's petition to ensure easier access to public sector contracts among SMEs.
More than 200 have now voiced their support as the pressure grows on the government to reduce subscription fees to tenders website supply2.gov.uk and reduce the paperwork involved in the tender process.
Get your voice heard, sign up to the PrintWeek petition.
Comments
Mick Hart - 17 October 2008
It is absolutely unbelievable, but sadly true, that we are expected to pay for information about public sector tenders. Even then, all that is offered is an opportunity to apply for a pre-qualification questionnaire \(PQQ). After spending many hours obtaining the information, references, financial data and other totally irrelevant ''stuff' requested, and submitting it - you might, if lucky, be offered the opportunity to tender for the work. If the ITT \(invitation to tender) then supplied to you is suitable to what your company has to offer \(and it often isn't, say a 50/50 chance) you might spend several days \(or even weeks) in quoting for what usually amounts to be a vast collection of general 'jobbing work' projects, which may or may not happen. These jobs used to be placed out to their relevant sectors individually, but it would seem the government thought this unfair, hence the tender process.
It is small wonder that 75% of SME's don't bother - it simply isn't worth the effort, especially when, after many failed efforts, you finally realise that the work will be placed with the biggest, most impressive bidder, \(often a non-manufacturer), at vastly inflated cost, to the exclusion of you and the diminishing number of SME's that should be doing the work.
Bill Cheesman - 17 October 2008
Spot on Mick. It used to be a quick phone call from one of the public sector bodies - job done. We have put quite a lot of money (for us) into the notification systems and, like you, have found nothing but grief. Naturally, we have now unsubscribed from these systems. We will chase public sector work when it becomes more accessible and simpler.
Matthew Parker - 17 October 2008
A simpler purchasing strategy would also result in lower costs for the public sector as they would not waste so much resource in going through such a long winded tender process. It would also seem that some education of the public sector's print buying community might be in order.
Matthew Parker
www.printandprocurement.com
NDCT - 17 October 2008
Agreed with the comments so far. The best thing that can happen in the coming recession is that the public sector bureaucrats get pushed back into the private sector, have to think about productivity, cost and efficiency, and contribute to the economy in a meaningful way.
These tenders are a complete joke and I don't think for one minute that they actually benefit the public sector organisations that commission them. How can a closed list of one or two printers after a three month tender exercise benefit a local authority?
I know of two universities where departments have found themselves paying through the nose for years because they had to buy from a closed list.
The whole thing is so ludicrous and illogical, I often wonder whether the system is in fact run for political reasons or perhaps corruption.
To post comments please log in here