In terms of the Toolkit case studies, would you say it is an innovative partnership that has been established rather than the use of the innovation partnership procedure described in the Regulation, or was the Innovation Partnership procedure used? Are some of the issues linked to terminology? Is there flexibility to create your own procedure? Date: 08.06.21 A community innovative partnership starts as a commissioning, rather than a procurement, concept. The Local Authority’s role is adjusted from that of a directive market-purchaser and manager of budgets, to a provider and convener of resources and a co-ordinator and facilitator of public value outcomes; a lead stakeholder. Proper professional objectivity may be applied to the range of potential stakeholder relationships, consolidating them into a developmental innovative ecosystem. The purpose of the EU-based, current Public Procurement law is not directly optimising public services, but fair market competition. The two come together as an imprecise assumption that public service needs will be best met by free market provision. Sometimes they may be; often, they are not. However, there is a lack of formalised public law clarity about the professional commissioner’s procedural means of promoting more creative, purpose-directed, sector-integrating partnership. Reasonable objectivity principles apply generally, but are specifically codified in relation to service contracts, under the Procurement Regulations. The Plymouth Alliance Contract was put in place on general commissioning and procurement principles, without direct application of the statutory provision for “Innovation Partnerships”. The EU Procurement reforms of 2012-14, which resulted in the UK’s continuing Public Contracts Regulations 2015, focussed explicitly on the procurement procedures being recognised to be social policy instruments, as well as core EU single market pro-competition rules. The “Innovation Partnership” procedure was introduced as part of that initiative. So, within procurement regulation, there is a clear model for the creation of collaborative partnership in public services, which was only implicit before. This procedure was followed by Oldham Borough Council in establishing the social prescribing network, “Oldham Cares” (which is award-winning for innovation). It is quite right that the Procurement Light Touch Regime also generally applies to social services, which means the prescriptive procedure may, effectively, be reduced to reasonable public advertisement and allowing the flexibility for a creative procurement process, complying only with the fundamental general principles of: equal treatment; non-discrimination; transparency and proportionality. This was the approach of Leicestershire County Council in establishing its Children’s Services Innovation Partnership, which is a 10-year developmental, collaborative partnership with Barnardo’s. This is also award winning for innovation and the first-year independent evaluation report praised the project’s approach to “risk and uncertainty”, in pioneering the procedure. In contract, a significant number of other Local Authorities have been interested, but concluded that the procedure cannot be used, on the limiting, self-perpetuating basis, that other authorities have not used it. Unfortunately, the Government’s “Transforming Procurement” Green Paper takes the low take-up of formal Innovation Partnership as a reason not to continue with that procedural option, or the focus on the need for distinctiveness in social service procurement, represented by the Light Touch Regime. The emphasis on procedural flexibility is in itself positive, but there is a risk that current progress in innovative commissioning in public services may be disrupted, by Innovation Partnership and the Light Touch Regime being absorbed into generally applicable procedures.
In terms of the Toolkit case studies, would you say it is an innovative partnership that has been established rather than the use of the innovation partnership procedure described in the Regulation, or was the Innovation Partnership procedure used? Are some of the issues linked to terminology? Is there flexibility to create your own procedure? Date: 08.06.21 A community innovative partnership starts as a commissioning, rather than a procurement, concept. The Local Authority’s role is adjusted from that of a directive market-purchaser and manager of budgets, to a provider and convener of resources and a co-ordinator and facilitator of public value outcomes; a lead stakeholder. Proper professional objectivity may be applied to the range of potential stakeholder relationships, consolidating them into a developmental innovative ecosystem. The purpose of the EU-based, current Public Procurement law is not directly optimising public services, but fair market competition. The two come together as an imprecise assumption that public service needs will be best met by free market provision. Sometimes they may be; often, they are not. However, there is a lack of formalised public law clarity about the professional commissioner’s procedural means of promoting more creative, purpose-directed, sector-integrating partnership. Reasonable objectivity principles apply generally, but are specifically codified in relation to service contracts, under the Procurement Regulations. The Plymouth Alliance Contract was put in place on general commissioning and procurement principles, without direct application of the statutory provision for “Innovation Partnerships”. The EU Procurement reforms of 2012-14, which resulted in the UK’s continuing Public Contracts Regulations 2015, focussed explicitly on the procurement procedures being recognised to be social policy instruments, as well as core EU single market pro-competition rules. The “Innovation Partnership” procedure was introduced as part of that initiative. So, within procurement regulation, there is a clear model for the creation of collaborative partnership in public services, which was only implicit before. This procedure was followed by Oldham Borough Council in establishing the social prescribing network, “Oldham Cares” (which is award-winning for innovation). It is quite right that the Procurement Light Touch Regime also generally applies to social services, which means the prescriptive procedure may, effectively, be reduced to reasonable public advertisement and allowing the flexibility for a creative procurement process, complying only with the fundamental general principles of: equal treatment; non-discrimination; transparency and proportionality. This was the approach of Leicestershire County Council in establishing its Children’s Services Innovation Partnership, which is a 10-year developmental, collaborative partnership with Barnardo’s. This is also award winning for innovation and the first-year independent evaluation report praised the project’s approach to “risk and uncertainty”, in pioneering the procedure. In contract, a significant number of other Local Authorities have been interested, but concluded that the procedure cannot be used, on the limiting, self-perpetuating basis, that other authorities have not used it. Unfortunately, the Government’s “Transforming Procurement” Green Paper takes the low take-up of formal Innovation Partnership as a reason not to continue with that procedural option, or the focus on the need for distinctiveness in social service procurement, represented by the Light Touch Regime. The emphasis on procedural flexibility is in itself positive, but there is a risk that current progress in innovative commissioning in public services may be disrupted, by Innovation Partnership and the Light Touch Regime being absorbed into generally applicable procedures.