A couple of phone conversations, thoughts occasioned by the VHCC BVT experience and general lingering doubts lead me to pose the question:

Is the Preferred Supplier Scheme being kicked into the long grass?

Anonymous answers from our LSC readers in the comments box will of course be welcome.

ANOTHER THOUGHT

If I am wrong, which is entirely possible even given my generally sound predictive powers, then why an I currently reading so many phrases of this nature:

"We regard this as a temporary measure pending the introduction of best value tendering"

Many thanks to all of you who responded to yesterdays request. Load of really helpful comments, thoughts and encouragement.

Watch this space.

As we have mentioned before the LSC have now published a response to the Preferred Supplier Consultation. (I will give a fuller take on this later in the month).

Perhaps most intriguingly it seemingly introduces (somewhat out of a clear blue sky) compulsion with regard to the use of ECMS. This next new acronym refers to Electronic Case Management Systems i.e. mandatory use of new software, and yes without any grant funding or other support.

The entire section on "e-business" runs to less than one side of A4 (page 25 of the above linked document) with little more than a single paragraph covering this development.

To date there is no specification as to what, over and above online contract reporting, this will involve. We anticipate further information sometime in February.

I have always held what I think is a healthy scepticism with regard to the actual benefits of ECMS. We have consequently never seriously advised firms to make such an investment. Similarly neither have we jumped into bed with any suppliers either in a developmental or marketing role. Much of this stance is grounded in the practical experience of firms who have rarely seen benefit from such investment.

The spectre of compulsion forces a review of this stance. To this end we have entered into discussions with a software developer to explore a practical response. We have in mind a low cost, stand alone product developed out of an existing system which was designed for and by legal aid practitioners. Before we begin to invest further this is a simple request for some feed back.

If we developed a simple and cost effective product which delivers compliance would you be interested?

Would you rather wait for your current accounts software to be developed?

Is the product itself or after sales and support most important to you?

Would you be interested in any event, regardless of PSS compulsion?

Are you only interested in computer games?

Answers to these questions or any other thoughts on the subject would be gratefully received, either in the Comments, over the phone or by e-mail.

In the meantime don't panic this does look like being a medium rather than short term project.

Yesterday "Bemused", in the comments box asked for an explanation of this post.

My first tongue in cheek response (also in the comments box) was:

"Once your KPI monitoring shows green a FAVFM will be undertaken on your firm. If your RAG status remains green you will get a PR and need a grade 1 or 2 to get into the PSS. BVCs will subsequently only be offered to PSs."

More seriously, here is a brief summary of the PS process in Civil. Key Performance Indicators (or KPIs) will probably be an amalgam of current monitoring data compared to performance against the new standard fees and reporting codes. They will be "developed with input from practitioners". RAG is a red/amber/green assessment process (similar to the current low/medium/high risk designation), only those on "green", for go, will be progressed to the next stage, File Assessment Value for Money. A detailed explanation of this and the process is due shortly however as described looks a lot like an expanded contract compliance exercise but with no "extrapolation" risk. It is essentially a final filtration process prior to Peer Review (although the process will operate the other way round, PR first, in crime). You will require a top table score, 1 or 2, on PR to become a Preferred Supplier, and ultimately only such firms will be able to participate in Best Value Contracting. Easy isn’t it.

The rather tenuous answer to the Smashie and Nicey question is in the title. S & N worked on FAB FM (until they were moved to Radio Quiet) famously only playing Bachman Turner Overdrive's - "You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet".

To participate in the Preferred Supplier Scheme (PSS) you will have to check you RAG status with regard to your KPIs and be tuned into FAV FM.

If none of this makes any sense (and there is every reason why this might be the case) check this previous post with a link to the PSS document. I am currently writing an article for the CLSA on the subject and will cross post it here on completion.

In the meantime Let's Rock!

Can anyone guess the slightly obtuse connection between these two and Preferred Supplier? (It is really just an opportunity to lighten things up bit). Answer tomorrow.

I am currently up against deadlines on appeals and one set of PR reps in particular, so a more substantive post regarding Preferred Supplier is not possible. (The headline seems to me to be "bad but not as bad as we thought").

One thing does seem clear however - the LSC have a renewed interest in conducting on-site audits as evidenced by the number of notifications and panic phone calls we have recently received. Generally, though not always, there is little immediately apparent from the risk management statistics (CMRC & QPRs) to justify a visit and where there is, it is probably only enough to indicate medium rather than high risk.

This leads to a slightly lob sided event with not sufficient to occupy the audit teams time for a full day on risk areas. The result is often long sessions considering business planning and financial management, either as a consequence of the level of risk or, and we think more pertinently, because of the centrality of these other factors to the PSS.

As we have said before old fashioned and slightly cynical approaches to business planning (with which we have somewhat unwillingly colluded) will have to end.

That said the pressure for "corrective action" and to define a clear three year strategy in the current environment seems ludicrous. "Tell me if I have a contract, what I will be paid and if I will be a likely PS first" - seems a reasonable response.

That said there is practical groundwork which can be done so - talk to us about the PSS.