Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform debate -
Wednesday, 21 Jan 2015

Operations and Functions: Office of Government Procurement

I welcome Mr. Paul Quinn, chief procurement officer of the Office of Government Procurement, who is accompanied by Mr. Vincent Campbell, policy director, and Ms Theresa Ryan, communications manager. I also welcome Ms Gráinne McGuckin, principal officer at the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. The format of the meeting will be that Mr. Quinn will make some opening remarks and, in view of the time constraints, I ask that he take less than ten minutes to do so. I remind members, witnesses and those in the Visitors Gallery that all mobile phones must be switched off.

I wish to advise the witnesses that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they will be entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Members are reminded of the long-standing ruling of the Chair to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I call Mr. Quinn.

Mr. Paul Quinn

I thank the committee for the invitation to attend this meeting.

It is important to note that the new structures for procurement are still at a very early stage. As chief procurement officer, CPO, I welcome this debate, and the advice and guidance that committees such as this can provide, as we start to make significant changes to how procurement is done in the State and the policy framework that underpins the processes involved. I understand the committee is interested, in particular, in the possible impacts of the new suite of procurement directives that were agreed by the EU Parliament and Council earlier this year. I welcome this opportunity to provide it with an update on the transposition process and the procurement reform programme currently under way across the public sector.

The procurement reform programme is an important element of the Government’s overall reform programme and is tasked with delivering increased value for money, more accurate and timely data and improvement in the capacity and capability of procurement across the public service. The State spends significant amounts of money on goods and services, with an estimated spend in 2014 of €8.5 billion. Of this, €5.8 billion was addressable by procurement. In addition, approximately €3.5 billion is spent by the State on capital works. This does not currently come within the scope of the operational reforms. A new model for procurement was approved by the Government in September 2012, with common goods and services to be procured by a new central sourcing organisation, the Office of Government Procurement, OGP, and with central sectoral sourcing organisations in health, education, local government and defence procuring sectoral-specific goods and services.

In January 2013, I took up my role as the State’s first chief procurement officer.

In consultation with the key State sectors, I developed a high-level implementation plan for the new model. This plan was approved by Government in April 2013. In addition to its operational procurement role, the Office of Government Procurement, OGP, also provides the national procurement policy function, customer support services, and systems for all the sourcing organisations, including electronic tendering systems, business intelligence and electronic catalogues, etc. The new structural arrangements for the OGP and the sector-sourcing organisations are currently being put in place. Staff are being recruited into the OGP largely from the public service, thereby concentrating and leveraging the public sector's procurement expertise. Similar processes are taking place in local government, education and health in order to create the centralised sourcing organisations in those sectors. Transition arrangements are being managed across these sourcing organisations to realign responsibilities. It is anticipated that completion of structural changes will take place in 2015. The OGP has met with most of its key customers, namely, Departments and agencies, to commence the process of transferring their pipeline of sourcing projects to the OGP and to the other sector-sourcing organisations.

The new model is underpinned by a common governance model. The arrangements include a procurement executive to bring together the sourcing organisations at an operational level to co-operate and collaborate; a steering group to oversee the transition to the new model; and an interim board chaired, by the Minister of State, Deputy Simon Harris, to provide strategic advice on procurement matters to the OGP and to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.

Accountability for the legal compliance of the sourcing process will rest with the sourcing organisation that undertakes the tendering. The OGP does not have the resources or mandate to oversee or audit the actions of other sourcing organisations. The OGP relies upon the existing governance arrangements in place for those public bodies, including the offices of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Local Government Audit Service, to provide such assurance. Budget responsibility remains with the public service bodies. The contractual arrangements put in place by the new sourcing organisations will help these bodies to remain compliant and to deliver value for money. Any savings arising from procurement remains with these bodies, enabling them operate within their budgets, to deal with increased demand or to deliver new projects or services. Value for money is defined by more than price alone; it also takes into account the quality of the goods or services provided, the management of risk, such as the financial stability of the service providers, and the contractual protections suppliers are providing to the State, such as the warranties they are providing and the risks they are bearing.

There continues to be wide-ranging data quoted regarding procurement spend. There are thousands of State bodies spending money, the larger of whom have IT systems for processing spend, the smaller of whom are probably using spreadsheets or even paper to record their spend information. The State previously had no mechanism for collecting detailed data on the amount of moneys spent across the public service on goods and services. It has not been possible to determine in detail how much is spent, with whom, on what, and at what price.

I will explain to the committee what OGP is doing to bring about better data on procurement. In autumn 2013, the OGP initiated a project to begin collecting the spend information from the larger sectors, namely, health, education, local government and justice, which account for over 80% of the State's spend on goods and services. The OGP has collected approximately €8.7 billion of the State's spend in one central repository. This is a total figure from 2011 to 2014. The project has moved on to a second phase which, when complete, will include central government. For the first time this will allow the OGP in the coming months to publish far more accurate estimates of spend.

The OGP is fully aware of the significant role that small and medium enterprises play in the economy and it is strongly committed to ensuring that SMEs are fully engaged with public sector procurement and the opportunities presenting. The office works with State and industry representative bodies in developing and implementing policy initiatives and in driving supplier education and awareness. In that regard, it is important to mention Circular 10/14 which was launched in April 2014 in order to further assist SMEs and which accelerates the delivery of certain measures in the new procurement Directive 2014/24/EC. The OGP has also delivered a number of improvements in Ireland's electronic tendering platform - e-tenders - including changes to registration and recording of awards for contracts in excess of €25,000.

As part of my submission to the committee, I have attached a report from the EU Commission entitled, SMEs' Access to Public Procurement Markets and Aggregation of Demand in the EU. The report, which was published in 2014, outlines the increasing drive towards centralised professional procurement and the administrative and competitive benefits arising. The report highlights the competitive nature of the Irish marketplace and the open nature of Irish public procurement in that context. The report - on page 71 - highlights measures which Governments can undertake to assist SMEs. Many of these have been implemented in Ireland.

I will speak about the legal framework for public procurement. The main purpose of the EU public procurement regime is to open up the market and to ensure the free movement of supplies, services and works within the EU. The legal framework for public procurement is drawn from the core Treaty of Rome principles, including openness, transparency, proportionality, non-discrimination and equal treatment. These principles shape the detailed rules governing the regime and as set out in the directives.

A new suite of public procurement directives was politically agreed under the Irish EU Presidency. The three new directives will govern general public procurement of goods, services and works, procurement in the utilities sector and new rules for concessions procurement. These new directives will repeal the existing rules governing the conduct of procurement across the EU but the overall framework of EU procurement remains intact. The implementing regulations will continue to uphold transparency in money outcomes for contracting authorities and entities.

The changes agreed in the directives are intended to help to make the public procurement process more efficient and to seek more simplified and flexible rules for the selection of suppliers in order to allow contracting authorities to carry out procurement in a more timely manner and with less red tape. In broader economic policy terms, the changes are intended to achieve better value-for-money outcomes for the taxpayer from public procurement; to facilitate greater SME participation in the public procurement market across Europe by improving access to public procurement opportunities; and to reinforce adherence to applicable obligations in the areas of environmental, social and labour law. It is important that in transposing EU rules into national law, contracting authorities and tenderers are not unduly burdened by requirements that increase their administrative overhead and bureaucratic load. The planned approach, therefore, is to avoid creating unnecessary legislative burdens on contracting authorities or in placing Irish economic operators - the suppliers - at a competitive disadvantage when compared with their EU neighbours. Where appropriate, contract conditions can be used in pursuance of policy objectives if related to the subject matter of the contract and if clearly set out in the tender documentation.

While most of the changes in the new directives are mandatory for Ireland and all member states to implement into national law, there is some limited policy latitude permitted to member states in transposing the new regime into national legislation. This office is exploring policy choices as part of the transposition process and has carried out internal consultation with key stakeholders and initiated a public consultation process. The public consultation on the new directives was launched on 31 October 2014 by the Minister of State, Deputy Simon Harris. Responses on the key policy questions posed in the document were required by 12 December 2014. Given the importance of public procurement, we received submissions across a broad spectrum of areas, including legal, SME, academic and industry representative bodies. This office is currently examining the submissions received and consideration will be given to the responses received when drafting the statutory instruments to implement the EU rules into national law.

The new directives are required to be transposed by 17 April 2016-----

Will Mr. Quinn come back to the core issues because we may get stuck for time? We will come back to the other issues he wishes to raise in detail if questions are asked on them.

Mr. Paul Quinn

I will not go through the rest of the report and I will take it as read for the meeting. I will highlight a couple of points.

Circular 10/14 was a key policy instrument that we launched in April 2014. It is critically important in terms of implementation across contracting authorities because it opens up and sets the rules for them as they address the marketplace and it is SME friendly. We did that in consultation with the industry groups, including ISME, SFA, IBEC and CIF. We consulted broadly with them before implementing the circular.

I will talk further about social clauses during the meeting but considerable work is under way. The Minister launched a group in 2014 to establish social clauses policy work and it has identified 11 projects to date to further test and develop social clauses in contracts. We also mentioned in the report positive developments on the schools bundle programme where existing social clauses are being rolled out. There have been positive and welcome developments in that context.

We can discuss PPPs and concessions during the question and answer session.

We mentioned the community and voluntary sector. This office has met The Wheel, in particular, as a key representative of that sector. We had a positive meeting in the context of understanding where the sector is coming from and helping people to understand the new changes being brought to bear by the directives and legislation introduced at EU level.

Public procurement is still incredibly important to the State and the taxpayer in terms of the value for money it can generate. We are bringing new structures to bear in this respect but we are at an early stage. The OGP is still only building its capability and capacity; 2015 will be a key year of transition. It is important during the transition, though, that we listen to all our stakeholders. We have good mechanisms for that and we have put in place good structures. I welcome further discussion with the committee.

I welcome Mr. Quinn and his colleagues. I will not make an opening statement. I will ask questions and if Mr. Quinn does not have sufficient time to respond, I ask him to forward his responses to the committee in the next day or two. He said €8.5 billion out of current expenditure is spent annually, €5.8 billion of which is addressable by procurement. Will he explain the other €2.7 billion that cannot be addressed by procurement? He said the capital expenditure programme, which is valued at €3.5 billion, is not included in his office's work. Why not?

He stated the EU Commission report "highlights the competitive nature of the Irish marketplace and the open nature of Irish public procurement in that context". That is the particular problem Irish companies face. "Open" means open to companies outside Ireland to bid. That is where Ireland is losing out. I tabled a parliamentary question asking the Minister why we were not at the European standard in terms of businesses in Ireland getting business from Irish public bodies and he replied that this was because all our documents are printed in English. Companies in every country are familiar with English and are well able to tender and bid for our contacts whereas in Italy, France, Greece and Spain procurement documents are printed in the home language, which is not as readily accessible by companies in every other member state. I would like Mr. Quinn to address that issue because I was surprised by that comment. If we published the documents in Irish and helped Irish people to translate them in some way, we might keep some of the others out, as they successfully do in other countries by using their native language.

Will Mr. Quinn confirm that commercial semi-State bodies are not covered by his office? That is the largest gap in his operation. I acknowledge these bodies have a commercial mandate. I will not even mention how much Irish Water is supposed to spend but if that does not come under procurement rules, where are we going?

Mr. Quinn mentioned the Department of Health but another significant gap relates to the procurement of drugs and medicines. The HSE, which is not covered by the OGP, is not competent and it is afraid of the large pharmaceutical companies. It goes cap in hand to them because they are significant employers. Has Mr. Quinn examined his office taking over responsibility for procurement in this area and perhaps working with an equivalent officer in another member state to jointly procure? I do not accept, nor does anybody in Ireland, that we are getting value for money in this regard. Part of the reason for this is we feel a little insecure in putting it up to large employers and we are afraid to upset them. Perhaps if the OGP worked with a similar office in England, France or Spain, a better deal might be achieved.

Mr. Quinn made no mention of the cost of his office, the number of staff and the break even period. It obviously cost tens of millions of euro to set up the operation. Will he provide the figures?

Everybody wants social clauses included in contracts. When will he review the 11 projects under way? Will that be at the end of the contracts, which could be a few years away?

When Mr. Quinn visits the Department of Education and Skills with a procurement list, there is a breakdown in communication between his office and some schools. The procurement list includes photocopying paper, pencils, rulers, IT equipment and so on and schools are told they must operate from the list unless they can get a better deal locally. Schools use the supplier on the list as the nominated supplier when they want items that are not on the list that were tendered for. The school principals are being rolled over for the additional items not on the list when they order online. Will Mr. Quinn address this?

I refer to the links to payment. It is fine for the OGP to have a role in procurement but does it have a role in making sure the payments correspond with the procurement contracts, given there are overruns all over the place?

Shame on the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation because the Construction Contracts Act 2013 has not yet been implemented. There is, therefore, no protection for subcontractors in public procurement contracts. The Act was passed two years ago, having been on the legislative list for five years. Officials are fluting around over which Department should be responsible or who should be the chair of the bodies that come under it. The industry came under the remit of the Department of Finance for years but it is now under another Department and years later there are no agreed chairmen and mediation procedures in place. The OGP is deliberately dragging its feet. If there was a will to implement the legislation, it would have been implemented.

When will the public contracts review be completed? Mr. Quinn said that perhaps this might happen next year. Are zero energy contracts being considered in buildings such as schools? The office should be working towards energy efficiency.

Does his office examine the payment record of companies that tender? That has been a problem. It is known that directors of many of the companies that won contracts operated through different shelf companies and did not pay people in the past. They produced financial statements, accountants' reports and tax clearance certificates but one will know in one's heart that these are not honest people but the OGP is trapped in having to award them contracts. The payment record of the principals of companies must be factored in. The office should have a mechanism to track that.

That is my series of questions. I am happy with that and if Mr. Quinn runs out of time, I would like the answers to the other questions forwarded to the committee.

Mr. Paul Quinn

I thank the Deputy for the questions. The first item might be better handled in a tabular format through a separate written response. We believe we can make more progress quickly with regard to main goods and services. Capital is included in the office's remit from a policy perspective and Mr. Campbell's policy team deals with procurement policy across both goods and services and capital works. Operationally, capital works are typically large bespoke projects, where the procurement bit is a small aspect of the overall tendering process. At this time, from a taxpayer perspective we would be best to focus on working on goods and services, which is a major part of the transactional activity - and repeat transactional activity - taking place within the State. I would not rule it out at a later stage but where we are in our development, I do not think it will happen.

If the committee has the PwC report that was circulated, I will give some very useful information relating to the open nature of Irish public procurement. A document from the EU was its genesis and it was drafted by PwC and other parties. It is the first time it has contrasted not only works awarded by the Irish State to businesses outside the State but it also brings into play contracts awarded to Irish companies by other jurisdictions. Pages 66 and 67 of the report give the relevant figures. In summary, between 2009 and 2011, for above-threshold procurements or large procurements that must go into the EU Journal, 14.3% of the expenditure by value went outside the Irish State. In contrast, 17.2% of the value of goods and services that the Irish State has as above threshold came into the economy. Being open is not a one-way street and Irish businesses are winning more in Europe than is flowing the other way.

That is not from the Office of Government Procurement. It is nothing to do with it. They do it for Ireland.

Mr. Paul Quinn

I am saying the net picture for Ireland is good as there is an open procurement regime. I will speak a little more about what we are doing about that. I have already mentioned Circular 10/14 and there are a number of various initiatives to try to help not only from a policy perspective but to enable small and medium enterprises, SMEs, by breaking larger contracts into lots by reducing turnover requirements and by being flexible in not requiring SMEs to submit lots of documentation in advance. These are good initiatives as well but on the other side we are doing much with building awareness and education within the SME community. We work very closely with Enterprise Ireland and Intertrade Ireland. Some Deputies were able to attend the event we had in October or early November in Citywest which had approximately 700 suppliers in attendance. That was great as those attending could meet people from our office and other sectoral organisations in the new structures. We are doing much in helping awareness and education in Irish companies.

I must ask that the witness have the answers to the remaining questions forwarded to the secretariat and we can get them to the Deputy.

Mr. Paul Quinn

That is okay. I will comment on another issue that is worth mentioning. I regret that semi-State bodies are not included from an operational perspective. From a policy perspective, they are obliged to follow the policies set by the Government and the office. With regard to the HSE and drugs in particular, that arrangement is overseen, by and large, by the Department and not the HSE. We have offered our assistance, as was mentioned to the Committee of Public Accounts, to the Department of Health to help it procure those goods and services.

We support the office with that.

Mr. Paul Quinn

I will revert with the replies to the other questions.

There is little I can ask that has not been raised by Deputy Fleming. The State spends a lot of money on procuring goods and services, with the objective of driving efficiencies in that sector, which is beneficial for the taxpayer. My experience at a constituency level is that nobody has come in to me to tell me a business is thriving because of the Office of Government Procurement; I have had the opposite experience, with small businesses in my constituency squeezed out of contracts they had in the public service. Will the witnesses flesh out how this is beneficial for service providers? I appreciate the point that given the European aspect, we could gain business on that level. That refers to individual companies which are doing business for themselves with opportunities. On the other hand, many indigenous small Irish companies who are not in a position to avail of the big opportunities in Europe are being squeezed out by companies coming in and taking Irish business.

It is important to have assistance in place for people buying and selling, whether we are talking about toilet paper, paper clips or school books. It is also important to have systems in place. Let us not become preoccupied with having systems in place if there is no delivery for business, workers, employees and the State in general. Will the witnesses give me the good news story as it exists for Irish SMEs, as I have not seen it? As I noted, in my constituency I have seen the opposite. I know two companies, one of which was involved with education and one which dealt with hospitality, that have lost substantial business in this process. They would be highly critical of what has happened with regard to the businesses that replaced them. When we look behind a company facade, it amounts to import substitution, as it may be bringing in products from China as opposed to using indigenous products. It is not all about price and should not be all about price.

If there is any remaining time, I would be interested in getting answers to some of the questions raised by Deputy Fleming.

The Deputy's colleague will have that opportunity first.

Mr. Paul Quinn

I thank the Deputy for the questions. I can give a better flavour of some of the performance statistics and spend information. The PwC report I mentioned relates to above-threshold expenditure. As part of my submission, I mentioned that the office has been gathering spend information since October 2013. We now have a fairly good picture of expenditure, although it is still a sample. We have a fairly good picture of the profile of expenditure which now takes place across the State.

In that regard, out of our approximately €12 billion, we have analysis at a detailed level for approximately €3.2 billion for 2013. It is approximately a quarter of the total for the sample size. It is statistically valid because it is such a big sample. There is detail of expenditure for some key sectors, including health, education, justice and local government, so it includes much of the infrastructure of the State. It would include gardaí and local authorities, and we have much information for health and the education sector, albeit not small national schools. This provides a good understanding of how the State spends its money.

I can give some headlines on what that means as the above-threshold section only provides a view of the bigger picture. The PwC report draws attention to this.

In terms of small goods and services contracts, they are almost all won within the State. The information I will provide will reinforce this statement. The Minister read into the record of the Dáil the fact that the Office of Government Procurement, OGP, had estimated that approximately 95% of all goods and services spend remained within the island of Ireland and approximately 75% of that expenditure was with small to medium-sized enterprises, SMEs. From the sample that we have in place, we have associated statistics. There was €2.7 billion of a spend in 2013. The good news is that, while this is not quite 95%, 93.34% of all expenditure stayed within the island.

Procurement is all about driving competition and some suppliers that might have had long-standing relationships with small public bodies do not like having to go through public competitions. From the perspective of the taxpayer and procurement, it is a question of fairness, openness and transparency and of bringing a competition to bear, be it small or large, in which people routinely participate. Sometimes, those long-standing relationships must be put to the test on behalf of the taxpayer. Ultimately, this is why the directives and legislation are there. On behalf of taxpayers, they require public bodies to go through this process and buy their goods and services in a fair, open and transparent way. Our competitions often see anywhere between five and ten bidders. As there can only be one winner, sometimes business moves. We do not see the profile changing substantially at an overall level, however, so the business will stay on the island. We are working with the business representative bodies to try to support Irish businesses to understand public procurement so that not only can they win business here, but also look to export more.

I will discuss the statistics on SMEs. Our previous estimate from a small sample was approximately 75%. From this sample size of €2.742 billion, 79% remains with SMEs and just under 21% goes to large businesses. Relative to other countries, SMEs in Ireland do well. Then again, Ireland has many small businesses relative to other European countries.

There is a great deal of good news for Irish SMEs and other businesses, but we want to help them to become better. Ultimately, our office is concerned with delivering value for money for the taxpayer via a competition process. We want to assist SMEs in understanding that process and in developing their skills and capabilities so that they can compete fairly.

I wish to ask a supplementary question on that point. Mr. Quinn referred to SMEs but it might be beyond many micro businesses that service Munster, for example, to tender elsewhere because they do not have the distribution networks and personnel to bid for the national supply of education material, etc. How effective has the regionalisation of the market been? We must be unapologetic in our structuring. We must get prices, but we can also be creative so as to tilt the pitch more in favour of indigenous companies. Micro and small businesses in particular could remain in service provision if the country was carved up in a way that suited them. This cannot be done if prices are exorbitant, but many businesses with long-established records of regional service provision are finding that they cannot compete nationally because of scale.

Mr. Paul Quinn

One of the key aspects emphasised by the office and the Minister is that this is a question of value for money, not price. Price is only one small aspect of the overall formula when assessing value for money. We need to ensure that there is quality in the goods and services that are delivered, that the service level associated with that delivery, for example, after-sales support, is good, and that contractual protections are in place to protect the State. The standing instruction from the Government under circular 10/14 is that it is not just a question of price. Rather, the valuation should be based on what is called the most economically advantageous tender.

In terms of regionalisation, many services that are delivered within the State are provided on a local basis. For example, solicitor services for local authorities are delivered locally. One would not find someone who would travel from Donegal to Dingle to provide a legal service. It does not work that way. Many of the goods and services that are consumed by the State are often consumed locally. Consider cleaning. One would not find people who would travel long distances to deliver that service. However, there are other sectors in which services are delivered at a national level. For example, energy and electricity are not delivered locally. Neither is software.

I apologise, but this session must conclude and I must move on to the next contributor.

I welcome Mr. Quinn and am delighted to see him. I would like to believe that this will not be a one-off event. The work that the office is doing is of such significance that we need to get into a rhythm of exchanges, feedback and oversight.

I will not ask for a direct answer now, but I will say something for Mr. Quinn to consider. He mentioned how the community and voluntary sector had been caught under the procurement process. Many in the sector are concerned that they will be outplayed by for-profit organisations. Those in the sector work to a different ethos. While the committee has an extensive work programme, it would be interesting to tease this argument out and to hear from The Wheel and other such organisations. I urge Mr. Quinn to watch this situation carefully so that we do not throw out the baby with the bath water.

I will make an observation on circular 10/14 relating to a matter that I have raised with Mr. Quinn and Mr. Campbell previously, namely, access for SMEs and micro businesses to the tendering process. The office's exhortations to them to form alliances and networks do not always work and have caused them considerable difficulties. Some of the businesses in question are in Deputy Creed's neck of the woods and elsewhere. People have lost business. This approach needs to be reworked, as it does not work for everyone and no amount of training courses or encouragement will alter that.

What, if any, engagement, oversight or role does the office have in the flagship infrastructure enterprises, for example, Grangegorman and the children's hospital? What linkage has the office with NAMA or other organisations in respect of the development of Dublin's docklands?

The witnesses are aware that, like others, I am keen on social clauses in large contracts. Mr. Quinn referred to piloting 11 projects. While this is to be welcomed, it strikes me as being timid.

The new European regime recognises in a more expansive way that it is not solely a question of price because there are consequences and knock-on effects for State expenditure from a social point of view, in terms of long-term unemployment, poverty and environmental concerns. Beyond the 11 projects, what is the game plan for implementing these clauses? Can we be assured that, within the boundaries of the law, the office will be as imaginative and expansive as it can in getting a return for society and the community?

In his opening remarks, Mr. Quinn stated that responsibility and accountability for legal compliance rests with the organisation which undertakes the tender because the OGP lacks the resources and mandate to perform this crucial task centrally. Is that a desirable state of affairs? I ask that in light of the experience of school building projects overseen by the Department of Education and Skills, which gave rise to worrying controversies with, for example, Rhatigans and Kishogue college in Lucan. There are similar cases elsewhere in Dublin. I am concerned that while the office maintains rigorous standards of compliance for those who enter the tendering process, without a tight oversight mechanism the process could become sloppy and wide open to abuse.

I have many other questions but the Chairman will not tolerate anything that stretches the committee's time unreasonably. The definition of value for money is not just about price; it also includes quality and other factors. I ask Mr. Quinn to set out the definition of value for money to which the OGP works.

Mr. Paul Quinn

As part of our meetings with the community and voluntary sector, including The Wheel, we encouraged organisations to make a submission on the transposition process so that they could have their say on the new framework.

In regard to our involvement in infrastructure and capital projects, the office has no operational remit with regard to the procurement of large capital works. The Deputy referred to Grangegorman, the docklands and the children's hospital as examples of such projects. We are not running procurement at an operational level for those individual projects. In terms of policy, we have a clear remit in that regard. Through our government construction contracts committee, we pull together the key stakeholders involved in executing capital works on an ongoing basis to examine the issues arising. This could include the review of public works contracts or various other emerging requirements identified by the committee on behalf of constituent stakeholders, including the Department of Education and Skills, the Office of Public Works and the Department of Health. From a policy perspective, we push out policy through that committee and consult it on the development of policy. However, the office does not get involved with the day-to-day procurement activities of the individual projects. I am a board member of the children's hospital and, as such, am intimately involved in procurement for that project but that is restricted to my personal role on the board. As part of larger infrastructure projects, the policy team in particular works closely with the relevant organisations. Thus, for example, our key construction advisor, Mr. David O'Brien, has a close working relationship with the CEO of Grangegorman Development Agency, Mr. Michael Hand. We work hand-in-glove on bigger projects in the State because our advice is often sought in regard to various policy matters. Implementation is left to the bodies concerned, however.

On the question of social clauses, 11 projects are a reasonable start given our previous position. I do not agree that it is a timid number because one of the key aspects of what we are trying to do is move outside of the construction space. Internationally many social clauses focus on construction and employment. We are trying to look beyond that to consider other services in respect of which ongoing social clauses can be implemented at an operational level. We want to test this mechanism because we may need to consider specific aspects of individual goods or services, including in particular services for which social clauses might be difficult to implement in some cases but easy in others. One of the reasons for setting up the group was to learn how we can do this well. We can then publish guidelines and take the findings on board in developing legislation. There are positive indications for what can be achieved from social clauses but there are also concerns about issues such as SME costs and the potential imbalance between the obligations of national and international parties. If, for example, a tender obliges a construction firm to increase employment and the contract is won by a firm from outside the country, the workers could potentially be hired from outside of the State and the training could be provided outside of the State. We do not want to create an uneven burden for national firms. Concerns also arise in regard to displacement of jobs. While we could force employers to hire, that could also require them to shed jobs. We want to act carefully in regard to the advice we give to the Minister on how this policy will be formed. We intend to learn a lot from expanding those arrangements.

I am aware that Mr. Quinn has another question to answer but as the Deputy's allotted time has concluded, I ask that the reply be submitted in writing to the committee secretariat.

Judging from the contribution of members thus far, it is fair to say that a number of us are concerned to ensure local firms have a reasonable chance to compete for local contracts. There is a point at which the old adage, small is beautiful, is true. I was at first quite pleased with circular 10/14, which issued on 16 April 2014. Appendix 2 to the report sets out a matrix that can be used as a general guide to setting insurance level requirements for routine low to medium risk goods and services. What is a low to medium risk good or service? In other words, what value would it comprise and what type of service is potentially involved?

Mr. Paul Quinn

Low to medium risk is associated with the risk that the procurer, whether in the Office of Government Procurement or a local contracting authority, takes on those matters.

For example, I may take a view that buying a personal computer to sit on a desk in an office is relatively low risk.

May I give an example and will Mr. Quinn tell me if it falls within the category? Were I to buy €26,000 worth of consultancy, would that fall into the category of low to medium risk goods and services?

Mr. Paul Quinn

It depends on the decision I am making relative to the advice I get.

Is low to medium risk the lowest category?

Mr. Paul Quinn

Low to medium risk would be the lowest category of risk.

That is what I wanted to establish. For the sake of argument, if I am providing low risk goods and services, what is the minimum level at which public and employer's liability insurance is irrelevant? Would one need such insurance for a contract of €25,000 or could it be below €25,000?

Mr. Paul Quinn

It could be below €25,000.

Is it necessary to have employer's liability insurance of €12.7 million, public liability insurance of €6.5 million and environmental indemnity of €2 million if I were providing training for my local school? The reason I raise this is because I have come across situations in which people have been providing management consultancy services and have been asked for public liability insurance of €6.5 million. Does Mr. Quinn know how much it costs to procure public liability insurance of €6.5 million?

I know from reading the guidance notes that those tendering for business have to be able to get the insurance, without having to have it in place at the time they apply for the tender. I know this to be the case because I have been approached on this point by people in my constituency who say they would not apply for a tender which they would be able to perform because as, say, a two-person company they would not be able to afford the cost of public liability insurance of €6.5 million or €12.7 million. Unless I am losing the plot, although I do not think so, those levels of public liability insurance are outrageous. What is the logic of it? For the sake of argument, let us suppose I am providing arts and crafts material to the local school then under the public procurements requirement I am required to have this level of public liability insurance. That does not make sense.

In respect of professional indemnity, I am aware of contracts below the value of €50,000 that have been put out to tender which required professional indemnity insurance of €3.6 million. It is stated in the documentation that the level of insurance must be proportionate to the job that is being done, that the level of turnover has to be related to the contract. I was very pleased initially to see this but when I read the conditions on the back page they made no sense.

Mr. Paul Quinn

Let me remind the Senator that the sentence above the table states that it is a general guide to setting insurance levels. It is not specific. Some of these items may have no relevance to the good and services being procured. The Senator mentioned advisory and consultancy services but environmental liability insurance has no relevance to those services and would not be required. It is a general guide.

What about public liability and employer's liability insurance?

Mr. Paul Quinn

Public liability and employer's liability insurance would be required.

Would insurance cover of up to €12.7 million be required?

Mr. Paul Quinn

Let me draw the Senator's attention to page 6 of the guidance notes that public bodies may contact the State Claims Agency to get advice on these matters. The reason we put in place this guidance and in particular appendix 2, is to deal with professional indemnity and product liability. Some of the numbers that were appearing in tenders were extraordinary relative to the procurements that were taking place. The general guidance on employer's liability, public liability and environmental liability, where they apply, are typical and having spent many years in procurement these are typical values and would generally be put in place by professional firms that are undertaking works in those areas.

On that point, not everybody applying is a professional firm. Deputy McDonald made the point about micro-businesses. We are trying to put the economy back on its feet and encourage people into business. Not all of the tenders will be from large professional firms that would have standing insurance in place but might, for the sake of argument, be from people who are trying to set up a business.

Mr. Paul Quinn

Yes. Prior to the issue of the guidance advice, if in the past one were to pick up a tender that would have included professional indemnity and product liability insurance the person concerned might have had to deal with extraordinary values. We have brought the values down and this has been welcomed by bodies such as IBEC because previously firms were being asked to procure ridiculous levels of insurance.

I asked Mr. Quinn if he knew how much it cost to procure employer's liability insurance to the value of €12.7 million or public liability insurance of €6.5 million. I take his point, and I raised with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform on a number of occasions the fact that outlandish amounts of insurance, in particular professional indemnity insurance, have been required for contracts. With regard to one size fits all, I note Mr. Quinn's point in section 6 that those who considered tendering could obtain advice but from my experience I suspect that what is happening is that the one size fits all is in the public domain but it does not fit all. It certainly does not fit small, sole traders or very small companies trying to bid for contracts.

Mr. Paul Quinn

I agree with Senator Hayden that it is not a one size fits all. This is general guidance, it is set out and written down as general guidance. It provides an opportunity for contracting authorities to go back to the State Claims Agency and have a conversation with them about the limits they should actually put in place. It was broadly welcomed by industry because it brought down the level of professional indemnity and product liability insurance. It brought the numbers down very considerably from what went beforehand. People did not know what levels to apply and typically took an extraordinarily conservative view, whereas most contracting authorities simply need to cover a basic level of risk. Risk is a specific area and there are people who far better trained in that-----

Does Mr. Quinn know how much it costs to get that type of insurance?

Mr. Paul Quinn

It varies depending on what one does. I suspect that if one were to ask an insurance underwriter to quote for the business, the first question they would ask is the nature of the business. I do not think there would be a single price.

Mr. Quinn should keep those limits under review and he should go a little further in his investigations than consulting IBEC.

Deputy Tóibín has five minutes.

Go raibh maith agat. With regard to the collation of information, Mr. Quinn has stated that he is not collating information from capital projects now. Is it his intention to collate this information in the future? If not, will it be the case that the Departments will collate the information because there is an information deficit? The second question concerns a report on the review of performance of public works contracts. The construction industry is in chaos in many ways. Construction at Kishoge Community College is a prime example. On this project workers have been out on picket on a daily basis for nearly a year. I understand the review looks at industrial disputes between the main contractor on the site and the people who are contracting the tender.

However, the problem is much deeper than this with subcontracting. There are subcontractors on the site at Kishoge who are not even paying the minimum wage. All of the issues associated with terms and conditions are completely ignored. In such a case, the main contractor throws up his hands and says it has nothing to do him. What is happening is further down the contracting food chain. The problem is arising on the site at Kishoge and we know that it is arising on other sites also. Owing to the broken nature of the construction industry and the fact that most new contracts are State contracts, what I describe is becoming the norm in the case of private contracts. Therefore, there is a contagion effect. Is it important that the Office of Government Procurement seek to ensure what I have described does not happen and fix this element of the system? Will it be able to ensure contracts between a contracting organisation and the main contractor are actually adhered to? My information is that the contracts determine that all responsibility falls on subcontractors further down the food chain.

My second question is on the performance of public works contracts. Will the CPO formally include the workers' aspects in the performance of public works contracts in the future?

Mr. Paul Quinn

On the Deputy's question on collecting data, we will be collecting expenditure information on construction, just as we do in respect of goods and services. However, we will not be collecting data associated with each and every project to understand its nature, etc. That is not the intention.

Will the Departments be doing so?

Mr. Paul Quinn

I understand Departments are responsible for collecting information on their own construction arrangements and I am advised they have to publish it.

The Deputy asked about the review of public works contracts. We published, just prior to Christmas, a set of interim recommendations for implementation. These recommendations have been welcomed broadly by the construction industry, which is good. In fact, the industry is anxious that we implement the recommendations quickly, which is welcome. The majority of the interim recommendations will involve changes in the first calendar quarter. One of them will extend into the second calendar quarter because of its complexity.

The Deputy has mentioned, in particular, that there is a new role envisaged within the public works arrangements, namely, a dispute convener. For larger contracts, I understand the process applies for values in excess of €10 million. A dispute convener would be appointed at a very early stage in the contract and his or her role would be to try to resolve disputes as they occurred during the life cycle of the project, rather than hitting a brick wall, which would involve the walls coming down and the project stopping. In such circumstances, people walk off site and difficulties ensue from everybody's perspective, not only that of the workers but also those of the State and contractors. When works stop, it is very difficult and costly for everybody.

The dispute convener's responsibility is to keep the parties talking and become familiar with the project, the arrangements and progress made. Another duty is to iron out issues as they arise and keep momentum going in a project. This may stop issues becoming part of more formal contract dispute arrangements, conciliation, arbitration and, ultimately, court proceedings. I guess the colloquial term would be "nipping things in the bud" in trying to have them resolved early and on site.

In regard to the site at Kishoge, we discussed the matter previously. There are a number of layers of protection that the State ensures within the procurement process. These place obligations not only on the main contractors but also on subcontractors. They apply at tender stage in terms of declarations that the parties will adhere to and are clear on parties' obligations regarding social welfare contributions and tax, in regard to which there is clearance. At award stage, the parties must certify their tax clearance certificates. Most importantly, at implementation stage, the contractors and subcontractors have to adhere to all legal obligations. To continue to be paid, they must submit on an ongoing basis a certificate, under clause 5.3, stating they are continuing to adhere to all obligations. They must maintain records indicating they are discharging these obligations. The State has the right to audit the payments and withhold payment if certification is not provided. Ultimately, it can terminate the contract if the contractor fails to remedy a problem.

The Deputy asked, in particular, about my office's ability or oversight of these matters. On occasion, we are drawn into arrangements such as those mentioned, but we do not have a mandate or operational capability to oversee the thousands of projects in train. On oversight, we rely on other bodies such as NERA which has expertise in matters of payment and the payment of social welfare, etc. It is the compliance body in these matters.

Unfortunately, it does not have the ability to work in a timely fashion. With regard to the site at Kishoge, the process has been ongoing since last July and we are no further on.

We have run out of time. I apologise to Mr. Quinn, as I must stop the conversation. On behalf of the committee, I thank him for attending. The information he has provided is excellent. We will be seeing a lot more of each other and I hope circumstances will bed down.

Will the Chairman confirm that the questions Mr. Quinn did not have time to answer will be answered?

The responses will be sent to the secretariat and we will refer them to members.

Sitting suspended at 4.10 p.m. and resumed at 4.20 p.m.
Top
Share