Best value tendering: working for nothing
Thursday 25 June 2009 by Catherine Baksi
Over the last couple of years, the Legal Services Commission has churned out consultation upon consultation about unpopular legal aid reforms. But, despite a severe case of consultation fatigue, over 1,000 groups or individuals responded to its second paper on best value tendering (BVT), demonstrating the strength of feeling within the profession.
The LSC accepted that this amounted to a ‘significant’ response, though it was at pains to point out that the Carter consultation received over 2,000 responses. Thankfully, I haven’t received copies from all respondents, but several dozen have winged their way to my inbox. Not one voices support for proposals that would see firms bid each other down for contracts to do police station work.
The Tories have called for the scheme to be halted; the Liberal Democrats are against it; and Cherie Booth QC spoke out about her concerns at the Legal Aid Lawyer of the Year awards last night. Firms in one of the areas where the scheme will be piloted are considering mounting a legal challenge, and the Bar Council and the Law Society find themselves united on the issue.
It seems only the Ministry of Justice and its chums at the LSC are in favour of it. And one can see why, in a sense. Many solicitors have indicated that firms, in their desperation to win contracts, will put in bids offering to do the work for nothing.
Uncertain as to whether the LSC would find that firms could provide a quality service for nothing (as we know how keen they are on quality), I put in a call to see if these zero bids would be acceptable. The reply came back stating that firms should submit ‘realistic bids that reflect the cost of delivery in their area’. If the tender process is done by sealed bid, the LSC said it would pay firms the price they bid at, whatever that was. And if it is done by online auction, it would be up to the market to determine the price.
It is surely unsurprising that the government wants to press ahead with the scheme, if it can get for free a service that it has hitherto had to pay for.
Comments
Yes, it seems that with this
Yes, it seems that with this latest wheeze the LSC may have finally got what it has been after for years: solicitors doing the work for nothing. Excellent post.
taking advantage
And the truly frightening thing is that the LSC is too stupid to realise that a zero bid would be unsustainable. They should be very careful what they wish for.
BVT Disaster
As a partner in a Birmingham firm that deals solely with criminal work it is the case that a lot of other similar firms have quite openly declared their intentions to make so called"suicide bids" to ensure continuation of a contract being awarded. They indicate offers to do the work for nothing (there is even a rumour that one unnamed firm would offer to pay the LSC for the privelege?). To a certain degree one can not blame the attitude of partners but the reality is that to do this work for nothing will in essence result in a reduction in standard monthly payments of at least 30% but more likely upto 50% (having looked at past monthly figures from our own submissions). No practice can afford this type of fee reduction (i don't care who you are), it is obvious that the only way to offset such a loss will be to reduce staff costs (all legal reps and most employed solicitors will go for a start) followed by a very strong driver for firms to seek to avoid committing resources to police station work (the telephone call to the client stating that we could attend for interview but this may extend their stay in detention for some considerable length of time!!). In essence the LSC will leave such a funding gap that a client's own representation will end up not doing the job at all and restricting access to quality legal advce at such a pivotal moment in the criminal justice process. This system will force a dedicated profession to become complicit in a system that already overwhelmingly favours the prosecution by our own inability to represent.