I write in response to previous articles regarding best value tendering, in particular Graeme Hydari’s letter (see [2009] Gazette, 16 July, 9). If you decide to publish this letter, I would appreciate it if you could hold back my name and firm details, as this is a personal view and not one necessarily shared by my firm.

As a procurement professional working for a national law firm, I wholeheartedly support the idea of BVT and believe that it drives economically sound solutions to supply issues. While many lawyers may view the law as a discrete service, in reality they are simply supplying a customer with a service and therefore BVT is an appropriate tool to use.

However, crucial to the success of BVT is the need for good procurement practice. Botched privatisations have undoubtedly been the fault of poor implementation of BVT, rather than of the principle itself. A good buyer would understand the market, understand the issues facing the sellers in that market and build a detailed and complete specification of the service required (which takes into account unknown factors/variables). In addition, the buyer will also take a long-term view and not be blinded by short-term cash incentives. Best value means just that – best value – not necessarily cheapest!

Understandably, however, there has been some scepticism as no one has been in a position to assess the strength of the Legal Services Commission’s procurement team. Perhaps the best thing the LSC can do to reassure firms in this market is to confirm that they have employed appropriately qualified and experienced procurement professionals, who will take into account all of the issues and take the time to do this properly. The sooner the legal profession as a whole embraces best value tendering instead of fighting against it, the easier it will be for all concerned.

Name and address supplied