Writing a specification for your own job can be an eerie experience.

But it need not be like that.

Compulsory competitive tendering is about winning and keeping the work that you do best.

However, time is limited and those affected by CCT must lose no time in preparing themselves.

In theory a CCT programme can be completed in six months working on the basis of the minimum periods legally permissible.

In practice, 18 months is more realistic and longer where organisational changes are required.Because the Local Government Commission recommended that more authorities retain the two-tier structure than had been expected, the timetable for white collar services for status quo authorities will be brought into line with that for reorganised authorities.

In effect, this means the implementation of white collar CCT in status quo authorities is being brought forward by up to one year.

It is now proposed that the start dates for legal services in status quo authorities be as follows -- date of announcement of decision not to change the present structure: before April 1995 -- CCT start date April 1997; between 1 April 1995 and 30 September 1995 -- CCT start date October 1997; after 1 October -- CCT start date April 1998.Authorities which face minor boundary changes will be treated in the same way as authorities subject to reorganisation, and can defer CCT until after the changes have taken effect.Authorities have considerable flexibility in deciding on the work to go out to competition.

They have to put 45% of t heir legal work out to tender, but are entitled to retain £300,000 of work.

In other words, authorities can retain (without a tender) 55% of their legal work or £300,000, whichever is the larger.

This is to enable the authority to maintain a level of in-house expertise.Legal services are broadly defined in the Local Government Act (see SI 94/2884).

The defined activity could include quasi-legal work done outside the legal services department; for example, legal work relating to the collection of rents and the formation of any kind of contract.

However, for the purpose of deciding what work must be put to competition, legal work carried out by an employee which amounts to less than 50% of that employee's working time is excluded.

When deciding what work to put out to tender authorities must remember that they could be accused of acting anti-competitively if they include too much work which is unattractive to the private sector or if they package together in a single contract work requiring different specialist skills that may not be found in one firm.Requiring tenderers to provide detailed financial information is standard practice.

But law firms are generally tight-lipped on such matters.

In the context of CCT for legal services, bear in mind the Local Government Management Board's guidance on this issue, as well as the EC Services Directive.

Essentially, where the tenderer is a partnership, it may provide proof of financial standing by means of documents other than accounts and statements of turnover; for example, by banker's or accountant's references.

Asking for too much financial information may well be anti-competitive and lay the authority open to investigation by the Department of the Environment.If you are writing a specification, bear in mind that it could become a real contract and not simply a pseudo-contract between the authority and its own service department.

It must therefore protect the authority.

It must impose clear obligations, and not simply read as a report.

It should be scrutinised to minimise the risk of the unscrupulous loss-leading tenderer squeezing extras out of ambiguous provisions.

At the same time, do not over specify.

The contract must not be 'unduly or unreasonably onerous' as it would then be anti-competitive.Generally, specifications for white collar services stress 'outputs' -- in other words, they describe what the end result should be, rather than what tasks need to be performed (an input approach).

If an authority places too much emphasis on the procedures or approach to be adopted, then this leaves little room for an external firm to devise different (and perhaps more efficient) methods of service delivery.

Also, it may have an anti-competitive effect and therefore leave the authority open to challenge.

But where a particular process does need to be followed (for example, to ensure compatibility with work performed elsewhere in the authority), then this should be unobjectionable.If the volume of work is unpredictable, then sufficient data should be provided to enable the bidders to take a view and to avoid the in-house team having relevant information which is not made available to the external bidders.Much thought should be given as to how quality standards are to be specified and monitored.

Remember, there is no point in specifying a standard that you cannot monitor effectively.

Remember also that when evaluating bids quality can prevail over price; the DoE's guidance on avoidance of anti-competitive behaviour in relation to legal and housing management services contains an impo rtant change in emphasis to that in circular 10/93.

It recognises that authorities must decide on the appropriate balance between price and quality and that this may lead to a decision to reject a lower bid in favour of the in-house team.

It will be easier to rely on this if the tender documents and the selection process stress quality issues so far as possible.

Can you require an external service provider to use the authority's computer systems? Generally, such a requirement may amount to anti-competitive behaviour.

However, if the legal services department uses systems which need a high degree of connectivity or compatibility with other systems of the authority for sharing data, then the inclusion of such a requirement may be justifiable as regards those systems where essential to the provision of an efficient service by the authority.If the in-house team wins, the specification cannot be cast aside as irrelevant.

It must work in accordance with the specification as if it were an outside contractor and will be subject to audit scrutiny in this respect.

There is, therefore, little point in requiring the service provider to meet certain standards unless you are confident that the in-house team can meet those standards.

After a contract has been won in-house, amendments to the specification can only be made if justified; any significant departure from the specification on which tenders were invited will breach the legislation.The quality of a legal service depends in large measure on the individuals who provide the service.

The DoE does not regard it as legitimate to exclude firms who have no experience of providing local authority services.

Indeed, where TUPE applies, the service may be carried out by former members of the authority's in-house team who are transferred to the winning bidder.

But, in evaluating the quality of a bid, authorities must examine the bidders' relevant experience, management structures and quality systems and references should be taken up.

Where the specification is 'output' based, bidders should be required to put forward method statements showing how they will achieve the required standards.

Only so much information as is necessary for evaluation should be demanded; if the information demanded is too detailed or irrelevant, then that would constitute anti-competitive behaviour.

Much ink has been spilt on the subject of TUPE.

Law firms tend to prefer to advise on TUPE than to be subject to it.

In CCT circles, the question more often asked now is not whether TUPE applies, but how it is to be dealt with in practical terms.One of the issues relates to the treatment of pensions.

On 15 March 1995, the DoE wrote to all chief executives expressing views (not statutory guidance) on the issue of handling pension matters in relation to CCT.

This states the department's view that, where there is a transfer to which TUPE applies, there is a risk that a failure on the part of the transferor to require a successful contractor to provide pensions after the transfer which are broadly comparable to those available before the transfer, or otherwise compensate transferred employees, could give rise to successful claims of constructive unfair dismissal against the transferor.

Accordingly, the DoE makes it clear that an authority can insist on tenderers providing pension comparability or alternative compensation.But if a tenderer fails to satisfy the authority that it will do this, can its bid (which might be the lowest bid) be rejected? After much soul searching on this issue, the DoE confirms that an aut hority can reject a bid that does not provide broadly comparable pensions or compensation to transferred employees.

But the DoE retains the right to raise the issue of anti-competitive behaviour and an authority must be able to show that, in arriving at a decision to reject the bid, its approach was 'thorough, specific and reasonable'.Whether or not one pension scheme is comparable with another requires specialist actuarial advice.

Tenderers for local authority contracts can obtain a 'passport' certificate of comparability from the government actuary's department stating that, in the opinion of the department, the pension benefits which the tenderer offers to transferred employees meet the comparability test.

Similarly, local authorities evaluating tenders can request the GAD to advise.If you will have to price the tender on behalf of the in-house team, start now to introduce systems properly to cost the work.

Find out what your 'competitors' are charging.

Look at areas which make you cost inefficient.

Whilst private sector salaries may be higher, you might need to look at the cost of internal services and organisational implications.

For example: is work being done at the right level; are you paying for internal services which you are not using; are you making the best use of technology?For many law firms, CCT for legal services might seem to provide an attractive opportunity to tap into a vein of guaranteed work for a guaranteed period.

The reality is somewhat different.

Much of the work on offer will be high volume work where the 'winner' may be the one who has reduced margins the most.

Experience to date of CCT for legal services indicates wide disparities in the pricing put forward by law firms with the winning firms in some instances being significantly cheaper than their fellow tenderers.Preparing a tender is a time consuming and costly exercise.

Experienced tenderers for blue collar services bear in mind two features of CCT.

First, they are (in most cases) competing against the incumbent service provider.

Secondly, because a local authority must invite a minimum number of tenderers, the fact that a firm is invited to tender is no reason to believe that it meets the authority's minimum requirements.