-
• #2
Interesting workshop, thanks. Can people give examples of how they measured and assessed the quality elements of prospective tenders please.
-
• #3
I have added in the following points raised at the Haringey Cycling Conference 24/09/15.
Outsource
Pros
Office costs reduced
Marketing knowledge
Varied services may be available, ie beyond Bikeability
Experience of work in other boroughs/countiesCons
Continuity
Stuck with provider/need to manage relationshipTips
There may be a pre-procured solution, eg in London TfL have a Pan London contract with a provider that borough can access.
You might be able to get funding from the YST.
Do a site visit and see your prospective provider's training in action.
Read the TABS Procurement Guidance.
Ongoing discussion from Bikeability conference 2014.
Here are the notes from the 15 May 2014 workshop. Please feel free to add and continue this debate.
In-house delivery
Pros
Can make delivery more affordable
Team can be flexible
Can train/develop own team (if an ITO)
Bespoke programme
Greater control
Manage quality directly
Cons
Some things you might not be set up to deliver
Have to juggle both strategy and delivery
Risk is on you if team fails to deliver
Tips
Can be helpful if the scheme manager is an NSI
Outsourced delivery
Pros
Can cope with large scale
Minimum standards can be set
No extra costs
Professional team
Cons
Complexity of tender process
Tender process can be seen as ‘unfair’ and hard to judge true value
Tender might contain missing elements
Tips
Be specific, eg min. hours of on-road training for L2
Keep a professional relationship with your provider
Increase the instructor: trainee ratio
Monitor provider
80:20 quality:cost
Mixed (in-house and outsourced) delivery
Pros
Flexibility
Horses for courses
Cons
Potential competition between providers
Tips