IACCM and EY will be hosting a Leaders’ Forum: Improving Contract Management: Accountability, Relationships and Performance. This event is by invitation only and is exclusive to executive level attendees. Please email Laura at email@example.com if you are interested in attending.The event takng place on 17 September, 2015 will be an evening of Panel discussions focusing on the business impact achievable from improved contract management and how to maximise value out of your contracts. Discussions will be chaired by Tim Cummins, IACCM CEO, with panellists including: Jane Macleod, Post Office, General Counsel Graeme Bellingham , Supply Chain Director, EDF Energy Liz Walker, General Counsel, BT Global Services Dan Bishop, Head of Commercial Air Support, MOD Paul Rodgers, Director, Finance & Commercial, Department for Transport Heather Rodgers, Former Chief Procurement Officer of Centrica and now Non-Executive Director on various Boards Panel discussions will include: The number one cause for value leakage Moving beyond risk, what purpose should your contracts serve in delivering value and business success? Are today’s Contract Management Software offerings sufficient? In a world where Artificial Intelligence is imminent, what does the future hold? With its major investments in building commercial capability, is UK Government poised to become ‘more commercial’ than the private sector?’17.00 – 18.00 – Registration, refreshments and networking18.00 – 19.00 – Discussion Part 1 19.00 – 19.15 – Coffee and networking 19.15 – 20.00 – Discussion Part 220.00 – 20.15 – Q&A20.15 onwards – Drinks, canapés and networkingThis event is hosted in the EY Auditorium – 25 Churchill Place, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5RBIf you wish to attend this exclusive evening, please email Laura on firstname.lastname@example.org
While the economic outlook for the UK looks set to improve, the pressure on public finances continues. With significant further public spending restraint expected until 2017/18, this pressure is unlikely to fade away as the 'new' conservative government beds in during the rest of 2015 and beyond.
Continuing revelations about corrupt contracting practices at Brazilian oil giant Petrobras continue to hit the headlines. It is interesting that they are one of the few major oil and gas producers which does not have active membership in IACCM. Might there be a connection between these two facts?
'Any sale is a gift until you have been paid!' This practical business insight is especially true for international transactions where the buyer and seller could be 12,000 miles away. Therefore, be sure to undertake appropriate due diligence when qualifying your Chinese buyers. While it is prudent to make use of the various credit reporting companies active in China, you also should ask for trade references, especially for other U.S. firms that you could easily contact. Only letters of credit from well established banks in China should be accepted.
We are looking for experiences and recommendations for using social media for procurement in the public sector. Please post a response in this forum or send to email@example.com. All comments and suggestions are welcomed. Thanks.
As a government body engaging in international (Gov-to-Gov) trade, what is the position on the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and Freedom of Information Act 2000? Do the Act and Regs have effect on Clients and Bodies outside the UK?
Thanks for your help!
IACCM REPORT FINDING: Private sector personnel are almost 80% more likely to be influenced by the need to promote competition and minimize operating costs -Please share your thoughts. Hoping this generates some activity.
When I read IACCM article, I was perplexed by the statement above and therefore I offer the following thoughts:
In the U.S. public sector procurement is the intersection between three interconnected non-complimentary forces; law, public policy, and industry. Public policy combined with Federal law dictates that competition is the single most important aspect of the U.S. Federal procurement process. In accordance with the law contracting professionals in the U.S. Government are required to consider/ research 7 different socioeconomic categories before they can compete an opportunity in a full and open environment. At each layer acquisition professionals make a business decision about the capability of industry to perform the work at hand for a reasonable price. Contracting professionals are required to do this for simple procurements and large strategically sourced contract vehicles.
In fact, at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the initial market research described above has helped create an industry base of 15,000 current contractors 11,000 of which are small and medium sized business. Each year over 3,000 new companies win a contract with the Department. This ensures that the Department has a highly competitive marketplace that is constantly competing to meet mission objectives and win contract awards. Although the Government incurs additional labor costs to perform the market research the cost savings from the robust market place and constant competition is tremendous. Furthermore, the companies that survive in the marketplace have a keen understanding of the mission and how to achieve it at the lowest cost. At DHS, performance metrics include rate of competition on each individual procurement ( 76% in FY 12) and operational cost savings (approximately $330M from strategic sourcing alone).
The interesting point here is that the level of competition is so high that contracts tend to be awarded to industry partners that have determined the best way to meet the mission at the lowest cost. This is much different than the goal of helping a corporation maximize shareholder wealth. In the public sector (many times in my experience) we are contracting for services that would normally be an individual company’s competitive advantage. Meaning that many of the contracts we write are to perform a service that many companies would never outsource.
The survey results posted above seem to indicate that public sector professionals do not value competition as a way to minimize operating costs. However, I believe public sector procurement professionals value competition just as much and work in a more complex environment that challenges them to think beyond a single value proposition (maximizing shareholder wealth).
I am wondering if the way the question is written generated misunderstanding. If not, then I believe we need to resuscitate the discussion around minimizing operating costs and promoting competition to ensure that public sector employees understand how valuable this can be. Thoughts?
IACCM Communities are collaborative, community driven platforms of experts from around the world. Our contributors publish their
own content as well as links to third-party articles and websites, and IACCM cannot be held responsible for content posted here.
View Content Policy
IACCM cannot guarantee or warrant the accuracy, reliability, currency, completeness or legality of such content, third-party articles, or
linked websites, and disclaim all responsibility for the use of any inaccurate, incomplete or illegal content contained in or linked from IACCM
and disclaim any and all liability to the user for any damages, including without limitation, direct or indirect, special incidental, moral or
consequential damages, loss of profits, opportunities or information or for expenses arising in connection with your use of IACCM, its services,
forums or the site content, even if they (individually or as a group) have been advised of the possibility of such damages, losses or expenses;
do not warrant that IACCM operates error-free, nor that defects, errors or omissions will be corrected, or that IACCM is completely secure;
disclaim any and all warranties of any kind, including but not limited to implied, express or statutory warranties as to non-infringement of
intellectual property rights, or third party rights, title, latent defects, uninterrupted service, merchantability, fitness for a particular
purpose, and freedom from computer viruses; and
do not warrant or guarantee that files available for downloading through IACCM will be free of infections or viruses, worms, Trojan horses or
other code that contains contaminating or destructive properties.
IACCM, including any and all aspects of IACCM, is not a substitute for independent professional advice and users should obtain
any appropriate professional advice relevant to their particular circumstances. Users must exercise their own skill and care with respect to
their use of IACCM and must carefully evaluate the accuracy, currency, completeness and relevance of the material on the site for their
purposes. The user should carefully assess any and all information obtained through IACCM before applying it to the user's situation. Never
disregard, avoid or delay in obtaining professional advice about handling engineered or other nanomaterials or nanoparticles because of
something you have read on this site. The advice the user finds in IACCM is freely offered in good faith, but no legal liability can be
accepted by IACCM, members on IACCM's Implementation Committee, IACCM's operators, content partners, content contributors or providers, or
IACCM contains links to other Internet sites that are external to IACCM. IACCM takes reasonable care in linking Internet
sites but has no direct control over the content of the linked sites, or the changes that may occur to the content on those sites. It is the
responsibility of the users to make their own decisions about the accuracy, currency, reliability and correctness of information contained in
linked external Internet sites. Links to external Internet sites, or links to documents, do not constitute an endorsement or a recommendation
of any material on those sites, or in those documents, or of any third party products or services offered by, from or through those sites or
those documents. Users of links provided by this Internet site are responsible for being aware of which organization hosting the Internet site
To report any innappropriate content, please