After a contract has been awarded, it can be useful to review the procurement exercise in terms of:
- The process followed and the quality and perceived value for money achieved in terms of the goods or services received, and
- Efficiencies (including monetary savings) that have been achieved as a result of the procurement.
The review process is particularly important for the higher value procurements.
Possble areas to be considered include:
- Were the goods or services what the end-user needed or expected? If not, why not? What could you do better next time?
- Were the goods delivered on time or, for an ongoing supply or service, are they being delivered when needed?
- Now that the goods are here or the services are being provided, are they really needed?
- Is there now spare capacity that could be made available to other users (this is relevant in terms of future procurements and the original challenge function about the need for the requirement)
- If you were re-drafting the specification now, what, if anything, would you or the end-user change?
- Was the timescale set (or available for the procurement) adequate? If not, why not? What can you do to improve this next time?
- Did you hold interviews with a number of short-listed tenderers? If yes, were the interviews beneficial? Did the interview format work? If not, why not? Did the interviews help the decision process?
- Was there a nominated project group to deal with the procurement? How did it work? Where there any problems/difficulties? What would you try to do differently next time?
It is suggested, especially for the higher value or higher profile procurements, that a short report is prepared summarising what was good and bad about the process, and making recommendations of improvements that should be considered for future procurements. This report should be shared with colleagues, perhaps in training situations, to help improve the procurement processes within your institution.
It is also important to review the procurement exercise in terms of efficiencies achieved. These may be in the form of cashable (ie funds are released or not used and are then available to spend on other goods or services) or uncashable (ie intangible efficiencies through improved processes, higher quality goods/services at same or lower price etc). For further information, see Efficiency Measurement Model.
A risk assessment is available.
Further guidance is available on: