Charlson J, C E (2013) A case study of joint procurement and provision of legal services to a group of a universities in the midlands. In: Smith, S D and Ahiaga-Dagbui, D D (eds.) Proceedings of 29th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2013, Reading, UK.
Abstract
A Group of 5 UK Universities in the Midlands undertook a joint procurement process for the provision of Legal Services. The objective was to put in place common Framework Agreements. The Legal Services procured were divided into six lots and one of these was 'Property and Construction'. The lots were assembled into three packages and the contract for each package was awarded to one or more Service Providers. Albeit a service provider is to work for all the collaborating Universities. A competitive 'restricted' two-stage tender process was administered in accordance with the Public Contracts Regulations 2006, SI 2006/5. The Framework Agreements were awarded in 2012 to the most economically advantageous Solicitors' Practices. The participating Universities are being interviewed about the reasons for the joint procurement exercise, any challenges faced in its implementation and lessons learnt so far. Two interviews have been conducted so far and evaluated via content analysis to reveal that advantages to be gained from 'economy of scale' were the main impetus for the collaborative procurement. The negotiations between the Universities which led to the establishment of the collaboration and its subsequent sustenance have been friendly. The challenge identified so far concerns how to distribute work more fairly to legal services providers.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bidding; collaboration; competitiveness; contractor selection; corporate strategy; framework agreement; negotiation; procurement; professional service |
| Index terms: | implementation, collaboration, case study, contractor selection, content analysis, package, professional service, regulation, framework agreement, corporate strategy, procurement process, interview, bidding, competitiveness, negotiation, exercise |
| Subjects: | business, data analysis and analytics, tendering, market analysis, conflict resolution, bidding, organization, contractual arrangements, data collection methods, management, health behaviours and lifestyles, political science |
| Topics: | Procurement, Research Practice, Governance, Organizational Design, Stakeholder Management, Health and Safety |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here