|
IT IS my unswerving view that the Integrated Clothing Project (ICP) must provide the best available protection to firefighters, together with the most suitable range of clothing for a diverse, modern and locally respected fire and rescue service.
With the ICP contract soon to be awarded, a number of challenges remain. In my role as chair of the Chief Fire Officers’ Association (CFOA) National Procurement Board, I will continue to raise these with the national procurement agency, Firebuy, the ICP Board and its various working groups, but very much as an influencing participant, rather than a distant critic.
The ICP aims to deliver a standard level of appropriate protection for firefighters across England and to create a stronger national identity for the service. The bidding consortia have provided a range of personal protective equipment (PPE) – including clothing for structural and wildland firefighting, urban search and rescue, and road traffic accidents – as well as a range of corporate wear, such as station wear, sportswear and ceremonial wear (also see FP&FEJ, November 2006, p.46).
Single supplier contract
A key concern, in my view, is that a single provider solution is favoured for the ICP, rather than contracts based on frameworks (the framework option is being used for other Firebuy contracts – such as the respiratory protection project). In the case of ICP, this means fire and rescue authorities will not be permitted to choose clothing from a range of service providers and will only be able to select from the range of the successful bidder.
It is disappointing that the opportunities and flexibilities that could be delivered by a framework contract have now been ruled out for ICP. The argument against a switch to framework contracts at this point is that it would massively increase costs and delay the project unacceptably. But this appears to be opinion based on the current direction, rather than the results of a thorough legal exploration of the possibilities. I will continue to press Firebuy and the various working groups to consider this further.
Participating fire authorities will shortly be asked to enter into an agreement with Firebuy in regard to general adherence to the contract – and this raises another important issue. There remains a question over how a fire and rescue authority could change or withdraw from the contract if the reality of provision does not meet their expectations, or if implementation becomes impossible – for example, as the result of an industrial relations difficulty. It is naive to assume that if such a problem applied to one authority, it would apply to all and therefore would be solved nationally. As with many issues, it would become a matter for local resolution, potentially without the employer having any opportunity to revisit the level or conditions of their contractual arrangements. This remains an ongoing issue on which I am still seeking an outcome.
Linked to this is the issue of a failure of the supply chain, whether by unexpected demand or supply failure. The contract will doubtless include liability clauses on the supplier but the maintenance of the fire and rescue service and health and safety considerations will remain the legal responsibility of fire authorities. I am concerned about what opportunity authorities would have to manage such contingencies, given the inevitable strategic dependency that will emerge from a single supplier contract. These are matters that authorities will need to carefully consider.
The question of best value continues to arise, and I am reassured by the various evaluation processes that the principle of ICP is to provide the best value, rather than the lowest cost option. It is for fire authorities to demonstrate best value but, in doing so, proper account must be taken of the quality of the research, evaluation, service provision for management of the full clothing range and whole-life costs, rather than a simple pound-for-pound comparison between current arrangements and ICP. It is also important to bear in mind that it is not necessary to sign-up for all the clothing categories if they are not currently provided or considered necessary.
There is another question about unsuccessful tenderers offering competitive prices off-contract. Much will depend on the quality of the services and equipment offered, and the fulfilment of Firebuy’s intention to provide superior goods and services at relatively competitive prices.
Finally, I have a remaining concern over how the project will impact on industry and whether the ICP could potentially stagnate the PPE market, and ultimately create a provider-led fire service in which there are far less options when the contract comes up for renewal. On the other hand, I understand that product refresh and innovation are included in the contract, which may help to motivate providers to refresh products.
Although I am aware there are concerns about some aspects of the project on which fire authorities will need to be reassured, I believe that ICP has the potential to deliver the clothing requirements of authorities against the backdrop of providing the best researched and highest quality protection to firefighters well into the 2020s.
Fire and rescue service personnel at all levels should continue to raise their concerns to the CFOA National Procurement Board, either through their regional procurement representative or with me directly. We will continue to try to address them with the ICP Board and Firebuy.
Paul Fuller is chair of the CFOA National Procurement Board and chief officer of Bedfordshire and Luton Fire and Rescue Service
The author can be contacted on e-mail: paul.fuller@bedsfire.com
|