Internal 'clients' bending the truth
Discussion
What would you do?
I deal with the public sector mainly, which means that some of their minutes from meetings etc are available online.
Recently online I found a document from a former client whereby the HR manager had been outlining a rationale to their board for keeping work in house rather than continuing outsourcing to us. Basicaly they said that the cost of doing the work in-house was £6900 but that it would be 'considerably more expensive to outsource'. In fact outsourcing to us as they had done was costing them only £4250, saving £2650. I can see why they have done this, as there are job cuts in prospect and they want to keep their HR staff in jobs but I feel really miffed that a contract was withdrawn based on faulty information.
Now I wonder if it would do any good to have a moan, and if so who to moan to (their chiar, their HR manager or their procurement). In reality the HR manager will probably claim they have other costs in their model which would still need to be done in house (which might account for £1000 of the £2600 saving) and they only periodically carry out the work so it may not lead to any work for us for 12 months anyway, and inreturn I would royally hack off the HR manager.
I am getting ever more pissed off at some these public sector organisations who are protecting their own jobs at the expense of ours to do the job more expensively and at a poorer quality. This is twice in a month where without any consideration other than self-interest that a quango has kept the sweeties to save their arse.
I deal with the public sector mainly, which means that some of their minutes from meetings etc are available online.
Recently online I found a document from a former client whereby the HR manager had been outlining a rationale to their board for keeping work in house rather than continuing outsourcing to us. Basicaly they said that the cost of doing the work in-house was £6900 but that it would be 'considerably more expensive to outsource'. In fact outsourcing to us as they had done was costing them only £4250, saving £2650. I can see why they have done this, as there are job cuts in prospect and they want to keep their HR staff in jobs but I feel really miffed that a contract was withdrawn based on faulty information.
Now I wonder if it would do any good to have a moan, and if so who to moan to (their chiar, their HR manager or their procurement). In reality the HR manager will probably claim they have other costs in their model which would still need to be done in house (which might account for £1000 of the £2600 saving) and they only periodically carry out the work so it may not lead to any work for us for 12 months anyway, and inreturn I would royally hack off the HR manager.
I am getting ever more pissed off at some these public sector organisations who are protecting their own jobs at the expense of ours to do the job more expensively and at a poorer quality. This is twice in a month where without any consideration other than self-interest that a quango has kept the sweeties to save their arse.
Edited by Four Cofffee on Friday 9th April 10:09
If you have invoices showing the £4K figure, I'd be tempted to point out to the HR person the discrepancy, and ask them nicely if you weren't aware of some costs he had in order to outsource. After all, you're only trying to gain feedback on why you lost a contract, no?
Best case, he reconsiders, worst case, he knows you know he's a lying scumbag.
Best case, he reconsiders, worst case, he knows you know he's a lying scumbag.
It's the nature of the beast though, surely. If they outsourced the work but then had to make people redundant, not only would it not look like a sensible way to run a department but it would also cost them considerably in redundency payouts etc.
Protecting their own jobs is kind of a given really...
Protecting their own jobs is kind of a given really...
groomi said:
It's the nature of the beast though, surely. If they outsourced the work but then had to make people redundant, not only would it not look like a sensible way to run a department but it would also cost them considerably in redundency payouts etc.
Protecting their own jobs is kind of a given really...
I can see the £££ argument, albeit that is hardly a way to spend public money, but not the deceit aspect.Protecting their own jobs is kind of a given really...
I have been in this situation and reluctantly chalk it up as experience and move on.
If you do want to take it further, skip the HR and go straight to the procurement department. I would tread cautiously though, the threat from complaining is they tell all of their other public sector mates in other authorities and you never get any more business, ever.
If you do want to take it further, skip the HR and go straight to the procurement department. I would tread cautiously though, the threat from complaining is they tell all of their other public sector mates in other authorities and you never get any more business, ever.
They are doing the same at my Local Authority - unions moaning about spend on Consultants , it was pointed out that the Consultants were brought in due to the LA not having the skills in house. (Small LA)
There will be a lot more of this happening due to budget cuts and protectionism, it will be a difficult line to walk to get business on fair terms without causing major fall outs when cases like yours arise where it is clearly an 'inside job'
There will be a lot more of this happening due to budget cuts and protectionism, it will be a difficult line to walk to get business on fair terms without causing major fall outs when cases like yours arise where it is clearly an 'inside job'
Thurbs said:
I have been in this situation and reluctantly chalk it up as experience and move on.
If you do want to take it further, skip the HR and go straight to the procurement department. I would tread cautiously though, the threat from complaining is they tell all of their other public sector mates in other authorities and you never get any more business, ever.
I have emailed the HR manager just saying I wanted to clarify our prices as I thought the minutes could be interpretted in several ways, one of which was that external sourcing was more expensive and didn;t wantthat interpretation to be the one guiding future decisions. I think it was her boss the HR director who wrote the report (albeit probably on her info).If you do want to take it further, skip the HR and go straight to the procurement department. I would tread cautiously though, the threat from complaining is they tell all of their other public sector mates in other authorities and you never get any more business, ever.
Also a chance to send them our new brochure which outlines the benefits of external sourcing.
It’s likely that their financial model will include the cost of outsourcing and the allocation of internal costs to manage the work that goes to you rather than a like-for-like comparison.
“Will it do any good to moan?” Well, it shows them that you are watching and this is half the battle. Many Public Sector organisations/personnel believe they exist in a bubble and beyond scrutiny so by flagging it up, it shows this not to be the case.
I’d send in a letter to your client, cc the Chief Exec and if a council, the Councillor with the relevant portfolio with a clear demonstration of the financial benefits that you offer rather than them retaining the work in-house.
Mention that you would have at the very least, expected the courtesy of having the opportunity to discuss the matter prior to a decision being made.
Have they foreshortened any contract they had with you? Did you tender for the work originally? If so, this opens up a whole lot of fun.
Two years ago, we won a £250,000 contract that within 3 months, had come down to £25,000 as they had not followed their own procurement rules and took most of the work back in house. Our T&Cs include a cancellation clause which, given we had a Purchase Order from them, meant that we were owed the remaining £225,000. We didn’t impose it because a) we’re not gits and b) they were and remain a good client and had we imposed it, two staff members would have probably lost their jobs. (plus the profit on it wasn’t that huge).
There’s also legislation around the fact that on certain contracts, some Public Sector authorities have to put contracts out for tender – even if they want to do the work themselves, they still have to tender for it.
HTH
“Will it do any good to moan?” Well, it shows them that you are watching and this is half the battle. Many Public Sector organisations/personnel believe they exist in a bubble and beyond scrutiny so by flagging it up, it shows this not to be the case.
I’d send in a letter to your client, cc the Chief Exec and if a council, the Councillor with the relevant portfolio with a clear demonstration of the financial benefits that you offer rather than them retaining the work in-house.
Mention that you would have at the very least, expected the courtesy of having the opportunity to discuss the matter prior to a decision being made.
Have they foreshortened any contract they had with you? Did you tender for the work originally? If so, this opens up a whole lot of fun.
Two years ago, we won a £250,000 contract that within 3 months, had come down to £25,000 as they had not followed their own procurement rules and took most of the work back in house. Our T&Cs include a cancellation clause which, given we had a Purchase Order from them, meant that we were owed the remaining £225,000. We didn’t impose it because a) we’re not gits and b) they were and remain a good client and had we imposed it, two staff members would have probably lost their jobs. (plus the profit on it wasn’t that huge).
There’s also legislation around the fact that on certain contracts, some Public Sector authorities have to put contracts out for tender – even if they want to do the work themselves, they still have to tender for it.
HTH
StevieBee said:
It’s likely that their financial model will include the cost of outsourcing and the allocation of internal costs to manage the work that goes to you rather than a like-for-like comparison.
“Will it do any good to moan?” Well, it shows them that you are watching and this is half the battle. Many Public Sector organisations/personnel believe they exist in a bubble and beyond scrutiny so by flagging it up, it shows this not to be the case.
I’d send in a letter to your client, cc the Chief Exec and if a council, the Councillor with the relevant portfolio with a clear demonstration of the financial benefits that you offer rather than them retaining the work in-house.
Mention that you would have at the very least, expected the courtesy of having the opportunity to discuss the matter prior to a decision being made.
Have they foreshortened any contract they had with you? Did you tender for the work originally? If so, this opens up a whole lot of fun.
Two years ago, we won a £250,000 contract that within 3 months, had come down to £25,000 as they had not followed their own procurement rules and took most of the work back in house. Our T&Cs include a cancellation clause which, given we had a Purchase Order from them, meant that we were owed the remaining £225,000. We didn’t impose it because a) we’re not gits and b) they were and remain a good client and had we imposed it, two staff members would have probably lost their jobs. (plus the profit on it wasn’t that huge).
There’s also legislation around the fact that on certain contracts, some Public Sector authorities have to put contracts out for tender – even if they want to do the work themselves, they still have to tender for it.
HTH
They were never a very big or particularly good client ( cancelled work without telling us, leading to us imposing full T&C on all our other clients) but I don't like rumouirs that they can do it cheaper or better! We had already costed their handling of the work to prep it to send to us and we were still loads cheaper.“Will it do any good to moan?” Well, it shows them that you are watching and this is half the battle. Many Public Sector organisations/personnel believe they exist in a bubble and beyond scrutiny so by flagging it up, it shows this not to be the case.
I’d send in a letter to your client, cc the Chief Exec and if a council, the Councillor with the relevant portfolio with a clear demonstration of the financial benefits that you offer rather than them retaining the work in-house.
Mention that you would have at the very least, expected the courtesy of having the opportunity to discuss the matter prior to a decision being made.
Have they foreshortened any contract they had with you? Did you tender for the work originally? If so, this opens up a whole lot of fun.
Two years ago, we won a £250,000 contract that within 3 months, had come down to £25,000 as they had not followed their own procurement rules and took most of the work back in house. Our T&Cs include a cancellation clause which, given we had a Purchase Order from them, meant that we were owed the remaining £225,000. We didn’t impose it because a) we’re not gits and b) they were and remain a good client and had we imposed it, two staff members would have probably lost their jobs. (plus the profit on it wasn’t that huge).
There’s also legislation around the fact that on certain contracts, some Public Sector authorities have to put contracts out for tender – even if they want to do the work themselves, they still have to tender for it.
HTH
Soovy said:
Lazy public sector failures lying to protect their jobs and fat final salary pensions?
Who'd a thunk it?
Welcome to Britain.
Latest is that some of their staff are going to working part time so that they have no job losses, but then setting up companies to compete with external suppliers for any work their work-mates are commissioning. I assume staff budghets are being cut more than commissioned work budgets. I just hope the quality of their external work is nothing like ther internal work.Who'd a thunk it?
Welcome to Britain.
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff