Access to European Social Fund through the Learning and Skills Council

Headline Statistics 231 Third Sector organisations responded to the survey 161 organisations entered PQQ (70% of respondents) 112 organisations successful at PQQ (70% of PQQ applicants) 65 organisations responded to ITT (40% of PQQ applicants) 21 organisations successful at ITT (13 % of PQQ applicants) 6 organisations successful as partners only (3% of PQQ applicants)

Summary Third Sector organisations reported a generally good experience of engaging with the LSC competitive tendering process. Experience of the Pre Qualification Questionnaire (PQQ) process was generally positive, with experience of the Bravo Solutions system improved over the two PQQ rounds. Similarities or better experience between the two rounds was attributed to more familiarity with the Bravo Solutions online procurement system at the second time of completing the PQQ. Third Sector organisations general experience of the ITT process was positive with the exception that the majority of respondents felt that the post selection feedback was not clear. The experience with partnership arrangements was also generally good. There were some notable exceptions, however, where respondents reported being named in bids with no further involvement or actual delivery of activity. These experiences raise some questions about the way in which partnership arrangements are monitored by the LSC. Over 40% of respondents, having successfully passed the PQQ, did not respond to the ITT. Respondents felt that requirements for quality assurances for training and risks posed by outcome related funding prohibited further participation in the procurement process. Responses are best encapsulated by one comment that their organisation ...was not a conveyer belt of learning. Overall the comments suggest that those organisations who provide a more individual, tailored approach to working

with those with multiple disadvantage may not participate in European Social Fund activity.

Introduction Prior to the introduction of Co-financing1 during the 2000-2006 European Social Fund (ESF) programme, Third Sector organisations accessed ESF through a process of direct bidding. Under direct bidding, organisations would submit project applications to the relevant Government Office and would be responsible for finding their own match funding2. Following the introduction of Co-financing ESF is channelled through Co-financing organisations (CFOs) such as the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) and the Department for Work (DWP) and Pensions. Under Co-financing, funding is awarded through competitive tendering. In the current (2007-2013) programme the LSC has the largest overall allocation of ESF of all CFOs (around 825 million) for the first half of the programme - 2007-2010. LSC competitive tendering process and the Third Sector The LSCs competitive tendering process between 2007 to 2008/9 was delivered on-line using the Bravo Solutions online procurement system in two stages. In the first stage of this process, organisations had to fulfil certain criteria (such as financial standing, quality assurances, and confirmation of employers liability insurance) in order to qualify as a provider. Suitability was assessed using a Pre-Qualification Questionnaire (PQQ). If the organisation fulfilled the criteria, it could then respond to invitations to tender (ITT). Invitations to tender deal with the subject matter of the contract, specifying the services the LSC wants organisations to deliver on its behalf. After December 2008, qualified providers are now maintained under the Qualified Provider Framework (QPF). The Qualified Provider Framework is a maintained list of all providers from which the LSC will secure education and training services. The organisation then makes an offer of what it can deliver and the price for delivery according to the LSCs specification. This is otherwise known as bidding. Respondents to this survey sought to access ESF through contracts with the LSC directly and as partners in other organisations bids. Survey Aim
1

For further information on Co-financing, please see TSEN & CRESR - Evidence Review of the Impact of the ESF on Those Furthest From the Labour Market 4.1.
2

For further information, see Ibid

The aim of this survey is learn about the experience of Third Sector organisations at both the PQQ and ITT phases of the LSC competitive tendering process. The survey considers both the 2007 and 2008/2009 PQQ and subsequent ITT rounds.3 Results Of the 230 respondents 161 (70%) in total had entered PQQ. 112 (70%) of those entering PQQ were successful at least once.
Table 1: Number of organisations responding to PQQ Year of Response IN 2007 IN 2008/9 BOTH No of Orgs 75 31 55

%
46. 6 19. 3 34. 2

Table 2: Number of organisations responding by region

Region
EAST MIDLANDS SOUTH EAST YORKSHIRE AND HUMBERSIDE LONDON WEST MIDLANDS EAST The rest of the NORTH WEST SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST MERSEYSIDE

No. Of orgs.
48 20 17 16 15 11 9 9 8 8

%
29. 8 12. 4 10. 6 9.9 9.3 6.8 5.6 5.6 5.0 5.0

The survey questions are available www.tsen.org.uk/documents/survey/LSC%20Survey.pdf

2000-2006 programme
Table 3: Number of organisations who had accessed European Social Fund under the previous programme and route of access

No. Of Orgs Have never applied before 24 Have applied but never succeeded 16 Yes, successful through direct bidding 38 Yes, successful through LSC co-financed tendering 68 Yes, successful through other co-financed tendering 13 Not successful in our own right, but delivered ESF activities 20 as partner or sub-contractor. Experience of the PQQ Process

14.9 9.9 23.6 42.2 8.1 12.4

In both 2007 and 2008, the majority of respondents (70%) agreed or strongly agreed that the overall PQQ process was fair and suitable. The PQQ process is managed online using the Bravo Solutions procurement system. In 2007 the majority (50%) of respondents4 disagreed or strongly disagreed that that the Bravo Solutions online procurement system was fit for purpose. This had changed during the 2008 PQQ, with the majority (53%) of respondents agreeing that the Bravo Solutions online system was fit for purpose. Comparing the 2007 and 2008/2009 PQQ Process Those that went through PQQ in both rounds were asked to compare the system.
Figure 1: Comparative evaluation of PQQ across years

Not applicable was offered as a response. Therefore the largest proportion of responses may be lower than 51%

Slightly Better 17%

Much Better 6%

Much Worse 17% Slightly Worse 8%

About the Same 52%

Comments on the Comparison of the PQQ process Many comments reflected the similarity of experience between completion of the two PQQs, reporting very little difference between the two systems. Rather the difference was ...that I had finally learned to use the system and that the Prior experience of PQQ had provided practice for the latter PQQ. Another referred to the similarity as ...more to do with remembered pain and bitter experience rather than improvements to PQQ!. Responding to ITT Of the 112 organisations qualifying under PQQ, 65 (58%) responded to ITT. Experience of the ITT Process Respondents were proposed a series of statements about the ITT process as listed below. Percentages of those that agreed or strongly agreed, disagreed or strongly disagreed are shown. 21 of those respondents that responded to ITT secured a contract (32%).

Table 4: Agreement rating of statements about ITT process

Statement
It was a fair process Timescale for submission was adequate No difficulty with Bravo Solutions

Strongly agree or agree 56% 62% 46%

Strongly disagree or disagree 44% 38% 47%

online procurement sytem Queries were handled quickly and well Information about how tenders would be selected was clear Post selection feedback was clear

57% 58% 37%

32% 35% 46%

The majority of respondents (56%) agreed or strongly agreed that Invitation to Tender process was fair and information about how tenders would be selected was clear (58%). Importantly, queries with regard to the Bravo Solutions online procurement system were mostly dealt with quickly and well. One area of concern was the largest proportion (46%) of participants disagreeing or strongly disagreeing that the post selection feedback was clear. Reasons for not responding to ITT 47 (42%) of the 112 organisations who passed PQQ did not respond to ITT. Reasons for not responding to ITT largely reflected the nature of the contracts on offer. Some organisations referred to the geographical scale of the contracts: Geographical areas larger than our operating area, the county and regional emphasis disenfranchised us. Others referred to the financial risk posed by the scale of the contracts The financial risk was too much, especially the need to finance activity before receiving money from the LSC, We could not afford the risk of running a programme which delivered 25% of funding on 'into employment' outcomes and a further 25% on retention achieved 6 months after the end of the project . One respondent referred to the expectations placed on delivery, indicating that their organisation was not a conveyer belt of learning We have 100% retention on our programmes which considering that we specifically aim our programme at disadvantaged young people speaks for itself. One of our latest learners is a finalist (in a local competition for skills achievement). We are not a conveyer belt provider of learning - we tailor our programme to individual needs... These things contribute to the success of our programme in helping young people overcome personal barriers to progression. None of these things are valued by mainstream or ESF funding bodies Another organisation indicated that the requirement for accredited courses prohibited participation: All the tenders seem to want also accredited courses to be provided, which we're not able to do. The requirement to provide accredited courses favours colleges...

Partnership 44 organisations (including 43% of those not responding to ITT) became partners in another organisations bid. 32 (68%) were successful at least once in partnership bids. On average 70% of organisations were happy with the partnership arrangement. However, 30% of respondents were unhappy with partnership arrangements. Comments on Partnership Arrangements Some respondents comments reflected the benefits of working together in partnership, which has .. .enabled 5 smaller organisations to come together to bid for (& win) a contact that they otherwise would not have been able to do on their own, due to scale of contract. One respondent, clearly unhappy with the partnership arrangement, reported the naming of them in another partners bid despite the fact that they: ...had not held any meetings to discuss this. Simply sent out a form of what they could offer. Another reported that: We have entered into partnership but not been given any work or contract as such. We are supposed to start work with them at the end of May 2009.