Public procurement: survey of suppliers 2024

4. Main findings

This section outlines the main findings from the analysis of the survey responses. The section will cover a range of topics, including:

• bidding patterns;
• bidding feedback;
• the journey for suppliers;
• sustainable procurement;
• challenges and support for bidders;
• consortium bids;
• sub-contracting; and
• training and capacity building.

4.1 Bidding patterns

In order to be awarded and deliver Scottish public sector contracts, suppliers must first bid for those contracts. These competitive bidding processes are outlined in the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014.^[8]

We asked the following questions to understand respondents’ bidding patterns.

Q7. Has your organisation ever bid for a Scottish public sector contract?

Q8. Why has your organisation not bid for a Scottish public sector contract?

Q9. In terms of the contract value, what size of Scottish public sector contract(s) does your organisation typically tender for?

Q10. Which part(s) of the Scottish public sector are covered by the contracts that your organisation tendered for in the last two years?

Q11. Which part(s) of the Scottish public sector are covered by the contracts that your organisation won in the last two years?

Q12. In the last two years, how many Scottish public sector contracts did your organisation (a) tender for, or (b) win?

Q13. In the last two years, how many Quick Quote contracts did your organisation (a) tender for, or (b) win?

Q14. How is the process of tendering for public contracts managed in your organisation?

Q15. Thinking about your organisation, to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following: My organisation is aware of Scottish public bodies’ corporate procurement strategies/ annual procurement reports.

Q16. Does your organisation use artificial intelligence (AI) to help generate tender responses?

The questions in this section cover topics including whether respondents had bid for Scottish public sector contracts, what types of contracts they had bid for and won, and finally how they had developed their bids.

4.1.1 Reasons for not bidding

We asked respondents if their organisation had ever bid for a Scottish public sector contract. Two hundred and fifty-four Two hundred fifty-four respondents (74%, n=343) reported at least some experience of bidding for public sector contracts. A further 89 respondents (26%) reported that they had not placed a bid on a Scottish public sector contract.

We then asked those 89 respondents who reported that they had no experience bidding for a Scottish public sector contract why they had not bid (Figure 3).

The most common reason respondents who had not bid on a Scottish public sector contract gave, with 24 responses (27%, n=88), was that the advertised opportunities were not relevant to their business. 19 responses each (22%) were received for “didn’t have the resources to put together a bid” and “didn’t know where to find advertised opportunities”.

Respondents were given the option to record other responses in open text. Twenty-one respondents (24%) specified other reasons for not bidding including:

• a lack of insurance, financial capacity or other administrative requirement for bidding;
• that they had not bid because of the time and resources required to produce a bid;
• that they were not able to commercially compete with larger suppliers;
• issues with communication with buyers;
• confusion or lack of knowledge on how to produce and place a bid; and
• problems with the procurement documentation.

Several responses noted that they were new organisations and not yet in a position to bid for Scottish public sector contracts.

4.1.2 The types of contracts bid for and won

The following questions cover the financial value and contract type of the Scottish public sector contracts suppliers had either bid for or won, as well as information on which areas of the public sector the contracts relate to.

Figure 4 shows the financial value of the contracts that respondents typically bid for. As many suppliers tender for a variety of contracts of different values, respondents selected each of the value bands applicable to their organisation.

At least half of respondents reported that they bid for contracts valued in the following price ranges:

• between £10,000 and £49,999 (61%, 153 respondents, n=252);
• between £50,000 and £119,999 (50%, 126 respondents); and
• contracts with a value of over £190,000 (51%, 129 respondents).

This suggests that many respondents consider bidding for public contracts with a wide range of values. Many respondents reported tendering for contracts in more than one value band.

To understand suppliers’ recent experience with the Scottish procurement process, we asked respondents who had reported bidding for a Scottish public sector contract in the past how many they had bid for and won in the last two years (Figure 5).

As figure 5 shows, five respondents (2%, n=248) who reported they had bid for Scottish public sector contracts in the past reported that they had not tendered for any in the last two years. The largest share of respondents reported that they had tendered for between one and three Scottish public sector contracts in the last two years (47%, 117 total).

Figure 6 shows the number of Scottish public sector contracts respondents reported they had won in the last two years.

As Figure 6 shows, 63 respondents (26%, n=244) reported that they had not won any contracts in the last two years, compared with only five having reported that they had not tendered for any in the last two years. Similar to the pattern seen in Figure 5, the largest share of respondents reported having won between one and three Scottish public sector contracts (50%, 122 in total). However, it is not necessarily the case that those who were bidding for one to three contracts were those winning one to three contracts.

Respondents were also asked how many Quick Quote contracts they had won in the last two years (Figure 7). Quick Quote contracts are contracts with a value of less than £50k, and involve a simplified process where several potential suppliers are invited to bid.^[9]

A total of 106 respondents (43%, n=249) with experience of bidding for Scottish public sector contracts had not bid for any Quick Quote contracts in the last two years.

Figure 8 provides a breakdown of the number of Quick Quote contracts respondents reported they had won in the last two years.

A total of 35 respondents reported that they had tendered for at least one Quick Quote contract but had not won any. This accounted for 15% of respondents (n=237) among those who reported how many Quick Quotes contracts they had won.

We asked respondents in which sectors with the Scottish public sector they had tendered for or won contracts in the last two years. This is shown in Figure 9 below. This tells us which Scottish public bodies purchased goods, works or services from the respondents. Where a respondent may have supplied more than one Scottish public sector contract, they may have also supplied to more than one sector.

The majority of respondents reported that they had tendered for or won contracts from local government bodies; 192 respondents (77%, n=249) tendered for, and 155 respondents (72%, n=216) won contracts from Scottish local government buyers. The next most reported sector from which respondents had tendered for or won contracts was central government; 105 respondents (42%, n=249) tendered for, and 75 respondents (35%, n=216) won contracts from Scottish central government bodies. The most common “other” responses reported having tendered for and won contracts from non-departmental public bodies.

4.1.3 How suppliers develop their bids

We asked respondents how the process for tendering for public sector contracts was managed in their organisation. A total of 149 respondents (60%, n=249) reported having either a number of people or a team involved, or sharing responsibility across the entire organisation. A further 100 respondents (40%) reported having one person who is responsible for tendering for public contracts within their organisation.

We also sought to understand what resources respondents had used to help prepare their bids. Scottish public bodies with significant regulated procurement spend are required to publish corporate procurement strategies and annual procurement reports.^[10] These reports are public documents outlining Scottish public bodies’ procurement priorities and activities.

Figure 10 shows a breakdown of how aware respondents were of public bodies’ corporate procurement strategies and annual procurement reports.

Figure 10 shows that most respondents agree or strongly agree that their organisations are aware of Scottish public bodies’ corporate procurement strategies: 137 respondents (54%, n=252). Ninety-two respondents (37%, n=249) agreed or strongly agreed that their organisations were aware of public bodies’ annual procurement reports. This suggests that many suppliers know where to access information on Scottish public bodies’ procurement priorities and activities.

We also asked respondents if they have used artificial intelligence (AI) to help generate tender responses.^[11] In total, 60 respondents (24%, n=253) reported that they had either used AI to help generate tender responses or were considering doing so.

4.2 Bidding feedback

The feedback that bidders receive on their tenders is an important part of the tendering process, whether or not they are successful. It allows bidders to understand how the public body made their decision, and enables them to make improvements for future bids.^[12]

We asked the following questions to understand respondents’ reflections on feedback they had received on their bids.

Q17. Did your organisation receive feedback from the relevant public body on your tenders in the last two years, regardless of whether you won the contract(s) or not?

Q18. How would you rate the quality of the feedback you received?

Q19. Did your organisation request (further) feedback on your tenders in the last two years?

Q20. Please explain what information you felt was missing or incomplete from the feedback you received. (Open response)

When asked whether their organisation had received feedback from the relevant public body on tenders submitted in the past two years — regardless of whether they were successful— 62 respondents (25%, n=251) reported that they had received feedback on all of their tenders. A further 53 respondents (21%) reported that they had received feedback on most tenders, and 63 respondents (25%) reported that they had received feedback on some of their tenders.

In total, 60 respondents (24%, n=251) reported that they had received no feedback on any of their bids in the last two years. A further 13 respondents (5%) reported they had received feedback only on regulated procurements (i.e. contracts valued at £50,000 or more for goods and services, or £2 million or more for works).

Having established how often respondents received feedback on their bids, we asked respondents who had received feedback how they would rate the quality of that feedback (Figure 11).

alt A bar chart showing how respondents rated the feedback they received on their bids. Of the 191 respondents who answered the question, the largest groups were those that answered “good” (43%), or “average” (38%).

When asked to rate the quality of the feedback they received on their bids, 91 respondents (48%, n=191) rated the quality of the feedback received as good or excellent. Twenty-eight respondents (15%) rated the quality of the feedback they received as poor or very poor.

We then asked all respondents who had bid for a Scottish public sector contract if they had requested further feedback on their tenders in the last two years. The majority of respondents reported that they had not requested further feedback: 139 respondents (56%, n=250). A further 111 respondents (44%) reported that they had requested further feedback.

Respondents were asked to identify any information they felt was missing or incomplete from the feedback they received on their bids from Scottish public bodies.

The most common response to this question reported a lack of detail in the feedback received:

“The information was vague and generic; we would like a more personal explanation for reasons not winning a tender.”

“Advice as to what was missing between our tender and the winning one so that we can look to incorporate relevant changes for the future.”

Many respondents also pointed to a lack of clarity in the pricing and commercial information provided. Respondents felt that this perceived lack of transparency made it difficult for them to fully understand the cost breakdown or the justification behind certain financial elements of the evaluation of their bids. As one respondent stated:

“The tender was not ranked so we have no idea where we stand in terms of pricing, and no one was able to give us this information. This makes it difficult to understand how competitive our prices were and if we have a good chance of winning much business versus competitors on the framework.”

Many respondents noted not having received feedback on their bid other than the evaluation scores. One respondent stated:

“We've had no feedback on two tenders other than the score.”

Many respondents also expressed concerns regarding the transparency and level of detail provided in relation to the scoring process. Many felt that the criteria used to assess and score submissions were not clearly communicated, making it difficult to understand how final evaluations were determined. As one respondent stated:

“We need more information in feedback on the rationale for scoring of quality responses and the quality differential between all tenders. This information would allow us to improve our tender responses to meet better meet [redacted] client requirements. We understand concerns regarding the provision of detailed pricing information, but we believe the information is too limited. We are often only provided with information on our price score and the price score for the winning tenderer. This information would help achieving better value for money for the [redacted] clients as we would have a better understanding of the relationship between quality and price across tenderers.”

4.3 The journey for suppliers

This section outlines the survey findings in relation to the stages of the journey for suppliers. We asked the following questions to understand where in the journey for suppliers respondents are facing the least and the greatest difficulty in interacting with Scottish public sector procurement processes from the bidding stage through to contract award.

Q21. Thinking about your organisation, to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements:

a. We are able to communicate our value proposition to inform our bids

b. We are able to satisfy the qualification criteria for tender requirements

c. We find the evaluation criteria of tenders are clear

d. We are able to respond effectively to evaluation criteria

e. We are able to use previous feedback to inform future bids

f. We are able to submit a bid within the timescale

Q22. How frequently have the following tasks posed a difficulty for your organisation in relation to Scottish public sector contracts in the last two years?

a. Identifying available Scottish public sector contracts

b. Communicating with Scottish public sector buyers

c. Understanding questions asked in the request for tender documentation

d. Costs of compiling a tender

e. Timescale for preparing a bid

f. Organisational investment required for preparing a bid

g. Meeting financial capacity requirements

h. Meeting insurance requirements

i. Organisational capability / capacity for managing a Scottish public sector contract

j. Requirements for professional qualifications / accreditations (including health and safety)

k. Requirements for previous experience in supplying to the Scottish public sector

l. Finding a partner with which to make a joint bid for a contract

m. Accessing tender documentation

n. Gaining feedback on a tender

o. Late payment of a valid invoice by a Scottish public sector body

p. Terms and conditions of the proposed contract

To cover the bidding phase of the journey for suppliers, we asked respondents to what extent they agreed that they were able to respond to the requirements of Scottish public sector contracts. Figure 12 shows this breakdown.

Figure 12 shows that generally, respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they are able to submit bids in line with Scottish public bodies’ specifications. Only on the question of evaluation criteria clarity did less than half of respondents answer agree or strongly agree. One - hundred and nineteen of 251 respondents (47%) agreed or strongly agreed that the evaluation criteria were clear. However, 161 out of 252 (64%) agreed or strongly agreed that they were able to satisfy those criteria.

Out of 252 respondents, 156 (62%) agreed or strongly agreed that they are able to communicate their value proposition effectively to inform their bids. Similarly, 214 out of 253 respondents (85%) agreed or strongly agreed that they are able to satisfy the qualification criteria for tender requirements.

Additionally, 133 out of 253 respondents (53%) agreed or strongly agreed that they can use previous feedback to inform future bids. Finally, 199 out of 252 respondents (79%) agreed or strongly agreed that they are able to submit a bid within the given timescales.

Figure 13 provides a breakdown of how often different aspects of the journey for suppliers gave respondents difficulty.

As Figure 13 shows, the area where respondents reported experiencing the least difficulty was in meeting insurance requirements – 205 respondents (82%, n=251) reported that meeting insurance requirements rarely or never posed a difficulty. Similarly, 183 respondents (73%, n=251) reported that meeting requirements for professional qualifications / accreditations (including health and safety) rarely or never posed a difficulty.

The two areas with the highest rates of often or always posing a difficulty each relate to Scottish public bodies’ communication. A total of 87 of 250 respondents (35%) reported that communicating with Scottish public sector buyers often or always poses a difficulty. Further, 84 respondents (34%, n=249) reported that gaining feedback on a tender often or always poses a difficulty. Similarly, 80 respondents (32%, n=252) reported that the costs of compiling a tender often or always poses a difficulty, and 75 respondents (30%, n=252) reported that the organisational investment required for preparing a bid often or always poses a difficulty.

4.4 Sustainable procurement

The sustainable procurement duty is outlined in the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014. It requires that before a contracting authority buys anything, it must think about how it can improve the social, environmental and economic wellbeing of the area in which it operates, with a particular focus on reducing inequality.^[13]

This section examines how often respondents have been asked to consider each of the six elements of the sustainable procurement duty when bidding for Scottish public sector contracts.

Q23. When bidding for Scottish public sector contracts in the last two years, how often have you been asked to consider the following in your tender?

a. Community benefits in procurement (for example, apprenticeships or training opportunities)

b. Fair Work practices for employees (for example, employment and pay matters)

c. Environmental impacts or concerns

d. Payment terms within the supply chain

e. Innovation

f. Advertising sub-contract opportunities

Figure 14 provides a breakdown of how often respondents’ Scottish public sector contracts included different aspects of sustainable procurement.

*Includes aggregated figures

The element of the sustainable procurement duty which the most respondents reported was always or often included in Scottish public sector contracts was Fair Work practices for employees – 198 respondents (79%, n=250). This was followed by environmental impacts or concerns, which 189 respondents (75%, n=251) reported were often or always included, and community benefits in procurement, which 171 respondents (68%, n=251) reported were often or always included.

The only element which the majority of respondents reported was never or rarely included was advertising sub-contract opportunities: 148 respondents (60%, n=248).

4.5 Challenges and support for bidders

Public sector procurement in Scotland takes place within a framework of rules. When suppliers feel that those rules have not been followed, or when they are dissatisfied with a procurement process, it is important that they are able to access legal or other forms of redress.

We asked the following questions to understand how respondents responded when they were dissatisfied with a procurement exercise.

Q24. Has your organisation been dissatisfied with the process and procedures of a procurement exercise carried out by a Scottish public body in the past two years?

Q25. What action(s) did your organisation take?

Q26. Prior to this survey was your organisation aware of the Single Point of Enquiry?

Q27. If your organisation approached the Single Point of Enquiry Service but did not make use of it, please explain why. (Open response)

Q28. How satisfied were you with the service you received from the Single Point of Enquiry Service?

Q29. Please explain why you felt this way. (Open response)

Q30. Has your organisation considered initiating a legal challenge following an unsuccessful tender at any time (i.e. not just within the last two years), regardless of whether you went through with it?

Q31. Did your organisation experience any barriers to initiating a legal challenge?

Q32. Which of the following factors acted as a barrier to initiating a legal challenge?

This section sought to understand first, if respondents had been dissatisfied with a procurement exercise and the actions they took in response; second, if they had made use of the Scottish Government’s Single Point of Enquiry Service for support; and third, if they had initiated a legal challenge due to a procurement exercise, and why or why not.

4.5.1 Dissatisfaction with a procurement exercise

We asked respondents if they had been dissatisfied with the process and procedures of a procurement exercise carried out by a Scottish public body in the past two years. Of the 250 responses received to this question, 129 respondents (52%) answered "yes."

We then asked the respondents who had reported that they had been dissatisfied what actions they took in response (Figure 15). We allowed respondents to select more than one answer in case they had taken more than one action, or had acted differently on more than one of these cases.

*Includes aggregated figures

When those who were dissatisfied were asked what actions their organisation took in response, 61 (48%, n=128) reported they raised the issue with the public body directly, and 58 (45%) reported that they did not take any action. Twelve respondents (9%) reported that they had approached the Single Point of Enquiry (SPoE). Eleven respondents (9%) reported other actions, including initiating a legal challenge, raising the issue with local groups or their MSP, noting that they did not have the resources for a legal challenge, and challenging the public body’s decision by an unspecified method.

4.5.2 The Single Point of Enquiry (SPoE)

The SPoE is an independent, impartial and confidential service for suppliers to the public sector in Scotland. It offers advice to suppliers on the procurement rules which must be followed by public bodies in Scotland and information on how contracts are advertised and awarded.^[14]

We asked respondents who had been dissatisfied with a procurement exercise carried out by a Scottish public body in the past two years if their organisation was aware of the SPoE prior to this survey. The majority of respondents reported that they were not aware of the SPoE prior to this survey (85%, n=129). The remaining 19 respondents (15%) reported that they were aware of the service. This included those who were aware of the SPoE and had made use of the service, and those who were aware of it but had not used it.^[15]

Respondents who were aware of the SPoE service but had not made use of it were asked why they had made that decision. Some reported that they had their own concerns, with a few expressing uncertainties about the benefits of the service. As one respondent stated:

“In general we are unlikely to use the SPoE because it is unclear what the benefits would be. Going through the process could potentially damage our relationship with the customer organisation which is not something we can afford in a small market in a small country.”

A few respondents expressed concerns that they did not have time for the SPoE process and that it was not sufficiently effective. One respondent stated that:

“[We] already wasted so much time (and cost) on the submission and can't afford to spend more time on it with no chance of a change of outcome.”

Additionally, a few respondents reported they had concerns regarding any potential consequences or repercussions they thought might occur if they made use of the SPoE process. One respondent reported that they:

“Don’t want to cause a fuss or to be looked at as the company that complained…”

Respondents were subsequently asked how satisfied they were with the service they received from the SPoE. Only a few respondents had experience with the service, and so no clear conclusions could be drawn.

4.5.3 Legal challenges

The majority of the respondents who had been dissatisfied with a procurement exercise in the past two years—106 out of 129 (82%)—reported that their organisation had not considered initiating a legal challenge following an unsuccessful tender at any time, not limited to the past two years, regardless of whether such a challenge was ultimately pursued.

Of the 23 respondents (18%, n=129) who reported that they had considered pursuing a legal challenge, 18 (78%) reported having encountered barriers to initiating that process.

We then asked which specific factors acted as barriers to pursuing such a challenge (Figure 16). We allowed respondents to select more than one answer, in case they had experienced more than one barrier.

The most prevalent factor reported by respondents as a barrier to initiating a legal challenge was the cost of initiating legal proceedings 14 total (78%, n=18). Other commonly cited challenges included the perception that raising a concern would be held against them on future competitions (13 responses, 72%), a lack of capacity within their organisation to pursue a legal challenge (11 responses, 61%), as well as limited knowledge of procurement remedies legislation (9 responses, 50%). Additionally, a smaller number of respondents highlighted the short timeframe available to initiate a challenge and the overall duration of legal proceedings as further barriers (6 responses, 33%).

4.6 Consortium bids

A consortium bid is when two or more suppliers come together to bid during a procurement. They are especially useful for help SME bid for larger contracts by combining resources and expertise.^[16]

We asked the following questions to understand respondents’ interactions with consortium bidding and contracts.

Q33. Has your organisation ever bid for a Scottish public sector contract as part of a consortium?

Q34. How would you rate your organisation's experience of bidding for a Scottish public sector contract as part of a consortium?

Q35. Please explain which barriers or obstacles (if any) you experienced when part of a consortium bid for a Scottish public sector contract. (Open response)

When asked whether their organisation had ever bid for a Scottish public sector contract as part of a consortium, 212 respondents (84%, n=252) answered "no", while 40 respondents (16%) answered "yes".

Figure 17 provides a breakdown of how respondents who had bid on a Scottish public sector contract as a consortium rated the experience.

*Includes aggregated figure

Those who had participated in a consortium bid were asked to rate their experience. Twenty-three respondents (58%, n=40) described their experience as good or very good, while 10 (25%) rated it as fair. Seven respondents (18%) rated their experience as poor or very poor.

When asked to explain any barriers or obstacles experienced while being part of a consortium bid for a Scottish public sector contract, a few respondents expressed a perception of possible bias among public sector buyers towards larger commercial firms as a significant issue. They expressed concerns that the procurement process seemed to favour bigger, more established companies and questioned the quality of delivery from these firms. These respondents felt that this made it more challenging for smaller consortiums to compete on an equal footing. One respondent stated:

“Time and time again we have seen projects go to commercial firms, often without any connection to Scotland in terms of where they reside, pay tax or support supply chains as they are able to turn over the bid quickly and cheaply.”

In addition to concerns about perceived public sector buyer bias toward larger firms, a few respondents highlighted a variety of other challenges they had faced when bidding as part of a consortium for a Scottish public sector contract. These challenges included the timescale to prepare a bid across multiple partners, the lack of a contracting framework for a consortium, and the organisational structures within the consortiums themselves. One respondent stated:

“The consortium having one lead partner and one point of contact creates a huge burden on one person and immediately places the consortium on a hierarchy.”

4.7 Sub-contracting

Sub-contracting provides opportunities for a wide variety of suppliers to engage in Scottish public sector contracts throughout the supply chain.^[17] It is regulated by procurement legislation including the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014.

We asked the following questions to understand respondents’ experience of being a sub-contractor on Scottish public sector contracts.

Q36. Have you ever acted as a sub-contractor supplier on a Scottish public sector contract?

Q37. When delivering Scottish public sector contracts as a sub-contractor, have you always been paid within 30 days?

Q38. For any of the sub-contracts where you were not paid within 30 days, did they include provisions that you would be paid within 30 days?

Q39. Was your experience of not being paid within 30 days as a sub-contractor limited to a single Scottish public sector contract?

Q40. For any Scottish public sector contracts where you have not been paid as a sub-contractor within 30 days, who (if anyone) did you raise the issue with?

Q41. How would you rate your organisation's experiences of delivering Scottish public sector contracts as a sub-contractor?

Q42. Please tell us anything else you'd like us to know about your organisation’s experience of subcontracting on Scottish public sector contracts. (Open response)

This section examines first, if respondents had acted as a sub-contractor for a Scottish public sector contract; second, if they had experienced any issues with prompt payments; and third, how they would rate their experiences of sub-contracting for the Scottish public sector.

We first asked respondents if they had ever acted as a sub-contractor on a Scottish public sector contract. A total of 74 respondents (22%, n=340) reported that they had.

4.7.1 Prompt payment of sub-contractors

Prompt payment is important to the sustainability and resilience of supply chains. The Scottish Government defines prompt payment as payment within 30 days of receipt of a valid invoice.^[18]

We asked the 74 respondents who reported that they had acted as sub-contractors on Scottish public sector contracts if they had always been paid within 30 days of the contracting authority receiving a valid invoice. The majority – 41 respondents (55%) – confirmed that they had always been paid within 30 days. However, 22 respondents (30%) reported that they had not always been paid within 30 days. The remaining 11 respondents (15%) reported that they did not know if they had always been paid within 30 days of the contracting authority receiving a valid invoice.

When asked whether the sub-contracts in which they were not paid within 30 days included provisions for payment within 30 days, 16 out of 22 respondents (73%) reported that some or all of these contracts contained such prompt payment provisions. This suggests a gap between contractual terms and actual practice. A further six respondents (27%) reported that on sub-contracts where they had not been paid within 30 days, no prompt payment provisions had been included in those contracts.

Some respondents reported that delays in payment were not isolated incidents. Most respondents who had reported not being paid within 30 days of the contracting party receiving a valid invoice also reported that these instances were not limited to a single contract: 12 respondents (55%, n=22).

Finally, we asked respondents who had not been paid within 30 days of the with whom they had raised this issue (if anyone). Most of the respondents (19 total, 86%, of n=22) who experienced delayed payment on Scottish public sector contracts as sub-contractors reported raising the issue with the main contractor or the sub-contractor responsible for the delay.

4.7.2 Satisfaction with sub-contracting

We asked those respondents who had reported acting as a sub-contractor on a Scottish public sector contract how they would rate their organisation’s experience of delivering Scottish public sector contracts as a sub-contractor (Figure 18).

The majority – 58 out of 74 respondents (78%) – rated their experience as good or excellent. Only 16 respondents (22%) rated their experience as average, poor or very poor.

We then asked respondents to tell us anything else they wanted us to know about their experience of acting as a sub-contractor on a Scottish public sector contract. In their responses to this question, respondents highlighted several recurring themes regarding their organisations experiences of sub-contracting on Scottish public sector contracts.

Some respondents reported that the overall process of bidding for sub-contracts can be lengthy and burdensome. One respondent stated that:

“We regularly go through lengthy procurement processes, wait a considerable time for an update and then additional information is requested by return.”

A few respondents reported frequent payment delays, and experience of prime contractors not paying them within the mandated 30 days of receipt of a valid invoice. One respondent stated:

“Generally speaking never paid on a timely basis, but always appears to be an ‘issue’ with the bidding organisation, not the public sector body.”

A few respondents requested greater transparency regarding the ways in which sub-contracting opportunities are advertised and awarded, and increased transparency and objectivity in the way suppliers are awarded sub-contracting opportunities. A few respondents felt that there are limited opportunities for smaller sub-contractors to participate in Scottish public sector contracts. One respondent stated that:

“In many cases it seems that the same companies win the tenders or the quick quotes which puts smaller companies in disadvantage.”

A few respondents reported that either they or public bodies preferred engaging in direct partnerships rather than working through sub-contracting arrangements. One respondent noted that:

“Going forward the public sector authority would prefer to work with us direct, however their procurement team wanted to award via the framework which we were not a supplier on only a named sub-contractor.”

4.8 Training and capacity building

A variety of training and capacity building resources are available to help suppliers and potential suppliers engage with the Scottish public sector. These include the Supplier Development Programme (a partnership between the Scottish Government and partner organisations) and training courses offered by organisations such as Scotland Excel.^[19]

We asked the following questions to understand what training and capacity building opportunities respondents are using.

Q43. Has anyone in your organisation ever received training, support or advice on tendering for Scottish public sector contracts?

Q44. Please tell us why not?

Q45. Please select the source(s) of the training, support or advice provided.

Q46. Prior to this survey, were you or your organisation aware of the Supplier Development Programme?

Q47. Has anyone in your organisation ever attended a Supplier Development Programme 'Meet the Buyer' event?

Q48. How would you rate your organisation's experiences of receiving training, support or advice on tendering for Scottish public sector contracts?

Q49. Please tell us anything else you'd like us to know about training, support or advice on tendering for Scottish public sector contracts. (Open response)

This section sought to understand first, if respondents had received any training, support or advice; second, from which source they had received training, support or advice; and finally, to rate their experience of receiving training, support or advice.

4.8.1 Receiving training, support or advice

When asked whether anyone in their organisation had ever received training, support, or advice on tendering for Scottish public sector contracts, less than half reported that they had: 122 out of 341 respondents (36%). The majority – 195 respondents (57%) reported that they had not received any training, support or advice, and the remaining 24 respondents (7%) reported that they did not know if they had.

To better understand this gap, respondents were subsequently asked to provide the reasons why they had not received training, advice or support (Figure 19). As some respondents may have more than one reason for why they had not received training, advice or support, they were able to select all the reasons that applied.

The majority of respondents reported that they had not received training, advice or support primarily because they were unaware that these resources were available (112 responses, 58%, n=192) or were unsure which training opportunities were applicable to their organisation (68 responses, 35%). Others reported a lack of capacity or time to pursue training as a barrier (30 responses, 16%). A smaller number of respondents noted that their organisation did not have dedicated procurement personnel to undertake the training (23 responses, 12%), or that they were unable to access the training that was provided (20 responses, 10%).

4.8.2 Sources of training, support or advice

The 122 respondents who reported that they had received training, advice or support were then asked from which source this had been provided. Figure 20 provides a breakdown of the sources of training, advice or support respondents reported using. As respondents may make use of more than one source of training, advice or support, they were able to select all the sources that applied to them.

The largest share of respondents (88 total, 73%, n=120) reported receiving training, support or advice from the Supplier Development Programme. Additionally, 34 respondents (28%) reported attending a specific contract event. A further 20 respondents (17%) reported they had received support through Business Gateway or the Scottish Government’s Supplier Journey. Fifteen respondents (13%) reported receiving a feedback session from a Scottish public sector organisation in connection with a tendering process, while 10 (8%) noted that they had received support from private contractors. The 7 other responses reported receiving internal training, personal training, Meet the Buyer events, and past training.

We then asked respondents if they or their organisation was aware of the Supplier Development Programme prior to this survey. The Supplier Development Programme is a business support initiative using training and information to improve the competitiveness of local businesses.

The Supplier Development Programme is a partnership of Local Authorities, Scottish Government and other public bodies working together to offer support to businesses in all aspects of tendering.^[20]

The majority of respondents—199 out of 341 (58%)—reported that they were aware of the Supplier Development Programme prior to participating in this survey. Among the 199 respondents who were aware of the Supplier Development Programme, 131 respondents (66%) confirmed that someone from their organisation had attended a Supplier Development Programme 'Meet the Buyer' event.^[21]

4.8.3 Satisfaction with training, support and advice

We asked respondents to rate their experience of receiving training, support or advice on tendering for Scottish public sector contracts (Figure 21).

Among those who had reported that someone in their organisation had received training, support or advice on tendering for Scottish public sector contracts, 69 respondents (57%, n=122) described their experience as good or excellent. A further 44 (36%) answered average, and nine (7%) answered poor or very poor.

To understand how the training, advice and support offered to suppliers might be improved, we asked respondents if there is anything else they would like us to know about training, support or advice on tendering for Scottish public sector contracts.

The most common theme raised by respondents was a desire for clearer, more consistent communication of training opportunities. Many respondents reported that they wanted to undertake training to improve their ability to bid for Scottish public sector contracts but were unaware of where to find those training opportunities. One respondent stated:

“I would like to know how to be on a mailing list for training opportunities and how these are tailored. For example, we are a charity and it would be useful to have training dedicated to third sector organisations and organisations that manage grant funding…”

The second most common theme related to the relevance and usefulness of the current training offer. Several respondents questioned how applicable the content of current training resources was to their specific needs and whether it effectively prepared them to compete for public sector contracts. Many of these respondents noted that a more practical approach would be appreciated, such as someone mentoring or walking them through a tendering process. One respondent stated that:

“It would be useful to have someone come and walk us through a tender, part by part and help us to understand how to put together an effective tender. [Supplier Development Programme] training is helpful but actually doing a "mock" tender would probably be very useful.”

Many respondents commented on perceived concerns regarding the inclusiveness of the training available. For example, some felt that existing training and support disproportionately served larger or more established organisations, limiting equal opportunity. Others noted that it was only available to suppliers based in Scotland. One respondent stated that:

“Make it accessible to all suppliers not just those based in Scotland.”

Several respondents commented on the complexity of the entire procurement system as another recurring theme. Some of these responses reported that the training offered needed to help suppliers understand and navigate Scottish procurement’s systems and requirements. One respondent stated that:

“The tendering system is quite complex and the need for SDP training cannot be overemphasised.”

Several respondents noted a perceived lack of fairness in procurement processes, with some organisations expressing concerns about perceived biases in the procurement process and the limited transparency around selection criteria. Some of these responses reported a bias towards larger suppliers. One respondent stated that:

“For what could be a good gateway for SMEs and other companies to engage with Scottish public sector procurement, my feedback is that this is not being achieved. There remains a lot of rules, regulations, blockers to free flowing trade. I also note that there are a lot of direct awards made under large procurement contracts…”

Several respondents raised the time-consuming nature of both the procurement process and training as a challenge, particularly for smaller organisations. Most of these responses focused on the time-consuming nature of procurement generally as an obstacle to tendering. One respondent stated that:

“Public procurement is always so time consuming, with unnecessary barriers for small businesses.”

Some respondents felt that involvement of public sector bodies in training and support would be beneficial. Respondents wanted representatives of Scottish public bodies’ procurement teams to be involved in training and information sessions. Respondents felt that this would help them understand what public bodies were looking for from tenders. Respondents felt this could improve the relevance of the content of the training and help suppliers better understand real-world expectations and practices. This was specifically noted for Meet the Buyer events. One respondent stated that:

“Being able to speak to the specifiers of a product would be beneficial from a manufacturers point of view. We do not supply the product direct as that would come through our distributor partners.”

4.9 Perceptions of public procurement in Scotland

We asked respondents some questions on their overall views on Scottish public sector procurement. These questions covered broad themes examining respondents’ perceptions of Scottish public procurement and whether Scottish public procurement has improved since the last edition of this survey, and in the last two years.

Q50. Thinking about Scottish public procurement delivery from 2020 to now, to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements:

a. Scottish public sector procurement has improved

b. Scottish public sector procurement has become more open and transparent

c. Scottish public sector procurement has become simpler

d. Scottish public sector procurement has become more business-friendly

e. Scottish public sector procurement has become more social enterprise/third sector friendly

Q51. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements in relation to Scottish public procurement in the last two years.

a. My organisation was treated fairly and equally throughout the procurement process

b. Contracts are divided into lots in order to facilitate SME / Third Sector access where it is possible to do so

c. Prequalification criteria are relevant and proportionate to the circumstances of the contract

d. Joint bidding among SMEs and third sector bodies is encouraged

e. My organisation has sufficiently regular meetings with the customer organisation to ensure effective delivery of the contract

f. Scottish public procurement focuses on achieving value for money rather than driving down costs (i.e. through achieving an appropriate balance of cost, quality and sustainability)

g. My organisation is encouraged to suggest innovative solutions to public contract delivery

Q52. Over the past two years, how would you rate your organisation's experiences of the following elements of the Scottish public procurement system?

a. Transparency and clarity in the procurement process (e.g. making it easier to locate, understand and bid for contracts)

b. Participation of SME/third sector/supported business in the procurement process

c. Embedding social and environmental matters in the procurement process

d. Encouraging consortia bidding

e. Encouraging innovation

f. Quality and consistency of feedback

g. Visibility of low value contracts (Quick Quote)

h. Effective contract and supply chain management

i. Public sector engagement with suppliers

Figure 22 provides a breakdown of respondents’ views on whether different aspects of Scottish public procurement have improved since the last edition of this survey, in 2020.

*Includes aggregated figure

The majority of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with three of the five statements: the Scottish public sector has improved (188 total, 57%, n=332), Scottish public sector procurement has become more open and transparent (176 total, 53%, n=334), and Scottish public sector procurement has become more social enterprise/ third sector friendly (209 total, 63%, n=330).

A total of 76 respondents (23%, n=334) agreed or strongly agreed that Scottish public sector procurement had become more open and transparent. Similarly, 65 respondents (20%, n=332) agreed or strongly agreed that Scottish public sector procurement had improved.

A total of 141 respondents (42%, n=334) disagreed or strongly disagreed that Scottish public sector procurement had become simpler. Similarly, 133 respondents (40%, n=333) disagreed or strongly disagreed that Scottish public sector procurement has become more business-friendly.

Figure 23 provides a breakdown of respondents’ views on statements about different aspects of Scottish public procurement. These statements are informed by Scottish procurement policy best practice, as outlined in the Scottish Procurement Policy Handbook.

The highest agreement levels were for respondents having regular meetings with the customer organisation to ensure effective delivery with 132 respondents (40%, n=333) agreeing or strongly agreeing, followed by respondents being treated fairly and equally throughout the procurement process with 131 respondents (39%, n=339) agreeing or strongly agreeing. However, areas like encouragement of joint bidding among SMEs and third sector bodies received mixed responses, with 164 respondents (49%, n=332) neither agreeing nor disagreeing.

The statement with the most disagree or strongly disagree responses was whether the Scottish public sector procurement focuses on value for money rather than driving down costs, where 120 respondents (36%, n=335), disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Figure 24 provides a breakdown of respondents’ views on whether different aspects of the Scottish public procurement system have improved or worsened in the last two years.

The majority of responses across seven of the nine categories reported that there has been "no change" over the past two years. The responses with the highest rate of “no change” were for encouraging consortia bidding (245 total, 77%, n=318), participation of SME/third sector/supported business (211 total, 66%, n=322), effective contract and supply chain management (201 total, 63%, n=319).

The area with the most responses reporting improvement was embedding social and environmental considerations, where 141 respondents (44%, n=324) answered somewhat or significantly improved. This was followed by encouraging innovation, where 94 respondents (29%, n=319) answered somewhat or significantly improved.

The area with the most “worsened” responses was visibility of low-value contracts, where 98 respondents (30%, n=324) answered somewhat or significantly worsened. This was followed by quality and consistency of feedback, where 73 respondents (23%, n=321) answered somewhat or significantly worsened.

Finally, respondents were asked whether there is anything else they would like us to know about their organisation's experience of the Scottish public procurement system.

Many respondents felt there was a lack of inclusiveness of small organisations in tendering processes and the subsequent awarding of contracts. One respondent stated:

“As a company we feel that most tenders are aimed at larger companies rather than smaller [SMEs].”

Another respondent expressed the following perspective:

“The procurement system is supposed to encourage and support SMEs, yet it doesn’t. Invariably Central Government contracts still go to the big multinationals, often by quick quote and SMEs are locked out of the process. There are occasions when contracts are awarded to a supposed SME, when the actual company is not an SME, but part of a big multinational. It takes a lot of time and resources to put a bid together but it’s off putting when it’s with the knowledge that the Central Government contracts we do bid for will end up being awarded to a big multinational.”

Many respondents reported areas where communication proved difficult between them and public bodies or related resources. They felt that they did not know when opportunities were being advertised, and that communication with buyers was generally difficult. One respondent stated:

“Communication is detached and essential feedback is extremely lacking.”

Many respondents reported finding the tendering process time consuming, especially for SMEs. They noted that a considerable resource and time investment is required to participate in public procurement processes. One respondent stated:

“It is too time consuming and difficult to quote. It will drive many SME’s into the ground.”

Some respondents reported finding the online procurement systems to be highly complex. They reported that finding their way around the website was a challenge, and several noted that they struggled to understand processes like Quick Quotes. One respondent stated:

“Still early days of our relationship with Scottish public procurement. We have a lot to learn and find that the website is complex and not helpful, e.g., understanding the Quick Quote process, etc.”

Some respondents reported that they had concerns in relation to the ways in which tendering processes were conducted. These concerns included insufficient timelines for bids to be prepared, the objectivity of bid evaluations, and difficulty receiving meaningful feedback. One respondent reported:

“There needs to be a longer timeline for submitting bids, especially for SMEs and also when tenders are released around school holiday times - as resources are always reduced during this time. Also during the summer we see European shut down, so obtaining information from complex global supply chains is then challenging.”

Some respondents raised concerns regarding pricing criteria being weighted above quality in tender evaluations, resulting in poor value for money. One respondent stated:

“…most of the tenders we see from public sector look to drive down costs at the expense of a quality service. It has become a race to the bottom particularly where we are seeing quality ratios below 40%. We also question the ability to deliver on such low costs and whether these are being adhered to throughout the length of the agreement by successful suppliers.”

Some respondents suggested areas for improvement. These included upgrading online systems such as PCS, reviewing thresholds for regulated contracts and Quick Quotes, and improving online resources. One respondent asked:

“Will there be plans to modernise and improve front-end user experience of both websites linked to the tendering process?”