Full Library

Summary In 2016-17, the Department for International Development (DFID) spent £1.4 billion, or 14% of its budget, through commercial suppliers on contracts ranging from school construction to family planning services and the delivery of humanitarian aid. The quality of its procurement and contract management – how it engages and manages commercial firms to support the delivery of aid programmes on time, to budget and at the appropriate quality – is a key driver of value for money for UK aid. It is also a subject of considerable Parliamentary and public interest. In recent years, DFID has implemented a range of initiatives to strengthen its procurement practices and embed commercial capability across the department – including its 2017 Supplier Review, undertaken to address concerns about excessive profit-making by DFID suppliers. This review on achieving value for money through procurement (part 2) was published in September 2018. We awarded a green-amber score and made three recommendations to government. The follow-up to this review was published in July 2020, and rated the government’s response as ‘inadequate’, as a result of DFID’s failure to put in place a formal contract management regime, despite the risks this entails for programme results. We will return to this in the next follow-up in summer 2021. Review Our review found an appropriate overall approach to procurement with good performance in most areas of tendering, but significant weaknesses in contract management. We therefore awarded a green-amber score and made three recommendations to government. Findings Since 2015, DFID has progressed towards a more mature procurement approach. DFID’s tender process follows current EU legislation and UK government guidelines and cross-government peer reviews confirm improvements in DFID’s procurement approach. The Supplier Review lent momentum to the reforms but risks having unintended consequences. Poor consultation with suppliers has heightened the risk of unintended consequences. DFID is reviewing its business processes to protect aid recipients from sexual abuse and exploitation. DFID does not always choose the most appropriate procurement process but a new strategic sourcing process has resulted in stronger procurement planning. DFID has built up its commercial capability, but this will need to be an ongoing process. The contract management function in DFID is poorly defined and contracts are frequently amended or extended beyond their advertised length and values. Inception phases are often too short for adequate preparation and planning. Progress on flexible and adaptive programming will require more innovative approaches to tendering and contract management. Recommendations Before the next major revision of its supplier code and contracting terms, or future changes that may materially affect suppliers, DFID should conduct an effective consultation process with its supplier market, to ensure informed decisions and minimise the risks of unintended consequences. DFID should accelerate its timetable for acquiring a suitable management information system for procurement, to ensure that its commercial decisions are informed by data. DFID should instigate a formal contract management regime, underpinned by appropriate training and guidance and supported by a senior official responsible for contract management across the department. The new regime should include appropriate adaptive contract management techniques, to ensure that supplier accountability is balanced with the need for innovation and adaptive management in pursuit of development results.