“Efficiency isn’t just about doing more for less. It is about finding the right balance between money, time and quality.”
– [UK] Network Rail Infrastructure General Counsel of routes, Dan Kayle
One of the biggest challenges a General Counsel faces these days is finding a way for his/her company to procure legal services in a way that:
- ensures a quality service, at
- a price that is fair to the company, while
- ensuring that the service provider remains a viable and ongoing business.
For a number of years in Australia the primary mechanism for achieving this has been ‘competitive tendering’. But evidence is now coming to light that competitive tendering may not actually be delivering the best value for money outcomes that clients had hoped for. Which raises the question:
Is competitive tendering the best way to procure legal services? And if not, what, if any, are the alternatives?
For those (living under a rock) who may not be aware, ‘competitive tendering’ in Australia comes in many guises: panel, project, parcel and combinations of all of these.
For the purposes of this post however, I’m going to state that ‘competitive tendering’ happens whenever a company ‘pitches’ its service needs among one or more of its providers. I’m also going to extend this by saying that the evaluation weighting of the winner of this process favours ‘price’ (read lower) over ‘outcomes’ (read performance).
And herein lies the flaw with competitive tendering that has prompt this post: because in deciding to go with one service provider over another based on an evaluation criteria of price, it is arguable that such a decision comes at the cost of quality.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that legal service providers purposely undermine the quality of the advice they give. Nor am I saying that there is a lack of understanding that there is a trade-off between cost and quality – after all, you don’t get a Rolls Royce at the price of a Mazda and most lawyers today know that.
What I will suggest however is that if law firms are being asked to go through a competitive tender process, which is often followed by a BAFO (Best And Final Offer) process, then in-house counsel have to accept that there will be a fall off in the quality of the service they receive.
Which leads me to this: Is there a better way of doing this?
I would argue that if you’re trying to achieve an outcome at a price that is agreeable to your company, then negotiated contracts far out-weigh competitive tenders.
To be clear, negotiated contacts can – and often are – competitive.
But the biggest difference between a competitive tender and a negotiated contracts is that the client has pre-selected a set of achievable outcomes – with a group of providers that they believe can deliver on those outcomes.
And we can all work towards that (i.e. it is not all price driven; so-called ‘race to the bottom’).
+-ve / -ve debate
- Competitive tenders stimulate and promote competitive behaviours. Among a group of adversarial and highly competitive lawyers, will this provide the best results for your company?
- Costs associated with competitive tenders can be enormous: is this the best way to conduct a relationship?
- Competitive tenders deliver the most competitive outcome, which is not the necessarily the best value and price to your business.
- Negotiated contracts can be the first step in setting out your Legal Project Management (LPM) approach to the matter.
- Negotiated contracts facilitate a discussion around the client’s different value points.
- Negotiated contracts allow all sides to come to a clear understanding of what the various expectations are.
Now don’t get me wrong, despite evidence showing that competitive tendering isn’t working, and that we continue to reward poor performance – provide it is done at the right price, all I’m asking is this:
Isn’t there a better way of doing this?