Collaborative Working Models

For Winning Public Service Contracts

Since the Gershon Review of 2004-5 on Economic Efficiencies in Government Procurement, commissioners
at all levels have looked for ways to increase their buying power by aggregating public service delivery and
supply contracts. The current economic climate and the need to reduce the national deficit have only
accentuated this. Philip Green’s review of central government has criticised the way the government does
not make the most of its combined purchasing power.
The practical application of this for most third sector organisations is the increasing amounts of joint
commissioning at the local level. Teams like the ‘Supporting People’ teams have been amalgamated into
wider procurement structures, while authorities are being encouraged to jointly commission across
geographic boundaries and in partnership with health care commissioners. At the national level the
Department of Work and Pensions has reduced its contract management processes to dealing with 16
Prime Contractors, which all other organisations will need to negotiate sub-contracts with.
In this climate, many third sector organisations will find the landscape changes , grants for service delivery
are no longer available, and that they are too small to bid for the contracts that are available. In most cases,
doing nothing is not an option. Third sector providers must evaluate who their potential partners are, in
their area (geographic or service type) of delivery and evaluate how best to collaborate with them.
Where new opportunities to market services to commissioners exist, collaborative working is often cited
as being the best delivery option for third sector organisations. This includes the two main examples of
what might be perceived as contract sizes getting smaller; securing the approval of local authority
commissioners (and therefore the opportunity) to deliver personalised public services direct to beneficiaries
and also working with GP consortia to support practice based
commissioning.
This factsheet includes a basic evaluation of the business models and
structures that will enable collaborative working and the
creation of opportunities for small organisations to continue to
be involved in public service delivery.

A joint initiative to strengthen support services for the third sector

The ACEVO Commissioning Support Service

How to Select the Optimum Model of Collaborative Working
Given the need to do something, you must first evaluate the following factors in order to decide what the best solution for
you in this specific situation is. All methods of collaborative working will be the most appropriate in different circumstances.
The trick is knowing how to compare the different factors which influence this and to evaluate the most commercially
viable way forward that has the greatest chance of winning this particular opportunity.
These factors are:
1. Timescale: The timescale you have in which to prepare a response to an opportunity will dictate what is possible.
Forming a new company takes time, as does building relationships and trust. If the advert for the tendering opportunity
has already been released, these things may not be possible, unless the partners know each other very well and have a
strong track record of working together. It may be better for a small provider to secure sub-contracting opportunities
with a strong lead partner.
2. Capacity of the Local Sector: If the capacity or expertise to deliver at quality and price is not there in the local third
sector, then clearly there is not much point in forming a consortium exclusively for local partners.
3. The Views of the Commissioner and Procurement Officer: Although all procurement processes should be open
transparent and fair, there is little point in offering a delivery model and solution that you know is unlikely to be of
interest to the commissioner and procurement officer. For example if you know they strongly favour delivery of
services by the private sector, then perhaps a private sector partner is the best solution for this scenario. Some
commissioners are however extremely supportive of third sector consortia and are prepared to invest in their
development.
4. Ownership and Control: In all situations where a small provider is working as a sub-contractor, there will be a question
as to whether it lacks a degree of control over what opportunities are open to it, and what price it might receive for
delivering that service. This may be perceived threat rather than a real one, but the lack of ownership is clear. A local
provider may also be unsatisfied as to what limits sub-contracting places on its ambitions. As a local provider, you must
decide either to perfect your negotiation skills to ensure you secure the conditions that are right for you, or develop a
collaborative structure over which you do have a degree of ownership and control.

The Basic Models and Structures

The basic models that we will evaluate in more detail in this factsheet are:
1. Loose Network
2. Managing Agent
3. Managing Provider
4. Super Provider, Joint Venture Company or Special Purpose Vehicle
Most third sector organisations are already part of a loose network of providers, often grouped around infrastructure
organisations and clusters of similar providers. This will include lots of examples of grant funded collaborations, as well as
lots of individual acts of mutual support. There will also have been plenty of disagreement. To stay like this is effectively the
do nothing option.
Obviously, a loose network could meet regularly to discuss responses to service and
budget cuts, but if no actions are taken, then the sector continues to be at risk of not
having the appropriate structures to meet the needs of one of its most significant
stakeholders; the one who holds the money the sector and most
importantly you desperately need.

The ACEVO Commissioning Support Service

 Managing Agent
Managing agents are often referred to as Prime Contractors (although prime contractors may also be managing providers).
The managing agent is a contract management company that holds the contract with the public sector body and sub-
contracts delivery to a range of providers. This is the model employed by companies like SERCO to deliver a huge range
of contracts.

Contract

Managing
Agent

Sub Contracted Sub Contracted Sub Contracted

Provider Provider Provider

Managing Provider
The managing provider model is essentially similar to the managing agent, but lead by an actual provider who holds
responsibility for the contract and allocates work accordingly. This is common in waste management contracting, where
local authority contracts tend to be one by one of a handful of large multi-national companies.
The model is also common where a national charity takes on the role of Prime Contractor. In this case the national charity
has won a contract in which it has a direct interest in providing, but requires additional delivery capacity or expertise. For
example BTCV hold a national contract with DWP to deliver employment training. Consortico is a highly ambitious ‘hub
and spokes’ (see below) consortium initially developed in Bedfordshire that is looking to go into partnership with local
providers in other parts of the country, and win contracts where ever they are available.
At the local level, two or more charities may chose to follow a model where one is clearly defined as the contract holder
and the other charity(ies) agree to sub-contract to it. This is an extremely common form of partnership working.

Contract

Managing
Provider
Actively delivering
services

Sub Contracted Sub Contracted Sub Contracted

Provider Provider Provider

The ACEVO Commissioning Support Service 3

 Super Providers, Joint Venture Companies and Special Purpose Vehicles
A group of third sector organisations could agree to cluster and work together as a super provider. This may form a
natural progression from the fact that organisations are already doing this as a loose network. In order to bid for contracts
the super provider must have a legal status, and will involve forming and legally constituting a Joint Venture Company or a
Special Purpose Vehicle. This often happens when two or more private sector companies bid in partnership for a new
contract. Indeed a major provider of public services will form a new company to manage a large contract anyway, in order
to put up walls which protect the parent company.

Provider

Provider Provider

Provider

Provider Provider

Provider

The next question is how that contract is managed and how performance is guaranteed. It is one thing for two
organisations working in partnership to have such a simple structure, but the more partners there are the more rigorous
and accountable the management structure needs to be.
The solution is to build a management structure at the centre of the group of providers. We call this model Hub and
Spokes:

Provider

Provider Provider

Provider Hub Provider

Provider Provider

Provider

The ACEVO Commissioning Support Service 4

 The providers jointly own the hub through an equal share. It could involve anything from two providers to hundreds; in
South Yorkshire the Learning and Skills consortium (VC Train) has over 120 members while in Sheffield the well being
consortium has 58. REalliance, which is a trading consortium jointly owned by national and regional infra-structure bodies
from the community waste sector, has only 4 members.
For the consortia to be successful the hub needs to ensure the following functions are delivered:
• Bidding and tendering to win business
• Leadership
• Contract management
• Business development and relationship building
• Financial management
• Data management
This does not necessarily imply the creation of any new resources, beyond registering as a company and forming a board,
nothing. All the functions of the hub can be sub-contracted or ‘charged out’ to members of the consortia. For example;
one could provide a bid writer two days a week, one a contract manager and another administrative support and data
management. Exactly how that works depends on the expertise and capacity held by the consortium members.
This is easily paid for once a contract comes in. For example a 10% top slice of a typical contract value of between
£300,000 and £1,000,000 will bring in between £30,000 and £100,000 to pay for those costs. Once the business is up
and running the goal ought to be to reduce this to a 5% top slice, particularly if the business expands. In future years,
business could easily expand to £3,000,000 providing a £150,000 top slice which ought to cover costs perfectly well. At
this point seconded staff may well transfer over to hub full time, but that is up to the owners of the company.
In the early stages local authority commissioners may well be willing to invest in the development costs of consortia and
secure finance for the initial hub functions. Given cuts to budget and grant availability, it may however be essential for the
members of the consortium to consider the early stages as; at risk development work. If this model is adopted, then the
crucial thing is that consortia members ensure the capacity is there to bid for and win the first contract.
In the long term it should be noted that as well as cutting hub management costs, individual members need to aim to
challenge their own management and transaction costs in order to keep the whole process competitive and efficient. This
is about entering a commercial market place.
Consortia Management Structure
The consortium needs to be managed by a board of trustees. This needs to be functional, while allowing members to feel
a genuine ownership of the democratic process. In most cases, it will not be practical or desirable for all members of the
consortium to have a seat on the board. In this case people, who meet the person specification for the role of trustee,
should be democratically elected by the members. The members therefore elect the board whose job is to manage the
hub and ensure it delivers the maximum benefits to the consortium.

Trustee Trustee Trustee Trustee Trustee Trustee Trustee Trustee

Providers vote
Hub
for trustees

Provider Provider Provider Provider Provider Provider Provider Provider

If the board is made entirely of representatives of members who provide services, it may be open to charges of having a
conflict of interest. While the initial board is likely to be made up entirely of members who have worked hard to set the
company up, this issue should be addressed at the first available opportunity.

The ACEVO Commissioning Support Service 5

 The following diagram suggests an ideal board structure:

Trustee Trustee Trustee Trustee Trustee Trustee Trustee Trustee Trustee

Indpendent Indpendent Indpendent Associate Associate Full Full Full Full

individual individual individual provider provider member member member member

This make up provides some protection against conflicts of interest in decision making as it includes representation from
three independent individuals, who are not linked to any of the provider members. If recruited properly, these
independent members are also likely to bring additional skills and contacts to the makeup of the board. Suggestions might
include:
•A local authority commissioner
•Someone with extensive commercial private sector experience
•Someone with financial experience
•A solicitor
Depending on what criteria, such as PQQ (Pre-Qualification Questionnaire) readiness, have been used to select who is
eligible for membership, the members may also wish to include a number of seats for organisations who are working
towards full membership or associate members, so that that their voice can also be heard.
In looking at this we are assuming that most third sector consortia will be set up to bid for more than one contracting
opportunity and that not all members will be interested in all of the contracts that the consortia bids for. The above make
up should therefore enable the board to still be quorate if decisions need making regarding internal tendering processes.

Pro’s and Con’s of the Different Structure Models

Model Pro’s Con’s

Loose 1. Builds on existing patterns of 1. Doesn’t address rationalisation agenda
Network partnership working 2. Doesn’t create economies of scale
2. Encourages sharing of information 3. No critical mass
3. Path of least resistance 4. Little or no joint bargaining power
5. Procurement agencies are less likely to support it
6. Although individual members of the network may be
able to win contracts most will lack the skills or
resources to deliver all the aspects of it

Managing 1. Uses existing infrastructure 1. Development support may not be available to help
Agent 2. Less vulnerable to fluctuations in sub-contractors increase their capacity to deliver
output performance 2. Sub-contractors are not in control
3. Risk is ‘managed’ by managing agent 3. Sub-contractors do not get to agree the management
4. Could be perceived as “less risky” by top slice
funders and commissioners at outset 4. Managing agent may not understand nuances of third
5. The managing agent is likely to have a sector sub-contractors
strong track record of managing 5. Management processes and decision making
public service delivery and a national frameworks of managing agent and providers might
profile and reputation not match straight away.
6. Risk of institutional baggage hampering the
development of a professional relationship
7. Much more difficult for third sector to maintain
separate identity and brand

The ACEVO Commissioning Support Service 6

 Model Pro’s Con’s
Managing 1. Uses existing infrastructure 1. Potential conflict of interest in the way the managing
Provider 2. Less vulnerable to fluctuations in provider allocates the work resulting from the
output performance contract to partners or sub-contractors
3. Risk is ‘managed’ by managing 2. Lack of formal legal control of the process by sub-
provider contractors
4. Could be perceived as “less risky” by 3. Sub-contractors do not agree the management costs
funders and commissioners at of the contract
outset 4. Risk of institutional baggage hampering relationships
5. The managing provider is likely to between Managing provider and sub-contractors
have a strong track record of public
service delivery either locally or
nationally

Special 1. Genuine accountability to and 1. The forming of a consortia is not a miracle cure
Purpose ownership by local organisations 2. Requires a number of local organisations to take
Vehicle 2. Enhanced bargaining power for local ownership of development phase
organisations 3. Is not possible to develop this model at short notice
3. Offers the opportunity to work in response to a tender that has just been advertised
collaboratively to rationalise back of 4. If key commissioners are not convinced of the
office infrastructure, reduce costs capability of the third sector to deliver, then a
and procure supplies collectively consortia approach may not change this
4. Should enable individual 5. Individual members will hand over some control of
organisations to focus meeting need, their future despite owning the new structure
service delivery and performance 6. Smaller members may still feel overlooked in internal
5. Encourages the spread of best tendering processes
practice among members 7. Members may worry about cliques of individuals or
6. Enables the sharing of needs analysis organisations having too much control
data and the development of 8. There may still be conflicts of interest and
structured reporting mechanisms disagreements over strategic direction or shared
7. Can enable the development of values
creative collaborative local solutions 9. It will require the development of rigorous
to service delivery performance management procedures for handling
8. Can ensure the full needs of local failure
beneficiaries are met 10. Members will have to maintain focus on remaining
9. Can ensure processes are in place competitive, driving down costs and ensuring they
to support smaller and new continue to deliver the best possible service
organisations to work towards full 11. The members must ensure the effective management
membership of the consortia of the hub
10. Enables the sector to collectively 12. Due to turnover thresholds and experience, the new
manage the achievement of output organisation may be limited as to what tenders it can
targets bid for in the early years.
11. Can enable the sector to unite
behind a single ambitious and
competitive voice
12. Can enable collaborative responses
to service consultations

The ACEVO Commissioning Support Service 7

 Conclusions
Individual third sector organisations have a lot to gain from collaborative working. Indeed to not collaborate with other
providers may effectively mean the same as deciding to close down or at least deliver your activities without public funding
of any kind.
Given the appeal of local accountability and democracy to most small to medium service providers, forming a consortia is
bound to seem like the most appealing option. This cannot be entered into lightly or it will fail. It is also extremely important
that once initial momentum has been developed, that it is sustained; otherwise the process will stagnate and potentially
collapse altogether.
Equally not all private sector organisations are inherently ‘evil’. They will enforce rigorous standards on the sector’s
performance, but if the sector cannot meet these in the long term our consortia will loose out in competitive tendering
against private sector prime contractor’s any way. Some third sector organisations will in fact find the private sector’s
straight forward approach and clear reasoning refreshing, when compared to third and public sector politics.
Ultimately, all forms of collaboration have their merits and the needs and views of the commissioner will shape the market
at the local level in this regard. While quality of service is likely to matter to beneficiaries, the legal structure of how the
providers collaborate is unlikely to matter to most people. All third sector providers need to have an understanding of
what options are open to them in order to make the commercial decisions that will enable us all to carry on delivering the
services we want to deliver.

Further Support
Bassac Collaboration Support Programme:
http://www.bassac.org.uk/our-programmes/collaboration
Consortico:
http://www.consortico.com/
The Gershon Review:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/spending_sr04_efficiency.htm
NCVO Collaboration Support Programme:
http://www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/advice-support/collaborative-working
Sheffield Wellbeing Consortium:
http://www.sheffieldwellbeing.org.uk/
Sir Philip Green Review:
http://download.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/efficiency/sirphilipgreenreview.pdf
Social Investment Business:
http://www.thesocialinvestmentbusiness.org/
Voluntary Action Sheffield Consortia Development Toolkit:
http://www.vas.org.uk/services/procurement/index
3SC:
http://www.3sc.org/

ACEVO Commissioning Support Helpline

Contact us for advice and support on procurement and commissioning issues:
E: commissioning.support@acevo.org.uk
T: 0207 280 4937
W: www.acevo.org.uk/commissioning

The ACEVO Commissioning Support Service 8