ESF Phase 2 PQQ Event

As with most contract briefings, the presentations basically repeated the ESF PQQ instructions to make sure that everyone understood what was needed. The only new news was that the previous ESF round (2007-13) has 24,000 starts to date, with 9% job entry rate against starts or 36% against leavers. This compares to a 36% job outcomes target in the new ESF round.

However, as with other recent briefings, providers seem to have increased in confidence when it comes to the Q&A. The presenters were left flummoxed after a succession of providers challenged the approach and content of the tendering round at a very basic level. The questions will all appear in the official Q&A log on the DWP site, but the meaning is likely to be missing. So, for your delectation, providers were strongly suggesting that:

• The DWP need to mark down providers who overpromise and underperform - the presenters had no answer to this, which is hardly surprising as it's a decision for someone rather higher up to make. It doesn't help that the DWP don't have decent figures for who does perform well
• The contract designers didn't include a London weighting in the budget - the presenters responded by pointing out that the budgets were within a range, so bidders could theoretically bid at the top end for London and the bottom end for other areas
• The outcome targets for the ESF contracts were undeliverable and way above what was being achieved in any previous ESF delivery - the presenter argued that the target matched current outcomes against leavers on the ESF 2007-13 round, and the proposed programmes were both very outcomes-focused and aimed specifically at JSA claimants, unlike previous programmes
• Bidding for these contracts with a realistic offer might be a waste of time - this linked to the previous point, and was answered by talking about testing the provider's offer against the evidence they give of ability to deliver
• Maybe providers should just bid unrealistically and renegotiate when they fail to reach targets- the presenters said that they would not expect to renegotiate contracts after award
• The contracts were reliant on JCP referrals which providers had little control over, potentially sabotaging them from the outset - the presenters said that providers were still able to take referrals from non-JCP sources and would be responsible for hitting their own referral targets
• The start date of 14th December was a bit dumb - without giving any details, an impression was conveyed that the decision on the start date may have been motivated by a higher purpose than mere practicality. It was also pointed out that the response to the recession had substantially shortened the normal 18 month bidding period
• Special Purpose Vehicles can't win bids - the presenters said that they could and that James Jennings would be on hand to discuss SPVs