Capital funding 200608

1
Capital funding 2006-08

• Equipment information
• February 2005

2
Approval process

• Fit with Programme / Project
• Fit with new build / refurbishment
• Application of best practice
• Reasonableness test

3
Collaborative procurement

• Development from JREI, JIF, SRIF1 2
• Commitment under the Efficiency Review
• Collaborative Procurement exercises Project
  Managed in-house by HEFCE
• Equipment procurement groups managed by lead HEIs

4
Results

• SRIF1
• Allocated 35m
• Efficiency 5m
• SRIF2
• Allocated 45m
• Efficiency 7m

5
SRIF 1 2 collaborative procurementissues

• Centrally directed
• Delay inbuilt into old processes
• Timescales
• Large single groups
• Opportunities missed
• Lack of engagement with the sector

6
Collaborative procurement

• Procureweb equipment database
• REAG lead
• Foreshortened timescales
• Equipment grouped on varying criteria
• REAG report outcomes

7
Collaborative procurement issues

• Low or non-participation
• Low or no growth
• Identification of new groups

8
Collaborative procurement opportunities

• Extend database with other HEFCE funding streams
• Extend use of database to other funding bodies
• Extend use of database to HEIs
• Use database information to inform budgetary and
  spending decisions

9
This could never happen in your institution but
. (1)

• HEFCE received a request for an early start from
  an institution on the basis that the procurement
  of the equipment had started and so items would
  be procured imminently
• Items were not included in collaborative
  procurement lists
• All collaborative procurement exercises have now
  finished
• Letter received by HEFCE in February 2005 asking
  for changes to equipment to be purchased

10
This could never happen in your institution but
. (2)

• HEI / Department made a case to pull out of
  co-ordinated procurement because of speed item
  was required
• All collaborative procurement exercises have now
  finished
• Equipment item not yet purchased

11
This could never happen in your institution but
. (3)

• Equipment items put into co-ordinated procurement
  but we then had a request for the item to be
  withdrawn because the equipment had to fit into a
  refurbishment plan which had a long timescale
• This dependency was not noted on the Proposed
  Equipment Statement

12
This could never happen in your institution but
. (4)

• Project included 3m of equipment. None was noted
  as costing over 150k.
• Telephone call to lead investigator revealed that
  there were many items over 150k.

13
This could never happen in your institution but
. (5)

• Equipment was hidden within building costs
• Intention by Estates Dept was to allow the
  building contractor to purchase the equipment
  items through their own contractual arrangements

14
And the good news

• In October 2004 the lead academic on one project
  was so convinced that co-ordinated procurement
  for his equipment would not produce any benefits
  that he wrote to the HEFCE Chief Executive.
• January 2005 the same academic emailed HEFCE to
  say how worthwhile the exercise was and that he
  would never have got the quality item he did
  outside of the procurement exercise.

15
Capital funding 2006-08

• Equipment information
• February 2005