Chamber and committees

I have only one more question to ask and I will start with Gillian. The committee has heard evidence that some suppliers can be accepted on to a framework but then get no work over a period of years. Do you monitor the outcomes for suppliers? What support do you give them, so that they get something out of the process and you avoid a perception that getting on to a framework is a waste of time?

Do you monitor that figure?

What do you do with it?

At last week’s evidence session, I asked questions about whole-life costing. Clearly, the initial pricing is not the only criterion that should be used, although there seemed to be evidence that in some cases it was. However, the evidence that the witnesses gave was that there were some difficulties with doing whole-life costing. The criteria under which it would be done seem to vary. To what extent do frameworks support the consideration of whole-life costing and the quantification of longer-term benefits that quality measures can provide that might offset a higher initial cost? How serious is that? Graeme, maybe I can start with you.

Are you saying that this is an invitation for consultants to come in and draw up the whole-life costing?

If I logged on to your website, would I find anything about whole-life costing? Are there any guidelines, formulas or templates?

I mean a council or whatever.

Does Gillian Cameron have anything to add?

What criteria would determine whether whole-life costing is required? You talked about complexity and so on, but can you give us an example?

Using your example, it does not seem to be that complicated to work out the whole-life cost of a fire engine, because fuel consumption, maintenance and so on can be projected into the future using inflation factors and so on.