The Cheapest Quote at Woodside Community Trust
Woodside Community Trust runs three day centres on a £96,000 annual cleaning budget. The current contract expires in five weeks. Three quotations arrive: CleanCo at £7,400 per month, BrightSpace at £8,150 and Hale Facilities at £8,900. CleanCo is cheapest by £750 a month, but its submission omits a health and safety policy, shows staff turnover of 48% and names a subcontractor for the two largest sites. BrightSpace provided a full method statement and two comparable references. The finance officer says the budget cannot absorb anything above £8,000 a month without cutting a transport service. The board meets in ten days and has asked for a recommendation.
1. Recommend which supplier the Trust should appoint, and justify your decision.
Read the worked answer
Do not treat 'lowest price' as the decision rule. Compare the three offers on cost and on the risk each carries.
- CleanCo is cheapest, but the missing health and safety policy is a material gap, not a paperwork slip: the Trust cannot show it has assessed how staff will be kept safe on its premises. A 48% turnover rate threatens continuity and supervision quality, and the unnamed subcontractor means the Trust has not assessed who will actually be on site.
- BrightSpace is £8,150 - £150 a month, £1,800 a year, above the stated ceiling.
Recommendation (conditional): seek written clarification from all three bidders on the same points - H&S policy, subcontractor identity and controls, staff retention measures. If CleanCo cannot close those gaps satisfactorily, appoint BrightSpace and fund the £1,800 by negotiating a reduced scope on one site or trimming the transport budget gap. A £1,800 annual shortfall is smaller than the cost of a service failure, an injury, or re-tendering in six months.
State clearly that the choice is a judgement based on evaluated risk, not a rule that the cheapest bid always wins.
2. Which procurement principles are in tension here, and how should the tension be resolved?
Read the worked answer
Principles in tension:
- Value for money - the lowest price may not be the best use of the Trust's money once risk and continuity are priced in.
- Budget compliance / accountability - the finance officer's £8,000 ceiling is a real constraint the buyer cannot simply ignore.
- Fair and equal treatment - the Trust must not quietly coach one bidder to a better score.
- Transparency - the board and funders must be able to see why the decision was made.
Resolution: the equal-treatment point is the one most easily breached under pressure. Any clarification request must go to all three bidders, on the same questions, with the same deadline, and answers recorded alongside the original submissions. The budget issue is resolved by negotiation after evaluation, not by skewing the evaluation. Value for money does not mean abandoning the budget; it means explaining to the board what the extra £1,800 buys and what the alternative risk costs.
3. What should the buyer record and present to the board?
Read the worked answer
An auditable decision trail, not just an answer:
- Evaluation criteria and weightings agreed before bids were opened, with each bidder scored against them.
- Scored evaluation matrix showing price, method statement, references, H&S evidence and subcontractor arrangements.
- Clarification log - questions asked of all bidders, dates, responses.
- Risk notes for each bidder, including the consequence of CleanCo's gaps and the consequence of exceeding the budget ceiling by £1,800.
- Recommendation with conditions (e.g. 'appoint BrightSpace subject to a signed method statement by 1 March').
- Confirmation of delegated authority - who is entitled to approve an above-budget award, and their signature.
Recording the reasoning protects the Trust if the decision is challenged by an unsuccessful bidder, an auditor or a funder, and it makes the buyer's judgement visible rather than personal.