What are the differences between PSAA’s scheme for the audits of 2023/24 to 2027/28 and its scheme for 2018/19 to 2022/23?

Below are some of the key differences in the approach for the procurement of audit services completed in 2022 compared to the 2017 procurement.

Feedback on the proposed approach was sought from all eligible bodies, and current and prospective suppliers during June 2021.

  1. We expressed a preference to enter into new long-term contracts at the earliest opportunity rather than extending current contracts.
  2. Tender evaluations were assessed with quality/price weightings of 80:20 (previously 50:50).
  3. Tenderers were able to specify geographical areas which they were least able to cover. They would receive an enhanced rate (an uplift of 30% of their bid rate) if they were appointed to audits within those areas.
  4. In May 2022, PSAA established a DPS to enable future mini-procurements and to help mitigate against suppliers being “locked out” of the market for long periods.
  5. Future contract extensions are subject to mutual agreement rather than at the sole discretion of PSAA.
  6. The procurement was divided into 13 Lots to provide firms with greater choice and more flexibility to seek a share of the market to match their capacity and risk appetite, and to hopefully deliver contracts with an increased number of firms.
  7. We provided clarity and certainty in relation to responsibility for and handling of changes to regulatory requirements so that firms were able to bid with confidence.
  8. We applied a simplified formula in relation to inflation which will apply from year 2 of the contract onwards.
  9. We included several initiatives to allow new suppliers to enter the market, including enabling experienced suppliers to be assisted by new entrants.
  10. We produced and shared a risk allocation matrix with the market. This was designed to help us and suppliers to consider carefully and systematically the key risks which could have arisen from and/or affected the contracts, so there was greater clarity about the risks that did/did not need to be priced into bids.