Under the leadership of
John Major the
Conservative government pursued compulsory competitive tendering almost as a dogma, often against the wishes of local government. This led to an uncomfortable stand-off between the two, with CCT regulations being produced in increasing detail, and sometimes extending further than would have been the case in the private sector. The government was unambiguous about what was required – issue of tender, receipt of tender, selection of provider.
Introduction of best value The term
compulsory competitive tendering was superseded in 2000 by
best value. Labour's Best Value proved more difficult to define. The notion of Best Value prior to implementation was enshrined within one key consultation document: Modernising Local Government — Improving local services through best value. This set out four defining elements of Best Value. • The first was the duty to secure economic, efficient and effective services continuously (the '3 Es'). • The second required service reviews within which the authority must demonstrate that in the fulfilment of their duties under Best Value they have: compared their service provision with that of other private and public providers; consulted with local business and community; considered competition in provision; and challenged the reasons for, and methods of, provision (the '4 Cs'). • The third defining element introduced a regime of audit and measurement of performance, with the broad expectation that, year-on-year, costs would reduce and quality would increase. Performance would be monitored locally through Best Value Performance Reviews (BVPRs), partly through adherence to locally and statutorily determined Best Value performance indicators (BVPIs), and disseminated annually through Performance Plans (BVPPs). • The fourth defining element of Best Value outlined the consequence of performance: government intervention in cases of Best Value failure, and reward in cases of success. In turn these four aspects of Best Value are bound by adherence to twelve principles of Best Value mentioned above. The answer to the question of what method of service delivery, precisely, the government expected to arise from Best Value seemed to centre on local interpretation as satisfactory. The lack of clear definition, in the context of housing services, was explained as follows: Therefore, while the message was unequivocally that compulsory competitive tendering was to be withdrawn, the replacement was to be less prescribed, with the intention that local authorities follow a responsive and locally determined method of service provision within a centrally defined framework. Best Value was not, therefore, about what local authorities should do: it was a framework that prescribed how they should decide what to do. Specifically Best Value would differ from compulsory competitive tendering in three respects: organisation performance, organisation process, and the relationship between process and performance (Boyne 1999, p. 2).
Statutory guidance A "short statutory guidance" document was issued in September 2011, dealing with certain "reasonable expectations of the way authorities should work with voluntary and community groups and small businesses when facing difficult funding decisions".
Eric Pickles, in his foreword to the guidance, noted that councils had been "freed from excessive and prescriptive guidance" in exchange for a commitment to support voluntary groups and small businesses in their administrative areas. == Measuring Best Value ==