Procuring for Value For coursework Assessment

Assessment Information

To be used for all types of assessment and provided to students at the start of the module. Information provided should be compatible with the detail contained in the approved module specification although may contain more information for clarity.

Assessment Task Details

Over the past few years, the UK construction procurement landscape has undergone significant change, reflecting shifts in law, policy, and delivery models. The Procurement Act 2023, came into force on February 24, 2025, replaces the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, introducing a simplified and more flexible framework for public sector procurement, with a stronger emphasis on transparency, value for money, and small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) participation. Concurrently, the UK Government’s Construction Playbook (2020, updated 2022) and Green Book guidance have reinforced the need for early market engagement, collaborative contracting, outcomebased specifications, and embedding social value and netzero carbon objectives into procurement strategies.

Criticisms of the traditional approaches to construction procurement are widely reported but have been highlighted in the starkest of ways by the Grenfell fire. In her 2018 report, into Assessment Information/Brief 2025/26 2 the Grenfell tragedy, Building a Safer Future, Dame Judith Hackitt wrote of a “system failure” and condemned “the primary motivation … to do things as quickly and cheaply as possible” in an industry driven by profit rather than safety. She also blamed confusion about the roles and responsibilities at each stage of the construction and development process.

In a 1,700-page report (published on Wednesday 4th September 2024) blame for the 2017 tragedy is apportioned widely. However, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the chair of the inquiry laid bare some of the deeper structural problems at the heart of the construction industry – not least its highly fragmented, intensely competitive and blame-shifting nature. Operating on wafer-thin margins, contractors and subcontractors are interdependent while also trying to squeeze out their slice of the profits.

Context: The Project Requirements A New Crematorium Facility

At this early stage of the project these are the outline requirements:

• The client (Local authority council) has identified a need for an additional, new single storey 1000m2 Crematorium facility because of increased demand and the lengthy travel time involved for local people to get to existing sites and the impact this has on them at the difficult time of bereavement.
• The design response to the brief and site should provide a respectful, highly sustainable solution, sympathetic to the semi-rural setting and location within the community.
• It will be located on a brownfield site, owned by the client, adjacent to one of their own cemeteries.
• The building requires new cremators, two cremator halls, an administration suite, a café area and wake facility.
• Outside of the buildings, the grounds need to be designed to sit sympathetically in the environment, in the full awareness of the wellbeing benefits of green spaces. As well as landscaping including memorial gardens, there is a need for appropriate car parking, road access, and pathways.
• The project needs to incorporate features to enhance the sustainability of the development. This includes heat recovery from the cremators, very low air permeability ratings of 3.0 m3/h/m2, very high levels of thermal insulation, and low emissivity glazing systems. Electric car charging points in the car park are required.
• The client requires that there should be an aim to achieve a BREEAM ‘excellent’ sustainability score.
• The Council has an espoused Social Value Strategy that promises to make every penny in every pound that is spent matter. It focusses on maximising local spend where possible and maximising local benefits. 
• An initial budget for the building and associate works has been set at £12M.

Task

You are an employee of a local authority/Council in the Northwest of England that is due to go the market soon to procure the design and construction services associated with the proposed new Crematorium. The Council has had no significant capital (building) projects in recent years. The “corporate memory” of the organisation remembers that in the past their projects tended to over-run on cost and time, and that they were usually disappointed with the traditional systems of procurement that seemed to prevent their construction partners from fully understanding and delivering on their wider needs.

Hence, you are keen to keep “away from the traditional hostile contracting environment that characterises many construction projects to a system focused on collaboration and problem solving”. Aware that you are soon to come the marketplace with news of your investment and pending procurement, you have been approached by a Procurement Vehicle (the operators of Construction Frameworks) espousing the virtues of two-stage procurement and the use of procurement framework agreements – indeed the framework agreements that they operate. They claim to have designed excellent construction framework agreements to support public sector organisations in the Northwest of England both giving access to industry leading consultant partners and contractors and on projects and ensuring delivery of required social value outcomes.

You are curious because, 

• you are aware that your organisation currently has little expertise with regards to differing procurement methods, framework agreements, or the best means to be driving wider social, economic and environmental value 
• you are open to the view that effective procurement that balances the client goals with market realities can best be delivered through the power of aggregation that can only be delivered through construction frameworks.

Your task is to write a report to the head of the Local Authority (your boss) explaining the offer that you have received. In particular you should: 

• Explore and explain the argument that the traditional procurement system, with its emphasis on lowest price tendering should not be the preferred route to market for this project as it forces contractors to price work at unrealistically low levels, while also making it impossible to maintain standards and reasonable profit margins. 
• Critically evaluate the argument from the Procurement Vehicle that “the social, economic and environmental value ambitions of the Council can only be achieved through the long-term collaborative relationships established by two-stage Construction frameworks”, such as theirs.

Brief summary of assessment requirements

Task: Produce a professional report to the Head of the Local Authority that evaluates a Procurement Vehicle’s proposal (two-stage procurement via construction framework agreements) for delivering a new 1,000 m⊃2; single-storey crematorium facility. The report should advise whether the Council should adopt framework/two-stage approaches or avoid traditional lowest-price tendering, and it must critically evaluate the Procurement Vehicle’s claim that long-term collaborative frameworks are the best means to achieve the Council’s social, economic and environmental objectives.

Format & audience: Clear, evidence-based report written for a senior local-government decision-maker (practical, non-technical language; actionable recommendations and implementation priorities).

Core requirements to cover:

• Project context and client objectives (respectful design, sustainability / BREEAM Excellent, heat recovery, low air permeability, EV charging, memorial landscaping, budget ~£12M, social value/local spend).
• Shortcomings of traditional lowest-price tendering (risk to quality, safety, margins, fragmentation, blame culture, Grenfell lessons).
• Explanation of two-stage procurement and construction frameworks (mechanics, roles, benefits, risks).
• Critical evaluation of the Procurement Vehicle’s claim linking frameworks → delivery of social/economic/environmental value.
• Commercial, legal, programme and governance implications (cost certainty, procurement transparency, competition, SME access, liabilities).
• Recommendation: preferred procurement route, rationale, and practical next steps (market engagement, contract model, governance, social-value KPIs, probity safeguards).
• Risk register & mitigation and an implementation roadmap (key decision points, procurement timeline, accountability).

Key pointers the report should include (bullet checklist)

• Concise project brief and objectives (design, sustainability targets, community sensitivities, budget).
• Summary of procurement options: traditional single-stage lowest-price competitive tendering; two-stage (early contractor involvement); use of pre-existing construction frameworks; design-and-build variants; hybrid models.
• Evidence-based critique of lowest-price procurement: underpricing, selection on price alone, reduced innovation, constrained margins → quality/safety risk.
• How two-stage/frameworks work: early engagement, collaborative risk allocation, target cost setting, staged commitment, performance frameworks, framework call-off vs full procurement.
• Social value delivery: how frameworks can embed local spend, training/apprenticeships, social clauses and the governance needed to enforce them.
• Commercial/financial tradeoffs: cost certainty vs cost control; potential for higher initial fees; savings from reduced claims/disputes.
• Market considerations: contractor capacity, SME access, local market appetite, supply-chain resilience, and competition concerns.
• Governance & probity: transparency, competition law, contract oversight, audit trails, performance metrics, exit options.
• Practical recommendation and an implementation plan with milestones and measurable KPIs.

How the academic mentor guided the student step-by-step

Step 1 Scoping & framing the brief

• Mentor ensured the student began with a tight brief: audience (Head of Council), decision required (procurement route), constraints (£12M budget, BREEAM target, social value strategy), and project sensitivities (community, bereavement context).
• Agreed on the report structure and a one-page executive summary template: problem, options, evaluation, recommendation, immediate actions.

Step 2 Rapid literature & policy scan

• Mentor coached the student to gather concise, directly relevant evidence: examples of procurement outcomes, summary lessons from high-profile failures (system fragmentation), and case studies of two-stage/framework successes and pitfalls.
• Emphasised credible, applied sources (procurement guidance, case studies, industry reports) and noting assumptions where data were incomplete.

Step 3 Stakeholder & market mapping

• Student produced a stakeholder map (Council departments, local communities, potential contractors, SMEs, framework operators, regulators).
• Mentor guided development of quick market engagement questions to test contractor interest, capacity and SME pathways.

Step 4 Comparative options analysis

• Mentor structured the options analysis template: for each option list (i) what it is, (ii) benefits, (iii) risks, (iv) likely cost/programme implications, (v) fit with Council goals (quality, social value, sustainability), and (vi) recommended mitigating measures.
• Student filled this for traditional lowest-price tendering, two-stage via framework, direct two-stage procurement, and a hybrid recommended option.

Step 5 Critical evaluation of the Procurement Vehicle claim

• Mentor pushed the student to test the Procurement Vehicle’s sales claim: what evidence supports long-term frameworks delivering social value? Where do frameworks fail? How can the Council avoid vendor capture and ensure transparency?
• Student produced a balanced section: frameworks can enable early collaboration and social value if the framework’s terms, KPIs and governance are robust; but frameworks can also limit competition and obscure price discovery if poorly structured.

Step 6 Risk assessment & governance design

• Mentor helped the student draft a short risk register (quality failure, cost escalation, governance failure, SME exclusion, reputational risk) and corresponding mitigations (clear KPIs, performance bonds, minimum competition on call-offs, audit rights).
• Student specified governance mechanisms: independent oversight panel, social value scorecards, transparency and reporting clauses.

Step 7 Formulating recommendation & implementation roadmap

• Mentor insisted the recommendation be actionable: immediate next steps (market engagement, OJEU / procurement notices as required, draft call-off terms, governance charter), decision points (go/no-go after stage 1), and KPIs to judge success (local spend %, BREEAM ­progress, delivery milestones, defects rates).
• Student drafted a 6–12 month implementation timeline and the first 90-day actions for the Head of Council.

Step 8 Editing for audience & concision

• Mentor led a tight editing pass: remove technical jargon, keep the executive summary crisp, convert analysis to policy recommendations, and ensure each recommendation had an owner and timeline.

Outcome achieved

• Student delivered a professional report that:
  • Summarised procurement options and project constraints succinctly.
  • Demonstrated why lowest-price tendering is a poor fit for this project (quality, safety, and social value risks).
  • Critically evaluated the Procurement Vehicle’s framework claims, highlighting where frameworks can add value and where safeguards are essential.
  • Recommended a pragmatic procurement approach (a reasoned hybrid: early market engagement → competitive two-stage procurement with mandatory social-value KPIs and minimum SME access, or selective use of a vetted framework but with competitive mini-competitions and strict governance).
  • Provided an implementation roadmap, risk register and measurable KPIs for social value, sustainability and delivery oversight.

Learning objectives covered

1. Applied procurement analysis: Translate policy/industry context into a procurement strategy aligned with client goals.
2. Critical evaluation: Assess vendor claims and procurement models against evidence, market reality and governance requirements.
3. Risk & governance thinking: Identify contractual, reputational and delivery risks and propose credible mitigations.
4. Stakeholder and market engagement: Demonstrate how to test market capacity, protect SME access, and align social value objectives with procurement practice.
5. Practical policy writing: Produce an audience-focused, actionable report with clear recommendations, timelines and accountability.
6. Professional judgement under constraints: Balance cost, quality, sustainability and community sensitivities in a real-world public sector brief.

Get Inspired, But Stay Original Download Your Sample Responsibly

Looking to understand how a high-quality academic assignment is structured? You can download this sample solution to get valuable insights into formatting, referencing, and topic development. Remember this sample is provided strictly for reference and study purposes only. Submitting it as your own work could result in plagiarism penalties from your institution.

If you need a unique, professionally written solution tailored to your topic and requirements, our expert academic writers can help. Every custom assignment we deliver is:

• 100% original and plagiarism-free, written from scratch.
• Crafted by qualified subject experts with years of academic writing experience.
• Delivered with proper referencing and formatting based on your university’s standards.
• Backed by on-time delivery and quality assurance checks.

Use the sample to learn, or get a fresh, customized solution that guarantees authenticity and top grades.

Download Sample Solution  Order Fresh Assignment