Ongoing discussion from Bikeability conference 2014.
Here are the notes from the 15 May 2014 workshop. Please feel free to add and continue this debate.
Can make delivery more affordable
Team can be flexible
Can train/develop own team (if an ITO)
Manage quality directly
Some things you might not be set up to deliver
Have to juggle both strategy and delivery
Risk is on you if team fails to deliver
Can be helpful if the scheme manager is an NSI
Can cope with large scale
Minimum standards can be set
No extra costs
Complexity of tender process
Tender process can be seen as ‘unfair’ and hard to judge true value
Tender might contain missing elements
Be specific, eg min. hours of on-road training for L2
Keep a professional relationship with your provider
Increase the instructor: trainee ratio
Mixed (in-house and outsourced) delivery
Horses for courses
Potential competition between providers
Interesting workshop, thanks. Can people give examples of how they measured and assessed the quality elements of prospective tenders please.
I have added in the following points raised at the Haringey Cycling Conference 24/09/15.
Office costs reduced
Varied services may be available, ie beyond Bikeability
Experience of work in other boroughs/counties
Stuck with provider/need to manage relationship
There may be a pre-procured solution, eg in London TfL have a Pan London contract with a provider that borough can access.
You might be able to get funding from the YST.
Do a site visit and see your prospective provider's training in action.
Read the TABS Procurement Guidance.
Don't worry about formatting, just type in the text and we'll take care of making sense of it. We will auto-convert links, and if you put asterisks around words we will make them bold.
For a full reference visit the Markdown syntax.
© TABS, powered by microcosm.
Report a problem
The Association of Bikeability Schemes.