Mr. Robert Watt:

We are happy to have as much engagement as is appropriate on these issues. Mr. Paul Quinn can talk about some of the engagements that have already taken place.

Regarding a few issues the Deputy mentioned, in terms of aggregation, as a State we have an onus to get value for money for taxpayers. There are occasions when we need to aggregate, or we need framework contracts and so on. Within that we are aware of two things. First, we accept the comments about the difficulty of developing consortia and we are examining that and are happy to consider if there is a better way in which we can facilitate the development of consortia to enable smaller firms to come together to compete. I accept there is an issue there.

There is a question about lots, and Mr. Paul Quinn will answer this in more detail. We encourage the separation of contracts into lots. We can talk about what we have done in one of the cases. Part of the policy response to these concerns is that we have much more engagement with entities procuring to ensure that we are dividing up in a way that makes sense and that enables SMEs to access contracts.

The second point around this is that when we decide on contracts it is not purely on the basis of price or cost, rather it is on the most economically advantageous tender. In some cases the weightings might be too much in one direction and we do not take account of other factors, and Mr. Paul Quinn can talk about that. Overall, it is not based purely on price, it is based on quality and service as well.

Third, in terms of data gathering, we have undertaken an exercise, and it involved a very detailed report, and I know the members have not had a chance to read through it. It is important that the policy here is guided by evidence. I am not saying that what the members heard from the SFA this morning is wrong because I need to note what has been said. However, we need to reflect upon the evidence, given the new information we have, and then reach a sensible view. We have undertaken a review of the practices of 64 public bodies, involving 35,600 suppliers with a spend of €3.5 billion. This is not a small but an enormous sample which, we believe, is representative of the procurement spend right across the system, and I would imagine the standard of error in this sample is quite low. That would be my assessment. This is quite comprehensive. The results of this are very different from the numbers the SFA provided this morning. I am not saying that we are right and it is wrong but we need to reflect and have a shared understanding. Our data show that 93% of the spending we sample goes to firms within the State while the SFA's figures suggest it is 72%. There is an enormous difference between the two. We need to understand the data and the evidence and that can better inform our policy.

Before Mr. Paul Quinn responds, I advise the committee that we are very happy to consider any form of engagement that we think is appropriate with the committee, the SFA or other groups to see if we can move this forward. We are very open to considering how we can improve the way we function to achieve the objectives that, I believe, everybody shares. I will ask Mr. Paul Quinn to respond now.