ANNEX 1

The MHS makes extensive use of contract Official Veterinary Surgeons (OVSs) who supervise meat inspection teams in plants. The current OVS contracts expire on 30 March 1997 and the MHS has recently undertaken a new round of competitive tendering covering all premises they supervise. The MHS has used the opportunity to upgrade the contract OVS work specification which now embraces specific quality standards and improved contract and performance management indicators.

 For these purposes an OVS Project Team was formed in August 1996 to undertake the retender of OVS services to the MHS in all meat plants in England, Scotland and Wales effective from 31 March 1997. This discreet unit, which was based in Foss House, York consisted of an external Project Consultant, and primarily staff engaged from outside of the MHS. The team was managed by a member of the MHS Management Team.

The tender process was marketed widely to the veterinary profession who hold a monopoly supply for OVS services.

An advertisement was placed in The Veterinary Record on 10 August 1996 inviting OVS and veterinary practices to express an interest in tendering for the provision of OVS services. The Audited Bureau of Circulation (ABC) circulation for this publication is 10,600 per week.

During early September, the MHS wrote to all present contractors (225), all veterinary practices who tendered, or expressed an interest in tendering in 1995 (400), all veterinary practices who responded to our advertisement (300), and all veterinary practices whose names were held on a core MAFF database as being able to provide LVI certification (1800).

In total the MHS received 6500 expressions of interest in tendering for OVS contracts. We actually received 2460 bids for a total of 1400 meat plants. Of these, 695 were monopoly bids.

In early September, the MHS instigated telephone ‘help-lines’. These telephone numbers were widely publicised to all veterinary practices in a number of letters and documents, and received a large number of calls during their four month use. These help-lines dealt with in excess of 4,500 calls.

During October 1996, the MHS undertook a series of roadshows at Bristol, Stirling and Northampton. These were widely publicised by the MHS. All these were well attended (average of 60-70) by veterinary practices.

The aims of the roadshows were:

• to ensure veterinary practices understood the MHS’s intention to drive up quality standards whilst ensuring it obtains value for money;
• explain the importance of completing the documentation which made up the invitation to tender (ITT) packs;
• provide a forum for veterinary practices to be able to discuss with MHS management any relevant issues.

The tender and contract documentation was subject to considerable discussion, both within the MHS and outside. Advice was sought, from MAFF legal advisers as well MAFF Contract and Procurement Division (PCD) personnel starting in July 1996. In September 1996 the BVA was consulted on the format and contents of the documentation. Their views were considered and adopted where appropriate.

In August/September 1996 a database of information was collated, from a variety of sources, regarding every meat plant in the UK. The aim of the database was to provide veterinary practices tendering with all the relevant information about the plant except for the hourly rates. Details about meat plants were thus included in tender packs.

The project team occupied a self contained conference suite, away from the MHS HQ staff, for the six month of the project. This enabled a high level of file security. From the commencement of the project, the team held all database information securely. Passwords were changed weekly by the project consultant. They were not written down anywhere. Where appropriate, individual files were password controlled. The project team utilised an area for data storage which was only accessible to the project team.

 From the commencement of the project, no member of staff who had a vested interest in the outcome of the project was allowed physical access to the project team office. This particularly applied to a small number of Principal OVS’s who expressed an interest in tendering for OVS services.

The tender panels were held in York between 4-6 December 1996. There were six regional tender panels, each chaired by a Regional Manager and comprising Area Resource Managers, employed Principal OVSs and administrative support. No POVS took part in the panels if they had expressed an interest, or actually tendered. Some tender panels then re-convened, at a later date, in the Regional Office to complete outstanding contracts.

A briefing took place in York on the 3 December 1996, the afternoon prior to the tender panels convening. All interested parties, e.g. BVA, SVS, PCD, industry representatives, and tender panel members were invited to be present. The briefing lasted approximately two hours. It included a presentation on how the tender panels would operate, PCD involvement etc. The SVS gave a comprehensive presentation on the Chief Veterinary Officer’s revised guidance on required OVS supervision levels in meat plants which had to be adhered to by those tendering for work. An open forum followed the briefing, which resolved any outstanding issues.

All bids had to include CVs for those OVSs who would be used to service the contract if one was awarded. The tender panels had the CVs available to them during the tender panels, and made extensive use of them. The quality of individuals named to do the work affected quality scores in some cases, which reflects the importance the MHS placed upon these. The MHS did not award any contract without knowing the name of the OVS and having a CV.

 The MHS has spent considerable effort in ensuring that only trained and qualified OVS work in meat plants. During the tender process, a CV had to be submitted for each OVS. This outlined relevant experience and training. In addition, all OVSs must hold OVS designation on 31 March 1997. That means they must have attended and passed the one week OVS training course, and attended placements in relevant white or red meat plants. Copies of OVS designation certificates have been requested from every OVS. Also all OVSs must undertake a two day HAS training course, before 31 March 1997.

The panels initially only considered those bids received by the due close date of 27 November 1996. Late bids were only considered in the case where no bid was received for a plant by the due date.

Each bid was assessed against a number of qualitative criteria, and a value for money assessment was also made. Those tendering were made aware of this assessment process not only in the tendering documentation, but also at the regional roadshows.

Before any bid was accepted, the following stringent procedure had to be adhered to:-

A BQA was completed for every slaughterhouse, cutting plant and cold store. This required the Tender panel to mark each bid against nine quality criteria. They then had to assign each bid a score for value for money. This was a value judgement, comparing the quality score with the hourly rate/annual maximum fee. The Tender Panel also had to complete a written justification of how they had arrived at the Value for Money score.

The process of tendering and decision making was conducted fairly and properly and was subject to checks by procurement specialists (PCD) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) who attended the Tender Panels and signed off each contract award decision. PCD also returned to York, after the completion of the tender panels, to carry out a random sample audit of all files. Members of the State Veterinary Service and a senior member of the British Veterinary Association also observed the tender process. MAFF’s internal auditors have assessed, and will continue to assess, the process until it is complete. Members of the industry forum were invited to provide observers, who were non-plant operators, but declined to do so.

A two tier appeals process was created specifically for the tender process. The first stage of appeal was to the relevant Regional Manager to review his original decision. The second stage of appeal for any practice not satisfied with the initial appeal decision, was to the Head of Operations who would review all the relevant paperwork along with a member of the SVS.

All practices were given 10 days from date of the letter notifying them of which plants they had successfully bid for, to appeal against any they had not been awarded. From receipt of their appeal letter, the MHS had 21 days to hear the appeal and notify the appellant practice of the outcome.

The appeal file, along with the appellants letter of appeal and any other documentation enclosed, was passed to the relevant Regional Manager, who reviewed the documentation supporting the award of the relevant plant. The Regional Manager was required to notify the appellant practice of the outcome of the review, in writing within 21 calendar days of receipt of the appeal. A total of 19 appeals were received.

If a veterinary practice is not satisfied with the initial review, they may apply for a final review to take place. This must be received within 10 days of the date of the notification of the findings of the initial review. During the final review, the appeal file, and all documentation supporting the award of the relevant plant will be reviewed by the Head of Operations (Peter Soul) along with a member of the State Veterinary Service. The Head of Operations will notify the appellant practice of the outcome of the final review, in writing within 21 days of receipt of the appeal. A small number of second stage appeals are currently being heard.

The MHS enhanced the appeal procedure. It introduced the option for an appellant practice to attend a personal meeting with the Regional Manager to state their appeal prior to the first stage appeal decision being reached. Many appellant practices who did attend meetings with RMs found them very useful. These meetings helped ensure that appeal decisions were reached in the knowledge of all relevant facts. These meetings also provided an opportunity for the veterinary practice to raise any other points they wished regarding the overall tender process.

The MHS will improve its management controls of contract OVSs. It will address any issues of non-performance, non-return of paperwork etc. as part of the ongoing monitoring process. Principal OVSs will scrutinise OVS monthly/quarterly performance reports which must be sent with Hygiene Assessment System score returns, and undertake an annual contract review meeting.

The MHS commitment to quality and OVS training is demonstrated by its delivery of around thirty regional training courses for contract OVSs in February and March 1997, prior to the start of the new contracts. In addition, it has stipulated that each OVS must undertake 5 days CPD in each year of the contract - 2 days delivered by the MHS and three days by a variety of other means: the MHS is currently working with the VPHA and AMI in devising standard training modules which OVSs can use to build up the remaining three days of CPD.

Go to top of page

Return to Meat Hygiene page

This page was last updated 8 April 1997