This happens so many times, completely unfair and waste of our time and money, are they simply bench marking themselves and justifying their internal department???

One way to stop clients stealing your ideas it to charge for proposals and you and I's time. Every client will waste your time if you allow them to. As soon as you say you are going to charge for time they soon change their tune.

What should have been asked is, do they have a design department and are they tendering for the project? If so why are you not using them? If you don’t get the answers you think are right you then don’t tender for it.

easy way to get some ideas, thanks to everyone who entered into the tender saved them thousands!!!

Turnips yes they are!

blacklists, that's what we need.

Complete waste of our time, If their design is similar to pitched ideas, is there anything that can be done?

There is a simple solution:

It costs time and money for Agencies to take part in this process.

Once an Agency has been shortlisted from the PQQ the Agency should bill the Client for the work involved if it is a creative brief.

No?

Or just pitch with creds - simpla as that. No cash = no ideas.

Reminds me. I need a celebration cake. I'll get 47 local cake makers to design me a cake. I'll pick the best 13 to make one for me then I'll select the one I like best.

I won't let them know that my mum makes the best cakes and I've also asked her to make one too.

Just wouldn't happen in ANY other industry.

So who should be doing something about it then? MPA, DMA, IPA, CIM.....all of them, none of them? And what can 'they' do?

If 'we' all agreed to not enter the process - there would always be someone who would - and therefore get the work.

The rights and wrongs don't come into it - it won't change a thing.

I love how David Cameron talks about how the private sector is going to take up the slack when all the public sector people are out of jobs.

He clearly has no idea about the resentment they have caused through their onerous and malignant procurement processes.

First of all, we don't have the jobs to fill, and secondly, I'm inclined to discriminate against ex-public sector workers for the damage their organisations have done to our industry.

Trade bodies will be powerless to help. The simple solution is, don't get involved. They'll find their supplier base drying up. It's happened to the Tobacco companies, and it's going to happen to government.

Who still tenders for public sector work? Will you never learn?

This is down to a lack of training in procurement departments in my opinion. The buyer doesn't understand the nature of the product they're tendering, takes no advice from industry associations and doesn't realise the amount of work put into the process on the part of the supplier. Will the University see the bad publicity generated on this page as something significant? - maybe. But it's more likely to be concerned if there was comeback from SOPO or from Government.

As a Scottish taxpayer, I admire their prudent use of public funds.

OK perhaps the Drum can be the industry champion. I see that you are awaiting a response from the University, is this a precursor to a bigger article? Maybe a feature on how the public sector tendering process works (or doesn't) with respect to the creative industries (and I suspect many other sectors) and how it costs many companies large and small thousands of pounds in wasted effort. The fact that they have, in effect, awarded themselves the contract is scandalous and I would suggest it might be very difficult for them to produce work that doesn't resemble, in some shape or form, the work pitched. I think it should be made clear to them that this could be an infringement of copyright and that they may be liable for damages if that happens.

Do you guys honestly think St Andrews university will read this page?!?
They obviously have no idea how the creative world works (or survives) and their procurement department have treated this as tho' it was a utility tender eg: new carpets or cleaners.

I for one can't wait to see the hodgepodge they will 'create' from all of the submitted design work. Frankenstein won't have a look in.

It would be interesting to find out which of their subsidised hourly rates they put forward. Time for FOI!

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/printanddesign/prices/#d.en.40004

As someone who works in the public sector and has commissioned design tenders from both commercial and in house teams I would remind you all that the public sector client has very little choice but to choose the cheapest bid if the tenders are of comparable quality. Simply put, if you want to win the work you need to offer a product that meets the basic spec at a competitive price. Bells, Whistles and an exciting concept but priced at £10K over the other submissions just won't win a public sector tender. To award you the job in those circumstances would be ILLEGAL.

Anon. 11:15

Interesting to see their rate card. Maybe we should send them some enquiries asking them to respond to a design brief with some idea of the approach they would take. No commitment of course to proceed - they should be happy enough with that.

Anon 11.27

The tender that came second was £3k higher than the winning tender, and the winning tender came from a subsidised department of a major university. Still think this is fair?

I think it's impressive that they took the time to sit down and evaluate 47 bids. Client of the year?

I never said it was fair. I was just describing how it is. The client within a public sector organisation (who often has a very different outlook on life than the internal bid team) has to work within a strict set of rules, they may well prefer to use an outside contractor but if none come close on price you don't have a choice. You as the bidder need to understand those rules if you want to win public sector contracts. Anon 11.27 again.

Anon 11.27

Firstly, we know the system is not fit for purpose – that's the point.

Secondly, the key is 'comparable in quality'. It will be interesting to see the quality of the final product. I don't believe it's illegal to pay more for a more effective product that achieves what a cut-price scrimp-and-save hasn't got a hope of doing. In fact, I'd say it was common sense. But then that's not something that public sector procurement is known for.

Thirdly, if St Andrew's knew it had strict budget constraints, why not make that clear at the outset, thereby saving everyone's time?

You’re missing the point Anon 11.27! Anyone who’s submitted a public sector bid knows the system – what people are trying to say is that it doesn’t work, for the supplier or for the client. Fraser’s to be applauded for trying to find a proactive solution to an appallingly inefficient, time consuming, money-wasting problem. Will you do the same?

Regardless of how creative we all are, we're business men.

Never pitch unless you know the budget and the scope of work required. If it's public sector, you've got to ask yourself can you afford the time cost involved in getting work out? If it's got a pitch list as long as your arm, do they know what they're doing?

If it still stacks up after all that, go for it. If not, walk away.

It's only a buyers market out there because we let it. Clients with f**k-all money and p**s-poor attitude will get the work they deserve.

Not much dialogue in these comments - just lots of angry people shouting their opinions. Kind of sums up the real world.

Hugely irresponsible of St Andrews. Very interesting to here from Fraser that his letter suggested the decision came down to cost. We were told we were very competitive but given some very vague reasons why we didn't win it. There was only ever going to be one winner here.

16:54.. has 11:27 had a makeover?

If you read the comments below more carefully 16:54, you'll see just why people feel so angry...

Keep your eyes peeled everyone, that floor cleaning service contract might be coming up soon. With any luck the Custodial Dept might have a rate card too, so we can all look at that before and be in with a shot.

I think its time we all stepped away from the comment field now and got on with finding some private sector work :-)

Look at their hourly rates: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/printanddesign/prices/

I doubt whether any agency could - or should - compete with that.

Next time this comes round, however, I'm going to tender at half the prices they quote, and put the entire department out of a job. Or, St Andrews, don't bother us again.

Maybe it's time our industry made a true stand against this practice. But we all need to agree, from the designer working alone too the agency with large overheads. Not too panic when its time pay the rent and wages. But to stop and think! If the David Cameron wants the private sector to create jobs, then he needs to put an end to our professional time being wasted.
With the wasted pitch fees over the last two years, I could have employed 2 senior designers!

Just to throw a bit more oil on this fire.

We're all getting (justifiably) vexed about this because it's in the public domain - shock news alert - it's happening every day in the private sector.

Doesn't make it right, but it has ever been thus.

What can we do to change things? Probably very little, it's not realistic to ever think that agencies will put a stop to pitching.

Just an idea, but what if a nominal fee was attached to a pitch, say £500 per agency, stay with me here, which in no way, shape or form would go anywhere near the cost incurred but would cause the client to consider how many agencies it looked at, certainly when it's public money?

Something we all know about public sector pitching/tendering is that you have little or no chance unless you are already engaged with the buyer/tenderer - can anyone say that they have submitted a tender cold and walked away with the business?

Whilst it doesn't make it right maybe the 47 agencies who responded should ask themselves why they were doing it?

Looking forward to an onslaught of ire as I've managed to be (equally) disparaging about public, privatte sector and agency in this post!

Just a thought, but have the 47 agencies who pitched (bearing in mind how much they spent pitching) considered taking legal action together as a 'Class Action' for misrepresentation or whatever.

I'm sure there must be a young hungry lawyer out to make a name for themselves out there, who could find a legal angle on this.

It might come to nothing but, if it forces St Andrews University to spend some of its own money defending the claim, even if its a pointless one, it might make them (and other similar bodies) think twice about pulling this kind of stunt again.

Unfortunately this kind of thing will continue until our industry grows some balls!

It's not just the design agencies who lost out here. I pitched for this work and lost (obviously), but I know of a printer who is on the APUC list of suppliers who was never even asked to tender. The dice, as they say, were loaded from the start.

Giles Moffatt - good question but it was hardly low value. It was estimated by the Uni itself as between 20 and 30K.

So can we clarify a few things?

Who published the tender?

Were the selection criteria and who would be making the appointment made clear in the ITT?

Or if all 46 unappointed agencies would like to place FOI requests for documentation relating to the tender. Give St Andrews a little feeling of what it's like to tie up a load of resource on an ultimately pointless exercise.

Just a thought from a frustrated tax payer.