Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
What you both highlighted about flexibility at the end stage is interesting, especially in the context of Contract A. One thing I’d add is that in Canadian public procurement, the risk isn’t just the lack of flexibility, but the point at which flexibility starts to create unequal treatment between bidders. Even small post-closing negotiations can unintentionally shift the competitive balance, which is likely why E-COMM leaned so heavily on refining requirements before the RFP instead of during final negotiations.
One area where vested outsourcing could be particularly useful in a healthcare procurement context is the management of critical clinical supply availability across healthcare facilities. In traditional supply contracts, vendors are often paid based on transaction volume, meaning revenue increases with more orders and deliveries. As a result, there is limited incentive to reduce demand or improve overall system efficiency.
A vested outsourcing model would shift this by tying part of the vendor’s compensation to system-level outcomes rather than volume, such as reduced stockouts, improved availability of critical items, and fewer emergency or last-minute orders (which can be very expensive).
To make this effective, the contract would include a stable base payment with additional incentives linked to performance improvements, such as reduced waste, lower emergency procurement costs, or better inventory reliability across sites. This will change the incentive from “more orders” to “better system performance”.
It would also encourage vendors to take a more proactive role in analyzing usage patterns and anticipating demand rather than simply responding to purchase requests.The result would be a shift toward shared accountability for efficiency, reliability, and service continuity in supply contracts. Elements of this approach exist in performance-based contracts, but fully outcome-driven vested outsourcing is still not widely used in healthcare supply chains.
One of the aspects I found most interesting in the “E-COMM Emergency Communications for BC” procurement was how much emphasis they placed on refining their requirements before issuing the final RFP. Instead of assuming they knew exactly what they needed, they used the Proof of Concept, RFI, and RFQ stages to test the market, validate technology like P25, and incorporate feedback from both vendors and end users such as police and fire agencies. That stood out to me because it shows a very practical approach to managing uncertainty in complex procurements.
I also found the level of structure and governance notable. The involvement of multiple committees, along with fairness advisors, highlights how important transparency and accountability were, especially given the public safety implications of the project.
In terms of using the Contract A paradigm, I think it makes sense in this context because of the need for fairness and defensibility. That said, for a project of this size and complexity, I would consider whether more flexibility at the final stage (such as a more negotiated approach) could be beneficial.
Overall, I would likely take a similar phased approach, particularly the strong upfront market engagement, but I would keep in mind the balance between structure and flexibility to ensure the best possible outcome.
I think this is a very strong example of how outcomes-based commissioning could be applied in a meaningful way. I especially like the focus on long-term outcomes like housing stability and addressing root causes, rather than just measuring service usage. This is particularly relevant in contexts like Nova Scotia, where housing insecurity and pressure on emergency and transitional housing services continue to be important social challenges. It also highlights the importance of collaboration across housing, health, and social services to support individuals more holistically.
Your example of surgical wait times is very relevant, especially in the Nova Scotia context where access to timely care remains an ongoing pressure point. I agree that shifting the focus from volume to outcomes could drive meaningful improvements in system performance. One challenge, however, is ensuring there is enough provider capacity to maintain genuine competition, particularly in specialized healthcare services where options can be limited. Even so, using time-bound contracts could still help introduce accountability and encourage better performance within the existing system.
You make a strong case for waste management as a good fit, particularly given the clarity and measurability of outcomes. I agree that the presence of an established supplier market supports effective contestability. One additional consideration is how performance metrics are structured, ensuring they capture not just cost and efficiency, but also long-term environmental outcomes, will be key to avoiding unintended trade-offs.
One service I think lends itself well to outcomes-based commissioning is home care and long-term care support. In this area, outcomes like reduced hospital readmissions, improved patient well-being, and timely access to care can be clearly defined and measured. Giving providers more flexibility in how they deliver services could lead to more integrated and patient-centered solutions.
I also see value in how this approach supports contestability, since both private and non-profit providers could participate under time-bound contracts. This can help maintain competitive tension and encourage continuous improvement.
That said, I think implementation could be challenging. Defining the right outcome metrics and ensuring reliable data collection is not always straightforward, especially in healthcare where results can be influenced by multiple external factors. There’s also a risk that providers may focus too much on what is measurable and overlook less tangible aspects of care.
Overall, I think this approach has strong potential to improve service effectiveness, but only if outcomes are clearly defined and supported by strong oversight.
Your point about balancing social value with cost efficiency really stands out. I also think scalability is an important consideration, while Fair Trade works well in certain categories, it may not always be practical to apply it across all procurement activities. In that sense, integrating it strategically rather than broadly can help organizations achieve impact without compromising overall procurement performance.
I like how you framed this using a cost-benefit approach and brought in real-world outcomes like community development and environmental impact. One point I would add is that beyond the social benefits, Fair Trade can also play a role in reducing supply chain and reputational risks. That aspect is becoming increasingly relevant, especially for public sector organizations that are expected to demonstrate responsible sourcing practices.
You raise a really interesting point about Fair Trade acting as a market intervention and potentially creating new forms of imbalance. I agree that targeting a specific group of producers can introduce limitations, especially for those who are not certified. From a procurement perspective, this highlights the importance of being selective in applying Fair Trade, ensuring it supports ethical outcomes without unintentionally reducing overall market competitiveness or flexibility.
From a procurement perspective, Fair Trade policies reflect a shift from lowest-cost sourcing to value-based decision-making.
On the cost side, Fair Trade products typically carry a price premium and may reduce competition due to certification requirements. There are also administrative and compliance costs, which can make the procurement process more complex and less efficient.
On the benefit side, Fair Trade supports ethical sourcing, improved labour conditions, and environmental sustainability. It can also reduce reputational risk and enhance supply chain transparency, which are increasingly important for public sector organizations.
Overall, while Fair Trade policies may reduce short-term cost efficiency, they provide long-term value through risk mitigation and alignment with social responsibility goals. A balanced approach, using Fair Trade where it delivers clear impact while maintaining competitive procurement, offers the most practical solution.
