LETTERS

E-mail letters@supplymanagement.com, fax on 020 7324 2791, or write to Letters to the editor, Supply Management, 17 Britton Street, London EClM 5TP

Charging ahead

The articles appearing in SM (News, 13 April), concerning charging for tender documents by universities and other public-sector

It should be remembered that compliance with EU procurement directives places a potentially enormous burden on buyers, particularly those organisations that take advantage of the opportunity to operate qualified list schemes.

Public-sector bodies are presented with a stark choice when faced with the issue of funding the activities that facilitate compliance (which can involve employing extra staff). They can either pass some, or all, of the charge back to the suppliers whose applications or tenders are being processed, or the cost will ultimately be borne by the local council-tax payer.

I am employed by a "utility" that is required to follow the directives, but we do not have the option to seek funding from tax payers. We have to decide whether these costs sit against our bottom line or whether we recoup them from suppliers.

I am not seeking to criticise the directives perse, as they ensure that buyers act in a transparent, even-handed and accountable manner. The issue is that the directives have been put in place to benefit suppliers so that any approach to do business with a buying organisation will be judged on its merits and be free from bias. From a buyer's perspective, however, I have not been able to identify any tangible benefit.

During these days of evertightening purse strings shouldn't suppliers bear some of this cost? Why should the buyer be expected to finance compliance with something that has been imposed by others for the benefit of others?

Tony Dunning

Purchasing manager

Birmingham International Airport

STAR LETTER

The 'star letter' writer receives a Mio268 mobile navigation system, worth almost 300 Sponsored by TradingPartners, purchased cost-reduction specialists. Call 020 72610000 or e-mail inioiltradingpartners.com

Paperless direct debits aren't 'dangerous'

I read Dennis Jarvis's letter entitled "Is this a potentially dangerous practice?" (Star letter, 30 March) with interest.

As the managing director of BAGS Payments Schemes (BAGS), the industry body behind direct debit and BAGS direct credit, I wanted to clarify issues raised surrounding setting up a direct debit instruction over the phone (a so-called "paperless" direct debit).

Paperless direct debit is a tried and tested product. For almost 10 years it has been standard practice for organisations to offer consumers and businesses the option of setting up direct debits over the telephone or online.

In the first place, companies will only offer paperless direct debits if a single signature is required on the account. If this is not the case, or if the customer does not wish to sign up over the phone or internet, then the company will send through a paper direct debit instruction. This ensures that the customer is always fully in control of transactions.

Although no signature is required, the company responsible for setting up the direct debit must confirm in writing the instruction given by the customer within three days. Alternatively, the company must write and give advanced noticeofthe transaction 10 working days prior to it leaving the customer's account.

Customers can rest assured that direct debits set up in this way are subject to tight control. Companies registered to use paperless direct debit go through stringent vetting procedures and are monitored closely by the banking industry. Additionally, like all direct debit instructions, paperless direct debits are protected by the Direct Debit Guarantee, which was devised specifically to protect the customer.

BAGS has been processing automated payments for over 40 years and more than five billion transactions were processed successfully last year alone. We would not introduce a service we felt would compromise our customers in any way whatsoever.

I hope this goes some way to straightening out the issues raised regarding this service.

Michael Chambers

Managing director

BACS Payment Schemes

Q & aches

Before we ask the question "why the pre-qualification questionnaire (PQQ)" we should ask "why so complex?"

PQQs should be used to assess the commercial strength and technical ability of potential bidders. In many cases its use resembles that of a steeplechase of marathon proportions.

Irrespective of the cost to submit information, there is also the cost of lost production. Some suppliers have assessed this at three days of loss of earnings and profit, with a figure of 3,000 being mentioned. That is the cost to the trade, and then there is cost to the purchaser, as he wades through PQQs.

The use of effective methods can reduce the requirement for a questionnaire and the attendant supporting material. Buyers must understand the market and dialogue with the trade is fundamental. How well is the "scope" of requirements prepared and published particularly on OJEU notices? How well do we brief the trade, and ensure that they both read and understand the notice?

A brief review of major public service websites revealed that many asked firms to contact them or repeated a local press advertisement.

Those organisations that seek to charge for documentation should ask why they need such complex amounts of data. Are CVs, insurance certificates, health and safety policies and equal opportunities documents all needed at PQQ stage or can they not be sought at a later date if the potential vendor merits further consideration?

The time is not for charging the supplier. Perhaps the boot should be on the other foot.

Derek Nash

Interim head of corporate procurement, Manchester City Council

Emission impossible

What I am about to expound may sound like heresy, but think about it I refer to the environmental lobby which urges the reduction of processes which can release carbon into the atmosphere, allegedly causing global warming. I happen to believe that some environmental arguments are built on poor science.

It is an established fact that the earth's atmosphere is replenished by a process known as the geological carbon cycle. Carbon moves between rocks and minerals, sea water, and the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reacts with some minerals to form the mineral calcium carbonate (limestone). This mineral is then dissolved by rainwater and carried to the oceans. Once there, it can precipitate out of the ocean water, forming layers of sediment on the sea floor. As the earth's plates move, through the processes of plate tectonics, these sediments are subducted underneath the continents.

Under the great heat and pressure far below the earth's surface, the limestone melts and reacts with other minerals, releasing carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide is then reemitted into the atmosphere through volcanic eruptions. Were it not for this volcanic venting, the earth's atmosphere would eventually disperse to space rendering our planet dead, not unlike Mars.

Not only dissolved carbonates are vented into the atmosphere but any carbonbased compound locked up in the earth's crust, including oil and gas fields.

My question to the environmentalists, and it is one I have yet to hear answered satisfactorily, is this: Why is it that when a volcano erupts, spewing billions of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, it is a good thing, yet when I start up my car, or fight my garden bonfire, it is a bad thing?

David Kenyon

Procurement and logistics manager, South Yorkshire Police