Government Registered (Tradesman)

[joeyconcrete]

I see this a lot.

Gardeners, Plasterers, Joiners, etc.

In practice, what does this mean and is it a kitemark of quality? Does it set people apart?

I see it a lot on vans and signage, so figured it must have a perceived value.

Edited March 31, 2019 by joeyconcrete

[finlo]

52 minutes ago, joeyconcrete said:

I see this a lot.

Gardeners, Plasterers, Joiners, etc.

In practice, what does this mean and is it a kitemark of quality? Does it set people apart?

I see it a lot on vans and signage, so figured it must have a perceived value.

It doesn't mean a jot re weeding out cowboys, all it means is they pay the government an annual fee to be perceived as kosher.

Edited March 31, 2019 by finlo

[TheTeapot]

It's a load of bollocks. 

[joeyconcrete]

I have never assigned any value to it but I had assumed that some people must have.

I was interested in understanding the practicalities of achieving the status, but it sounds more like a public sector best business guide, rather than a challenging certification process.

[TheTeapot]

The only challenging thing about it is signing the cheque. You do need to be registered if you want any gov work though, so I suppose it has a use. 

[Doitonce]

Its a load of absolute shite!

The implementation of it in certain government departments is, as far as I can see, discriminatory, and illegal.

Allow me to post an excerpt from an email to a minister regarding this scam of a set up:

"We discussed various points, and where I feel the current set up is not fit for purpose, which is summarised below:

 

The current scenario:

• The DoI select list for xxxxx contractors has been extended, to now expire in December 2020 - this is unfairly excluding qualified and competent contractors from securing government work, and is thereby limiting opportunities for growth of said companies.
• DoI are resistant to discuss the issue with contractors due to prior agreements which are, as above, due to expire on December 31st, 2018. Extending the period closes off any avenue for review and adaption, and precludes any start up companies from applying for DoI work for a further period of 2 years.
• MACCS are charging a supplement for services which are already provided, and subsidised via our business and personal taxes:
  • Proof of up to date insurance - this is already covered by employment law, and is therefore a legal requirement which is policed by central government
  • Proof of a Health & Safety policy - as above, this is already covered by employment law, and is therefore a legal requirement which is policed by central government
  • Advise on the settlement of differences between Members and their workforce - this is covered by the Manx Industrial Relations Scheme

Issues with MACCS/DoI procurement strategy:

• MACCS do not have specific industry expertise within the xxxxxxxxxxx sectors
• MACCS do not have any set framework to support the above industries
• MACCS do not have any platform in place to check that members are undertaking works to the level that they are qualified to, and not beyond
• MACCS do not have any structure in place to sanction any members who are not following specific industry best practice (because they are unaware of what best practice constitutes within the respective sectors)
• MACCS have not demonstrated any pro-active efforts in lieu of any of the above points, despite the fact there have been repeated instances of substandard work being completed by MACCS accredited contractors
• There have been repeated instances of government work being completed by non MACCS accredited contractors - this is mainly actioned by MACCS accredited contractors securing work, which is then sub-contracted to non MACCS accredited sub-contractors
• Clause 5.24 within the MACCS constitution states the following: 
  • "The decision of the Executive Council as to whether or not to allow membership is final.  The executive Council shall not be required to give any reasons for their membership decisions".  This lack of accountability and transparency is unacceptable for any representative body; particularly when considering that the Executive Council is made up of members with commercial interests - this could lead to the suppression of a competitive market whereby the Executive Council can look after their own commercial interests without challenge or explanation (hence much of the cynicism regarding the scheme).
• Several local government bodies are directly employing non MACCS accredited contractors for xxxxx works, despite setting forth that MACCS accreditation is a requirement to undertake works on their behalf - where this statement is challenged within local government, there is proven evidence that the parameters are subject to change internally and at the discretion of the local authority - this may be unfairly limiting opportunities to non MACCS accredited contractors who choose not to challenge the existing framework
• Several MACCS accredited contractors are using the marketing strength of MACCS membership to promote their business/secure private work with statements such as "employment of certificated staff in the categories relevant to approval" - it is proven fact that this is not always the case.
• Clause 6.6.4 in the MACCS constitution states: "Promote training sessions, seminars and the like for the continuous professional development of Members" - I am yet to see any of the aforementioned take place the are relevant to the xxxxxxxxxxx sectors be delivered by MACCS, yet xxxx have taken a pro-active stance on this and delivered a number of opportunities for training - why are the Government suppressing the efforts of xxxx by seemingly limiting the resources for xxxx to deliver support that is specific to the industry sector, whilst outsourcing to what is effectively a 'competing' independent body with no relevant experience, and no delivery of promises set forth within its constitution?
• Clause 6.6.5 in the MACCS constitution states: "Arrange, attend and minute meetings of the Executive Council with appropriate external bodies" - where is the evidence that this has taken place?  What external bodies have been met that have specific industry knowledge?  What was the outcome of such meetings, if they have taken place?

 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Doitonce

[Doitonce]

Ohh, I almost forgot, how the government are so able at contradictions - seems DOI & Treasury don't read from the same script...

 

"I am led to believe that there is an agreement in situ whereby all contractors wishing
to undertake works on behalf of the DoI must be MACCS accredited. I would like to
see any supporting documentation of this relationship between DoI and MACCS (or
information which otherwise prove that it is not a requirement to be MACCS accredited
to undertake works on behalf of the DoI), so I can be fully conversant with the terms
and limitations of this agreement."
While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance some of the
information is available by other means. The requirement for MACCS accreditation is
one set by Treasury through the Financial Regulations, a link can be found below:

https://www.gov.im/media/1362161/iom-government-financial-regulations-june-
2018.pdf

Part of the Regulations refers to a document called FPN C.02 Capitol Procedure Notes
which is not available online, however after consultation with Treasury we attach it to
this response.
Please quote the reference number 624568 in any future communications."

 

So DOI say that the requirement for MACCS accreditation is a requirement set out by Treasury for ALL categories of work.  Well, it seems Treasury beg to differ...

 

"While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance the
Treasury does not hold or cannot, after taking reasonable steps to do so, find the
information that you have requested. As a result, a practical refusal reason applies
under section 11(3)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2015.
A search of our records has revealed that the Treasury does not hold any agreement
or other formal documentation between the Treasury and the Manx Accredited
Construction Contractors Scheme (MACCS) that establishes the scope of Government
construction work or other categories of works, for which MACCS accreditation is
required.
I can advise you that requirements in respect of construction works being undertaken
on behalf of Government are set out in the Financial Regulations (see Financial
Practice Note C.02 Capital Procedure Notes).
Paragraph 1.1 of Financial Practice Note C.02 (FPN C.02) states –
“For all construction work, designated bodies must use Accredited Contractors included
on the Manx Accredited Construction Contractors Scheme ...”
It is each Department’s responsibility to assess each stand-alone project it is
undertaking to determine whether it would reasonably consider it to be ‘construction’
for the purpose of paragraph 1.1 of FPN C.02. The Treasury does not provide
Departments with any guidance on the interpretation of ‘construction’. However, it has
been recognised that further clarification of this term may be helpful and we will
consult with Departments to consider both the wording of the current requirements
and whether additional guidance can be developed that would assist Departments,
potential contractors and the general public.
Paragraph 1.2 of FPN C.02 also states –
“All Officers involved in Capital Projects must ensure that they are undertaken in
accordance with the Procedure Notes for the Management of Construction Projects
issued by the Treasury.”
Paragraph 8.5.12 of the Procedure Notes for Management of Construction Projects
requires that any sub-contractor of a Capital scheme construction project must be
MACCS accredited.
The requirement for Government to use an approved list of contractors came as a
result of a recommendation included in a 1993 Council of Ministers report which
reviewed the administration of Government’s construction contracts at the time. As a
result, a Government maintained list of approved contractors came into operation. In
2005 the Construction Federation presented a proposal to the Department of Trade
and Industry (now the Department for Enterprise), for an ‘approved contractors’

scheme for use by both Government and the general public. The proposal was
accepted and resulted in the Manx Accredited Construction Contractors Scheme.
The requirements of the Financial Regulations are a minimum standard in respect of
construction works. Each Department undertaking any general procurement, or
tendering for goods or services, will of course be responsible for setting any
requirements considered reasonable in respect of the good or service required.
Please quote the reference number 649565 in any future communications."

 

Seems the stance of treasury is that there is no such requirement in place, outside of construction based works (yet DOI, and others, stipulate MCCS accreditation for ALL categories of works nowadays).  Moreover, ongoing communication reveals that DOI have misinterpreted the Capitol Procedure Guidance Notes. Not only this, but powers that be in DOI are aware of it, are unwilling to engage with contractors who challenge it, and are restricting employment opportunities to those whom refuse to subscribe to this shambles of a scheme.

 

So, to be clear:

DOI - "The requirement for MACCS accreditation is one set by Treasury through the Financial Regulations"

Treasury - "Treasury does not hold any agreement or other formal documentation between the Treasury and the Manx Accredited Construction Contractors Scheme (MACCS) that establishes the scope of Government construction work or other categories of works, for which MACCS accreditation is required."

So much for the good old "Freedom the Flourish", on the IOM. Muppets.

Edited April 1, 2019 by Doitonce

[Doitonce]

On ‎3‎/‎31‎/‎2019 at 2:25 PM, TheTeapot said:

The only challenging thing about it is signing the cheque. You do need to be registered if you want any gov work though, so I suppose it has a use. 

No, you don't need to be registered for gov work. Some gov departments say you do (as per above), but this exclusion based on misinterpretation of Capitol Procedure notes is discriminatory, and therefore, illegal.

[paswt]

10 hours ago, Doitonce said:

No, you don't need to be registered for gov work. Some gov departments say you do (as per above), but this exclusion based on misinterpretation of Capitol Procedure notes is discriminatory, and therefore, illegal.

So a bit like planning then , make it up as you go along ........ I've found

[TheTeapot]

11 hours ago, Doitonce said:

No, you don't need to be registered for gov work. Some gov departments say you do (as per above), but this exclusion based on misinterpretation of Capitol Procedure notes is discriminatory, and therefore, illegal.

Hmm. Try bidding for government work when you aren't on the scheme and you'll quickly find you won't get any.

[joeyconcrete]

I can understand the preferred supplier status, assuming there is a vetting process which the fee covers.

I asked because I noticed how many tradesman advertise their registered status, but I couldn’t see how someone would make that a requirement when getting their toilet fixed or living room skimmed.

I guess it predates the world of Facebook and social media reviews. Maybe in the early 90s being Government Registered was the equivalent of 5* on Tripadvisor.

Edited April 2, 2019 by joeyconcrete

[Doitonce]

9 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

Hmm. Try bidding for government work when you aren't on the scheme and you'll quickly find you won't get any.

Providing it is not, by definition, Constructions works, you can challenge it, and providing you meet the financial requirement set out by Treasury, no government department can stop you from applying.  

For info, I carry out contract work for the government, and am not MACCS accredited...

[TheTeapot]

I don't understand this bit 

Quote

Providing it is not, by definition, Constructions works,

in a topic about the Manx Accredited Construction Contractors Scheme.

[Doitonce]

53 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

I don't understand this bit 

in a topic about the Manx Accredited Construction Contractors Scheme.

Ohh the irony!

Register yourself on the gov tender portal and look at how many of their non construction related tenders supposedly requires MACCS accreditation.  Furthermore, take a look at the MACCS member list - you will see company make sandwiches (does constructing a sandwich class as construction?), tree surgeons, gardeners, farmers, fencing companies and various other non construction related companies.

 

This is the whole problem with the scheme.  Treasury make no ruling for MACCS accreditation, unless works are construction based.  Other gov departments, say DOI, Utilities etc say MACCS accreditation is required for all works as Treasury apparently say so (but Treasury do not say this), so say you go for the current grass cutting tender for utilities (mowing the grass at the pumping stations), Utilities say MACCS registration is required.  Since when was cutting grass classed as construction work?  To my knowledge, it isn't.  I have challenged this with several government departments, and got them to back down and allow me to tender, and win work, based on the fact that I have proven them wrong. 

 

MACCS have basically 'spread their wings' and are now offering registration to ANY form of company, irrespective of the line of business.  The issue here is, some government departments have misinterpreted the criteria set out by Treasury, and expect ALL companies, in ANY line of work to be registered with MACCS, which is an erroneous conclusion, discriminatory, and illegal.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Doitonce

[Doitonce]

So, some MACCS members:

A.M. Tree Care

Ace Carpets Ltd

Blastaway Ltd

Castle Carpets Curtains & Blinds

Chris Bell Tree Surgery Ltd

Cleervu Aerial Specialists Ltd

Countryside & Garden Contractors Ltd

Countryside Maintenance Ltd

D.G. Wood & Son Garden Maintenance

Dave The White Van Man

David Noble Gardening

Discount Plastic Merchants

How many of the above are construction companies?  The list goes on - this is only a small amount of companies who do not fall under the category of construction for their core services.  So, MACCS accreditation is clearly, and PROVEN, to not be required for Government work, if the work is not construction related.  If this is the case, why are the above contractors afforded the opportunity to be awarded government work in their specific, non construction related fields, but other contractors in the same line of business, not allowed, due to them being unwilling to stump up the £250 odd quid to pay for membership of the prawn and pork pie brigade.

Stinks.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Doitonce