The Legal Side of Procurement That Really Matters

Speaker A: I've said before to people, the 30 minute review by us could prevent so many headaches further down the line. As Tom has already said. And also from my perspective, in my previous role at a local authority, I was that layman when it comes to the service side of things. So they had a kind of double whammy with me where I'd go, right, legally, this is this. But practically, I don't understand what you're talking about. And that is so useful to make sure your ITTs are clear, concise, unjustified. Um, and just kind of as a high level point, your design of your ITT and evaluation criteria is locking in risk. You know, once it's published, your hands are tied. You can't fix those things. It's then on the clarification stages and all those types of follow on processes. So just having that assurance straight up is so useful and I think it's key to making successful documents.

Speaker B: The Powering Procurement Podcast is brought to you by Atomis, source to contract software designed to save you time and money. Hello and welcome to Powering Procurement, a podcast by Atomis, where we unpack, um, the world of procurement and supply chain management with the help of industry leaders. I'm your host, Sian Lloyd, and this is our resident expert, Gareth burch.

Speaker C: Hi. After 20 years in procurement, I may be billed as an expert, but believe me, I'm here to learn too.

Speaker B: Each episode, together with our expert guests, we'll dive into specific challenges and opportunities facing the procurement industry today.

Speaker C: And, um, we'll explore easy wins and longer term strategies to help you rise to the challenge of driving value through your work while showcasing the power of procurement.

Speaker A: So let's get going.

Speaker B: Hello and welcome to Powering Procurement, where we bring together procurement leaders and experts to explore the key issues shaping the profession today. I'm delighted to say that for this episode, we're joined by two legal experts from Capital Law, a firm with a reputation for helping clients navigate complex public procurement and commercial law challenges. So I'm pleased firstly to introduce Nicola Cullen, an associate in Capital Law's public law and regulatory team. Now, Nicola brings with her a wealth of experience supporting clients from initial planning through to contract management, advising on modification grounds, procurement challenge risk, and drafting contracts and policies. She also has a background within the public sector, which of course gives her valuable perspective on how local authorities operate. And joining us also is Tom Beard, senior associate in Capital Law's commercial disputes team. So, Tom's practice covers a wide range of commercial and contractual disputes, including procurement challenges. He's advised both public and private sector clients and brings that frontline experience of what happens when things go wrong and how risks play out in live procurements. So welcome both of you to the podcast.

Speaker A: Hi there, Jean.

Speaker C: Thanks very much for joining us.

Speaker B: It's lovely to meet you, lots to talk about. But we always like to begin the podcast really with hearing a little bit about our guests and I think particularly relevant here perhaps your roles with Capital Law and of course the focus of the firm in this area. So Nicola, I'll come to you first.

Speaker A: Yeah, thank you Sian. So yeah, um, my role is public procurement, primarily non contentious stuff. So that kind of planning stage and running your procurement exercises. Um, so I assist with drafting and running the process to ensure it's compliant. Um, so I'm within the public law team and we as a team are focusing on kind of building that repertoire with our clients to run um, compliant processes and ensure everything is in um, compliance with your legislation.

Speaker B: Thank you. What about you, Tom?

Speaker C: Thanks, Sharmil. I've been dealing uh, with procurement disputes for over eight years now. Um, I've got some significant experience, ah, acting as you mentioned, for both, um, contracting authorities as well as economic operators advise um, clients really both during the early stages of procurement processes, um, considering potential challenges at that early stage around the ITT and those sorts of things as well as after the award notice, uh, in terms of the firm's focus, um, it's on supporting our clients really. Both sort of, as Nick's mentioned, contentious, non contentious elements, uh, of procurement ensuring that sort of cradle to grave support.

Speaker B: Well we're going to dive into all of that in a little bit more detail later but as we start a little bit more with the introduction, certainly on this podcast series we've been talking a lot about public procurement and the legislative changes. We know that the landscape has been changing quite dramatically over time and indeed on one of the most recent podcasts we were joined by Lindsay Maguire, Deputy Director for Procurement Reform at the UK Cabinet Office, which was a really fascinating episode. So I'd like to ask both of you really from your perspective, how you see the most significant changes for authorities and suppliers that really they need to be aware of.

Speaker A: Um, do you want me to kick off, Tom?

Speaker C: Yeah.

Speaker A: So, um, if you go for the kind of highlights of what's the changes, I think there's a few. Um, one being we've now got four regimes into one. So originally we had that public contract regulations, utility, defence and security and concession. Um, we've now got the Procurement act which Harnesses all of those together with regulations, um, which kind of enhance that as well as guidance. Um, on top of that we've now got two procedures. So we used to have all this range of procedure you could use. So open, restrictive, competitive with dialogue, et cetera. We've now got two procedures, your open and your competitive flexible procedure. So that was to ensure um, streamlining of processes to make it a bit more flexible for authorities when designing their processes, which is always a bonus. And then I think it's no longer just a tick box exercise, it's allowing authorities to tailor procurements to their needs more. So, um, there's more enhanced um, innovation within the um act and SME access which is always useful. Um, and Tom, I think you want to talk about a bit more about this but um, transparency. There's an enhanced transparency requirement in the act, isn't there now?

Speaker C: Yeah, I mean from talking to clients as well as the wider, uh, um, public and private sector, the notices requirements under the new act appears to be the sort of the most significant change. Um, and what everybody is not most concerned about but is having um, some trouble dealing with. Um, so what does that mean in practical terms? I mean there's lots of admins, so new notices have been introduced and there's requirements on contracting authorities to publish notices throughout the life cycle, um, of the procurement. So that's during the tender stage as well as after contract award. Um, and the admin and the additional work that's required uh, on the part of the contract authorities is causing them some headache, I think it's fair to say. Um, there's additional training needs around that, there's additional resources, they're seeking advice, there's potential risks as a result of these notices. Um, so there's lots going on, lots of them to deal with. Um, and I think the new Procurement act is at such an early stage at the moment. Everybody's still sort of finding their feet, um, and coming to terms with the new requirements under the new Act.

Speaker B: Yeah, that's certainly a message I think that we've had coming through on this podcast series as well. But really interesting to have that practical uh, tip really as well, advice from the legal perspective. So thanks very much and I'm going to ask you for another one now really, because our audience, they're mainly made up obviously of procurement leaders and of lawyers as well. So from your experience, what would you say are some of the most common misconceptions that procurement teams have about that legal side of tendering and evaluation?

Speaker C: Um, well, in terms of sort of, um, the evaluation maybe. I think, um, there's a perception that as long as we're being fair we're legally safe. Um, and fairness in the everyday sense isn't always the same as legal, uh, compliance. Um, procurement law often has very specific procedural rules. Um, for example about how to handle clarifications, late bids, evaluation scoring, um, and even small deviations that may well feel fair can open up the challenges.

Speaker B: Nicola, anything you'd like to add there?

Speaker A: Yeah, I was going to say. So I agree with that entirely. I'm going to go into kind of a more kind of high level, what I've seen in real practice stuff and that's people having this conception that legal only matters if someone challenges. And I think that's a real um, black and white way of looking at it. I suppose. Um, it's more about legal compliance isn't a tick box exercise but it shapes your process. If you get legal involvement early to ensure that everything complies, you're less likely to have those crisis challenges later on down the line. So that's really kind of a mindset to change to, I think. Um, and the other thing, just from what I've seen recently with some CL compliance is that your governance and approval documents are just as important as the procedure itself. Um, so I've had instances where they haven't m got adequate procurement processes in place. Um, and therefore, um, they've run a procedure that, okay, it complies with procurement legislation but might not have the approvals internally that it requires to be sound. Um, so it's just aligning all of those things to make a rounded process that does work.

Speaker C: Yeah, just building on one of um, Nicola's points there. I mean sometimes, and this isn't the case with all our clients, but um, people can view legal as they to slow things down and I actually think that's entirely the wrong way of looking at things. And early legal input usually saves time by sort of preventing challenges, retenders or audit issues later down the line. So um, certainly early engagement can be a real advantage.

Speaker B: Yeah, that's really good advice, isn't it? I'm sure that there are various points and all sorts of things potentially that can go wrong. Um, would you say that though perhaps unclear criteria and specifications tend to be a recurring theme in disputes, is something that, what you've seen, Tom, during the course of your career, the eight years that you were speaking about, obviously we heard from both of you, I think about the importance of thinking ahead in terms of making sure that Evaluation approaches is watertight. But what sort of things do you see as going wrong?

Speaker C: I mean, yeah, I mean vague or open ended criteria can often be, um, the cause of a challenge, um, or a dispute. The um, sort of things we sometimes see are uh, procurement teams using terms like um, high quality, um, robust methodology, value for money without defining what those terms actually mean, um, in measurable terms. Um, and there could be a disconnect between sort of published criteria, um, an actual evaluation for example. So sometimes the evaluators end up um, assessing things that weren't in the published criteria, um, or weighting factors, um, differently than advertised and those things can often become a problem.

Speaker A: Yeah. And I think to kind of move forward with that one as well. Subjective criteria. Okay. There is a degree of subjectiveness to evaluation criteria, but making it so broad that someone can say one thing and someone else can say something completely different doesn't help when it comes to evaluating effectively and efficiently. So having some sort of evaluation guidance or something along those lines, or training just to kind of make sure people understand the practicalities. But also having accurate evaluation criteria is so important. Um, because subjectivity just means challenge risk as far as I'm concerned. If it's that subjective that it's open to interpretation, then if someone uses the wrong interpretation, that's a problem.

Speaker B: So great to get your perspective on that. Thank you both. I'm going to take you to an area that you started talking about in the introduction, really itt. And it would be great to have from your experience, you know, what are the key features of a legally sound and a defensible itt, you know, one that does stand up to scrutiny if indeed challenged.

Speaker A: Um, so for me defensible ITT is one that's clear, consistent and proportionate. So it tells bidders exactly what's expected and evaluators exactly how to assess it. And um, so every requirement should be justified, every decision recorded and every document is aligned. Um, and kind of my tests that I have with clients sometimes, sometimes is if it's transparent enough so that you could hand it to a judge and they say, yes, I understand your logic, then you've probably got it right. Um, yeah, that would be my high level, I suppose.

Speaker B: Good, good lit test. Yeah.

Speaker A: Thank you, Tom.

Speaker C: There needs to be sort of absolute clarity as, as Nick has said on um, on what, what you can call sort of the, the rulers of the game. I mean, what's required. Um, there needs to be no ambiguity around what's being evaluated, how it's going to be evaluated, um, what could be disqualifying. I, um, think sort of the test

Speaker B: that

Speaker C: um, I run is have somebody not involved m in the drafting, read it cold and if they have to ask what does this mean? Then it's not clear enough.

Speaker B: That again is another really good tip, isn't it, for people to have in their mind. I mean would you say that peer review or legal oversight at uh, the evaluation design stage is absolutely key?

Speaker C: Yeah, I think so. Legal review, um, catches risks that can't be seen from inside the process. Um, procurement teams naturally think operationally, um, so does this make sense for delivery? Whereas legal reviewers look structurally, would this survive a transparency or equal treatment challenge? And I think that's the difference. Um, and those two sort of complementary perspectives, um, work well together.

Speaker A: And you know, I've said before to people the 30 minute review by us could prevent so many headaches further down the line, as Tom has already said. And also from my perspective, in my previous role at a local authority, I was that layman when it comes to the service side of things. So they had a kind of double whammy with me where I'd go, right, legally this is this. But practically I don't understand what you're talking about. And that is so useful to make sure your ITTs are clear, concise and justified. Um, and just kind of as a high level point, your design of your ITT and evaluation criteria is locking in risk. Once it's published, your hands are tied. Um, you can't fix those things. It's then under clarification stages and all those types of follow on processes. So just having that assurance straight up is so useful and I think it's key to making successful documents.

Speaker B: Well of course we hope that things don't go wrong and that's partly the purpose of this podcast in getting your insight and tips and advice through your experience. Um, and we always love, you know, a case study to help to bring things to life. So without naming any names, you know, are there any experiences or stories that you could tell, perhaps share with the audience around recent challenges or disputes, you know, that will enable people really, I suppose to learn from that?

Speaker A: Um, well, I could start with one. And this was quite a big headache of mine a while back, but we had a tender exercise whereby the incumbent wasn't providing accurate chupy data. Um, so every time we at two or three tenders where this kept happening, um, and yeah, they wouldn't provide accurate GP data and then would suddenly release GP data halfway through the tender process. Um, and that creates uncertainty for bidders. But the learning point from that is it was a symptom of weak contract management. The incumbent had got to the stage where they felt there were no repercussions for not complying. So it was almost a case of, well, you know, why would I, uh, you know, so it shows just how much a smooth procurement depends on your groundwork, that contract management is so key to ensuring your future procurement works. Not only that contract itself, but that future procurement relies upon it as well.

Speaker C: Yeah, actually just building us. It's interesting that, um, I also had um, a recent case that involved sort of, um, the incumbent, um, but mine was slightly different in what I call sort of an, an information edge. So the incumbent supplier, ah, held operational and performance data, uh, that new bidders needed to develop sort of a, ah, compliant or competitive bid really. Um, and under the principles all bidders must have the same opportunity and understand the requirements and um, there must be transparency. Um, so bidders essentially were at ah, or my client was put at a disadvantage because they didn't have this information. And it was essential really, um, for them to be able, like I said, uh, to submit a competitive bid. Um, now how contracting authorities can maybe avoid this, um, because ultimately we raised concerns and the contracting authority needed to abandon the procurement and redraft some of the documents. Um, but before sort of drafting itt, contracting authorities can do a number of things, starting with sort of asking themselves what data or system access that do all the bidders need equal access to, um, to be able to price their bids or um, to draft their bids? They need to create a level playing field. Um, and those are the things that sort of contracting authorities can take away from that example.

Speaker B: Yeah, absolutely. So the importance I think there of reviewing, isn't it key, their policies, their structures, um, and almost sometimes looking at it from the outside in, isn't it, it can be a case of perspective as well. So thank you very much, um, for those points. Uh, if we turn now, perhaps the flip side and let's talk about the positive, you know, collaboration. I'm sure that you've seen some really great examples of collaboration between legal and procurement functions. Um, what makes those relationships particularly effective in your eyes.

Speaker A: Do you want to go for it?

Speaker C: Yeah, I mean we've mentioned it already and early engagement I think is key. Um, sort of lawyers in the design room, not the emergency room. Um, Nick's involvement at an early stage with the design of um, the procurement. Thinking about things from a legal risk perspective, um, is going to be a real benefit. Um, another Example of some recent work is a client coming to me, um, as a supplier, um, before, um, or at the ITT stage. Um, and again, we were then able to talk things through with the contracting authority and resolve any issue at an early stage, um, whereby there's no risk to the contracting authority or there's less risk to the contracting authority further down the line of a challenge and, um, the supplier isn't needing to incur the cost of bringing a challenge and the risks involved with losing out at the bid instead stage.

Speaker A: Yeah. And you know, on from that as well, that early engagement, but also appreciating that there's two areas of expertise there that can align and need to align to make things effective. So, for example, at the moment, or recently, I should say, um, we've had a client who approached us in a firefighting type situation. We've got these problems, we need help, you know, so we dealt with that side of things and worked through that, but we were in crisis mode at the moment. So once that was handled, it was then a stage of, right, we're calm, we're collected, now how are we going to achieve, um, processes, procedures that comply with the act that mean we're not going to have this in the future. So that, um, mindset of we need help, let's achieve what we need to achieve now means that we've been able to help update policies, create procedures they didn't have before and provide training, um, which is really key for them to build confidence and capability in the long run. Um, so that relationship works through that mindset shift. And I think that's a really key thing when the two are working together and collaborating. Absolutely.

Speaker B: I mean, I think one of you mentioned earlier about sometimes there's a perception of legals being involved, of slowing down processes. What particularly would you say, or how can public sector organisations better equip themselves in terms of both recognizing and managing risk, um, without, I suppose, overcomplicating the process, but also so that they're not thinking they're going to be slowing things down.

Speaker A: So I would say embed legal awareness into your everyday practices. Um, and there's simple ways of doing that. You know, you can create practical tools such as templates or having those short training sessions and checklists, things like that. You know, I've got, um, I've had in the past where I've designed procedures with decision trees in it. That's such a simple tool. Not always simple to design, of course, but a simple tool for people to follow and say, right, this is What I do, and this is how I do it. Um, and there's so many things aside from that, online, free webinars, articles, things like that. Tom and I are filming another seminar in the future about pitfalls, about evaluation standstills. There's so many resources out there to help aid with learning, with development, um, of your procedures, of people's skill sets. Um, and then if it's at the stage of. Or we've used all the free stuff, but actually it'd be really useful if we have bespoke training on. That's when people can approach legal teams and say, look, can you help? Um, and, um, I think that mindset of building skill sets, confidence, capability is really key to moving forward.

Speaker C: Yeah, I think we can sort of, we can reframe legal risk as sort of process confidence. Um, so sort of, I mean, too often, um, Nicola and I are seen as the department of no, um, and through that sort of old lens, legal risk is something we need to send to lawyers, whereas what we would like to see is legal risk being seen by, um, contracting authorities. There's some uncertainty around whether sort of their processes is transparent or consistent or defensible. Um, and then considering that uncertainty with us, um, that, that change sort of encourages procurement, um, officers to take early ownership rather than sometimes avoidance, um, and to view compliance as part of sort of professional competence and not bureaucracy.

Speaker B: Well, I'd like to take you now to an area that we've covered, uh, quite a bit during the podcast because it's certainly a hot topic AI. Um, and I know that AI is being used, you know, at the moment by some in drafting of specifications or generating evaluation criteria. But it'd be great to get your, uh, perspectives on, you know, what you see as, I suppose the opportunities of AI, but also the potential risks and pitfalls.

Speaker C: Hot topic indeed, um, across all sectors, not just procurement. Um, I mean there are great opportunities there. The technology is evolving so quickly as well. I think opportunities will change quite quickly. But I mean, AI can sort of help with faster, clearer drafts and that's sort of one of the obvious things. Um, generating first drafts of specifications, um, evaluation criteria, scoring, um, supplier communications debrief letters. The list is endless in terms of the things that it can help with. Um, that reduces administrative load. Um, there are some risks around using AI. Um, for me one of the clear risks is sort of transparency and accountability. Procurement law is built on those, um, principles. Um, so there's some concern there about how using AI you would safeguard against those principles, whether you have human oversight Whether it was applied or not, I don't know. What do you think about that, Nick?

Speaker A: Well, I was going to say that conversation we were having the other day about, um. So we were saying from an evaluation perspective, there's kind of two sides of the questions. There's those objective ones. Yes, no criteria, and then there's the more subjective. You need a human touch to them. So, you know, Tom and I were discussing about potentials for testing AI on your. Yes, no criteria. But moving it more into that subjective stuff is when you're going to end up with more sticky situations, um, because you haven't got that accountability, haven't got the transparency of this is why we thought this. Um, so there are real good uses and positives of AI. It's an enhancement and this is said all the time on webinars and everything, isn't it? It's an aid, it's not a replacement. And I think that rings really true to this area. Um, but it's using it effectively to minimize your challenge risks, um, and some other risks associated with it, or are your data protection and confidentiality ones. So if you're using AI, make sure it's, um, secure in some way, your data is stored effectively. There's no breach risks or anything like that. That's really key if you're putting sensitive data in there, especially. Um, and from a supplier perspective, um, it's an example I've been working on recently. So I had a contracting authority approach and say, can we let, um, suppliers use AI as part of their tender drafting? And for me the question wasn't whether or not you could let them do it, because at the end of the day, it's there now. People are going to use it as an aid. It's making them use it effectively and efficiently and correctly. Um, so instead we said, okay, let's put a declaration in the tender documents that says, have you used AI? Where have you used AI and have you checked it for accuracy? And that in itself means that the aid, the admin aid, can be there and used by the suppliers effectively, which is helping SME accessibility because it's saving on cost, resource time, all that sort of stuff. But it's ensuring that your, um, procurement documents are still accurate and they can attain what they're setting out to achieve. If AI has written something and at the end of the day they can't achieve it, then we got a problem on our hands. Um, so, yeah, I think the opportunities are huge, but it's all about balance. At the end of the day, the

Speaker C: Other thing is just being really careful about the technology that you're using. Um, one of the key things in any procurement process is having that audit trail, making sure that everything is recorded. And if you're using any AI to evaluate any type of bid or to make any sort of decision during the procurement process, then there needs to be an audit trail. And the platform you're using, the provider you're using, needs to have that built in so that you can point to why those decisions are made, how they are reached, um, because case law tells us that that is, um, vital.

Speaker B: Thanks so much for your insight on that because obviously AI, it's developing all the time, isn't it, in terms of how much it's being used as well. So that was absolutely great insight to have. Thank you. Um, you've spoken about how valuable it is really to have the legals embedded and being aware of that from really early on in the process. But I suppose as a closing question, um, it would be nice to ask you whether there is any other particular piece of advice that you have for procurement leaders out there which would better help them manage legal risk.

Speaker A: Well, I feel a bit like a broken record, but get us involved early. Yeah, it is that quite idiotically. Yeah, yeah. You know, it's, um, bring it into the conversation early and see it as a partner, not a hurdle. Um, you know, the challenges don't come from people ignoring the law. They come from people working in isolation, um, and not putting everything together and coming up with one answer that's legally compliant but still meets the objectives. Um, so collaborating early, sensor checking documents, talking through evaluation models, they're all key, I think, to creating those processes that are compliant.

Speaker C: Yeah, I mean, again, reiterating what Nick has, ah, said, um, engaging legally early and sort of embedding defensibility into your process, not just into your documents. So if we unpack that, um, briefly. Legal risk isn't just about sort of the wording of the ITT or the contract. It lives in every decision you make about criteria, evaluation, clarification, specifications. The list sort of goes on. Um, I'm waiting until the last minute to get a lawyer sign off. Often turns into firefighting, as Nick's already mentioned, um, and can slow down the process overall. So early engagement turns legal oversight into, uh, a strategic enabler. Um, in short, the most defensible tenders aren't, um, created by adding legal checks at the end. They're built into those initial planning conversations, if you like. And that's where Nick and her team can really Offer some invaluable support.

Speaker B: Yeah, great to have that perspective on that. And in terms of procurement law, obviously that has been developing at a pace. I mean do you have any thoughts about how the future is going to continue to develop and I suppose how professionals should be preparing for that with

Speaker C: the new Procurement Act. Yeah. Which you know, has brought in, um, some significant changes. Some would say not enough of a change, others would say the opposite. Um, I mean, but it certainly offers um, simplification and greater flexibility. Um, there'll be more room for tailoring procurement processes, um, and fewer sort of one size procedures. The new act offers increased transparency, um, throughout the life cycle. We've already touched on notices, um, and it gives more emphasis to transparency like I said, not just in the tenders process but across the full lifecycle and after that contract award stage as well. Um, but for me as well, there's also a distinct shift and focus on SMEs, um, a new entrance and innovation. The reforms under the act are explicitly aimed at opening up procurement to smaller businesses. Um, which is great.

Speaker A: I agree with all of that and one of my points was going to be, I think it's um, becoming more principles based, outcome driven and less about tick box exercises. Of course there's still that compliance side of things, but that innovative side is just going to keep moving forward I think. Um, and creating these more bespoke, um, new ways of procuring that still comply with legislation. Um, and just kind of looking at the next few years and what we might be seeing, um, you know, as you say, Sian, it's still early days in the act, but we haven't m got any case law at the moment. So the next few years I think are going to be about interpretation. You know, there's things in the act at the moment which, yeah, they look fine on paper but the nuances when you actually put them into practice are a little bit difficult to understand at times. So it wouldn't surprise me if we start seeing the case law coming up in the next few years which clarifies those points that some people may struggle with at the moment.

Speaker C: Yeah, I think that's uh, an interesting point that's going to be used before we start to see some of that clarity unfortunately. Um, so yeah, it's, let's wait and see answer really. It's a lot of unknown.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker B: But it could be interesting times legally I suppose as well in terms of development of that case law. So. Well, thanks both of you for joining us on the podcast. It's been A fascinating discussion and great to have so much insight from you both, really, in quite a short period of time. Just to close, um, we have one question we ask all our guests, which is generally, you know, we here on powering Procurement are trying to shine a light on the profession, on the sector, which, like so many, has its challenges around recruitment and retention. So that's the whole purpose of, of the aim of the podcast. And we normally ask people why they're happy that they've chosen their career in procurement. I suppose it's a little bit different with the both of you, the angle that you're coming from. Um, so I'd like to ask you what makes you feel that you are optimistic for the future of the profession within this context and landscape that we've been talking about over the past half an hour or so.

Speaker C: Thanks. Um, well, uh, for me it's the people, uh, in the sector. Um, Nick and I were both at, um, procurex Wales this week, um, and there were, uh, lots of colleagues, clients, um, that we got to meet and catch up with. And they are becoming increasingly better skilled, more knowledgeable, um, and, uh, demonstrating better expertise, um, in procurement, which is great to see. I think the profession's being taken really seriously, um, and being recognized as a serious profession, um, which maybe it wasn't the case sort of 10, 15 years ago. So, um, yeah, that's really exciting and it's great to see.

Speaker A: And, you know, for me, I think it's the fact that we've had the Procurement act in place. People were nervous about it, let's not lie. But they've really embraced it and moved forward with it. And, okay, we're seeing challenges. Not challenges, legal sense, but challenges, as in hurdles and things like that. But it's still early days, you know, and people are embracing that and taking the steps to build their skillset, to be able to tackle them. Um, and then just what we were talking about, you know, digital tools, AI, all those sorts of things are such huge opportunities, um, which can free up time, probably will do more. So the kind of administrative side of procurement practice, so hopefully that can improve efficiency and knowledge sharing if we're starting to use, um, data tools and things like that. Um, so I think there's so many things and so many opportunities out there, we probably don't even know what half of them are yet. But it's a start, isn't it?

Speaker B: Yeah, that's what makes it exciting, isn't it? Oh, thank you both so much. It's been, I think, a really timely conversation as well. Great to have you on the podcast. We hope that everybody listening has really enjoyed it. And just to remind people, of course, about our, uh, other episodes that you can catch wherever you get your podcasts. And we'll be back next time.

Speaker C: That wraps up this episode of Powering Procurement. We hope you enjoyed that as much as we did.

Speaker B: Visit our website@atomist.co.uk or follow us on LinkedIn to continue the conversation.

Speaker C: Remember to subscribe on YouTube and follow us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts or wherever you choose to listen.

Speaker B: Thanks for joining us and see you next time on Powering Procurement.