Subcontracting has a vital role to play in the delivery of quality apprenticeship provision, but bad practices threaten to unfairly undermine the reputation of the entire system. There have been examples in recent years of questionable subcontracting.
We have seen cases where prime providers have charged their partners exorbitant management fees, or situations where the prime provider has had little oversight of the quality or achievement rates of their delivery partners.
Unfortunately, cases like these give subcontracting a bad name and pose an existential risk to the integrity and sustainability of the apprenticeship sector. When subcontracting is done correctly, it can create genuine quality apprenticeships that deliver skills that employers and the economy need.
Read more: Milton: ‘Too early’ for action on subcontracting
More news: Providers should not top-slice more than 20 per cent for subcontracting
Background: Rules around subcontracting under review
It can enable providers to deliver provision in a way that is more flexible and allows a wider pool of specialist expertise to be leveraged. If subcontracting practices are proportionate, practice good governance, deliver excellent value for taxpayers, employers and apprentices, there is little to be concerned about.
Strict adherence to guidance from the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) is crucial to ensuring the appropriate use of subcontractors in the delivery of apprenticeships.
The ESFA has recently published updated guidance that is clear in its expectations for providers. It is right that abuses within the system are properly dealt with. The ESFA aims to increase the quality of subcontracted provision and to ensure that clear quality assurances and risk management protocols are placed on subcontracted provision.
We support the ESFA’s intention to increase focus on the management and quality of subcontracting. But we need to ensure that in formulating the parameters of how subcontracted provision is delivered, we are not stifling the depth and breadth of learning opportunity for employers, providers and learners.
‘Needs to remain flexible’
A balance needs to be struck between models that recognise the commercial imperative to make a profit, the quality of learning, and to ensure that rigorous due diligence is embedded into any and all subcontracting arrangements.
We should not aim for a policy that seeks to root out the bad eggs and in doing so stops valuable subcontracting that delivers great benefit and customised solutions.
Neither would we want a policy that arbitrarily imposes rigidity in subcontracting rules and in doing so, runs the risk of stifling innovation. Subcontracting needs to remain flexible and quality-assured, while being responsive to the needs of employers and learners.
The model of Collab Group Colleges for apprenticeship delivery has been formulated in the spirit of providing a seamless “single managed service” for large national-levy-paying employers. Individually, these contracts are too big for any single provider to deliver, but by leveraging our collective geographical reach, Collab Group colleges provide a seamless skills solution across a range of industry sectors, offering both new talent attraction and workforce development.
‘Avoid indiscriminately demonising all approaches’
Care is taken to ensure that management fees are transparent and at cost. Robust due diligence processes are in place for onboarding subcontractors.
So, while subcontracting sometimes gets a bad rap in the sector, we should avoid indiscriminately demonising all approaches.
The ESFA approach seems broadly correct, and we need to ensure that bad providers are prevented from diminishing the integrity of the apprenticeships sector.
But in doing so we should note that there are many good examples of effective subcontracting that bring benefits to employers, providers and apprentices alike, and these can bring innovative solutions to the workforce needs of key sectors of our economy.
Ian Pretty is the chief executive of Collab Group
