The Naked Chief wishes to thank Sam Higgins for this policy contribution. 

At some point or another everyone has been asked to provide a reference. Whether it is for a close personal friend, professional colleague or supplier there is value in the support of one person's reputation or organisation's brand for another.

However, in many cases companies will not provide written or even verbal references for employees, even going so far as to exclude current employees from providing references. Of course the industrial relations system has previously upheld the right of an employee to evidence or certification of employment on termination or resignation (E.g. Queensland Industrial Relations Commission's ruling in 2003). Specifically such rulings provide that employees have a right to a statement specifying the period of employment and the classification or type of work.

Within the business community the reference of a major brand can be invaluable in opening doors both locally and internationally. The use of reference clients and case studies is a key means by which vendors and suppliers provide proof points to tother clients. Especially for services which can be notoriously hard to evaluate systematically. With Australia's ICT industry dominated by services, access to client references is a critical tool for growth.

Unfortunately, unlike the minimum standard for employees there are mixed messages for businesses when it comes to working with Government. On the one hand every vendor or supplier knows that they will be expected to demonstrate their credentials with examples of previous (and presumably successful) engagements when responding to request for offers from government agencies; the larger the service the more likely that examples, especially from other government agencies, will be a key requirement of the response.

Yet the reality is that this request for information, that if not provided is guaranteed to directly reduce the vendors chances of success, is simply not reciprocated. For example, the Queensland Government's standard terms and conditions for the provision of goods and/or services states the following:

The Contractor must not make any public announcement or advertisement in any medium in relation to this Contract without the consent of the Agency.

This clause, while not specifically prohibiting references and while not being clear about whether a tender response is a "public announcement", the requirement for a written request creates a sufficient barrier in the minds of most public servants. In Queensland, this clause does not even form part of the base terms and conditions of the Queensland Government's Information Technology Contract Framework (GITC). As a result it is either actively included by agencies or its absence used as justification for refusing a reference request from a vendor or supplier. 

As a result of these types of contractual positions combined with a lack of clear or stated policy, government agencies hold the view that even providing factual information about legitimate transactions they have with vendors or suppliers to other organisations undertaking procurement activity is somehow inappropriate.

References are not about promoting, advocating or endorsing an organisation, though such action would definitely be the purview of the industry development arm of government. All that agencies need to do is to give business the same courtesy they would expect if they were looking for work - a factual statement of the existence and scope of the relationship.

Stating the facts can also avoid government agencies being misrepresented in terms of the scope or depth of relationship that really exists. Ironically it is often in attempting to respond to the request for tender from one government jurisdiction with a reference from another government jurisdiction that the anomaly arises.

In some cases Longhaus has observed this within a single jurisdiction. That is, one agency refusing to provide a reference while on the other hand, when it comes to industry development or industrial policy promotion for the government of the day, it is the very same firms denied references or case studies that government agencies turn to for their good news stories and media opportunities.

Any industry development agency across the country will tell you over a hot latte or cold beer that a good success story is as important to their own continued existence and ongoing funding as it is to supporting industry development.

Unlike employees there is no industrial relations commission that can aid the cause of small firms trying to get their next "job" in tough economic times. Setting a standard process for the issuing of "statement of engagements", similar to those given to employees is a reasonable request during legitimate procurement activity. It is therefore an opportunity for industry groups and government to agree an acceptable standard for the format. At the end of the day it is about time that government returned the favour of a basic factual reference, given that industry is holding up its end of the bargain by providing its information to government for similar purposes.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed