Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 21 (2015) 103–112

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pursup

SME suppliers and the challenge of public procurement: Evidence

revealed by a UK government online feedback facility
Kim Loader n
The York Management School, University of York, Freboys Lane, Heslington, York YO10 5DG, United Kingdom

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The UK public sector provides an important opportunity for firms to transact business with an attractive
Received 10 October 2013 customer. However there is concern that public procurement processes place smaller firms at a
Received in revised form disadvantage. The views of small firms are under-represented and this paper provides additional, new
10 December 2014
evidence in order to improve our understanding of their difficulties with public procurement. A UK
Accepted 16 December 2014
Available online 31 December 2014
Government online feedback facility has provided an original, extensive and rich source of material from
SME suppliers. It reveals a public procurement process which SMEs perceive to be frustrating and biased
Keywords: against them. Many of the concerns have been reported previously; overly prescriptive qualification
Public procurement criteria, poorly written tender specifications and prohibitive resource requirements remain the most
SMEs
common barriers but the need to supply via a third party is emerging as a new concern. Contract size,
UK
contract length and supplier rationalization did not feature as much as expected. Overall, SMEs are
Content analysis
concerned about public procurement practices and the competence of public procurement officers.
Whilst the UK government is implementing a series of measures, targeted to address these concerns,
further research is required to determine their scope and impact.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Public procurement, whereby a public sector organization obtains
goods and services from a third party by way of a contract, is
significant both economically and politically (Harland et al., 2013).
Recent estimates (OECD, 2013) suggest that on average public
procurement accounts for approximately 12.8 per cent GDP for
OECD countries. In 2012–2013 the UK public sector spent approxi-
mately d230 billion on the purchase of goods and services, of which
d192 billion comprised current spending by central and local govern-
ment, the NHS and devolved administrations (House of Commons,
2014). The volume and range of public sector spend provides a
significant business opportunity for firms to trade with an attractive,
reliable and prestigious customer (Michaelis et al., 2003; Loader,
2005). However, there have been concerns voiced about the chal-
lenges of public procurement for small and medium-sized enter-
prises (SMEs). They struggle to find the resources to engage with a
bureaucratic process and are disproportionately affected compared
to larger suppliers (Glover, 2008). Barriers were reported over 20
years ago (MacManus, 1991; O’Brien, 1993) and evidence suggests
n
Tel.: þ 44 1904 325029.
E-mail address: kl538@york.ac.uk
they still remain (Loader, 2011; Flynn et al., 2013a) despite attention
being given to the issue by successive governments.
In the UK, at the start of 2013, SMEs accounted, in number, for
99.9 per cent of the 4.9 million private sector businesses and 48.1
per cent of private sector turnover (BIS, 2013a). They are recog-
nized by the UK government as being critical for economic growth,
for example through job creation, but their contribution to public
procurement is also recognized, with SME participation increasing
both competition and innovation (Glover, 2008; Cabinet Office,
2013). Therefore evidence that SMEs continue to be under-
represented in the award of UK public sector contracts (BERR,
2007; Freshminds, 2008) has led to the current UK government
being the latest to express its concern about the difficulties facing
small suppliers. Consequently it has embarked upon a series of
initiatives to address their problems, including the announcement
of an aspirational target to spend 25 per cent with SMEs by the
end of the Parliament in 2015 (Cabinet Office, 2010), the appoint-
ment of a representative for SMEs and the launch of an online
portal for advertising contract opportunities (Cabinet Office, 2011).
Concern about SME engagement with the public procurement
process has led to increasing interest by the academic and policy
communities, nationally and internationally. Various studies have
examined the challenges that public procurement presents to SMEs,
eliciting evidence about the extent and nature of the difficulties and
attempting to provide remedies (for example: Bovis, 1996; Erridge

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2014.12.003
1478-4092/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
104 K. Loader / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 21 (2015) 103–112
et al., 1998; Zheng et al., 2006; Glover, 2008). The need to under-
stand both the SME and public sector perspectives has led to
evidence that has been acquired from public sector procurers
(Loader, 2007; Preuss, 2011) and SMEs, including those which have
successfully engaged with the process and been awarded contracts,
those which were unsuccessful and those which had not partici-
pated, but would like to do so (Fee et al., 2002; Loader, 2005;
McKevitt and Davis, 2013). However, it has been noted that
responses from public sector suppliers can be difficult to collect
(Cabras, 2011) and (McKevitt and Davis, 2013) conclude, following
their review of literature, that the voices of small firms which do
compete for public contracts are under-represented.
The purpose of this paper is to contribute further supplier
generated evidence and to improve the level of representation of
SME suppliers, in particular, to the debate. The UK government
established an online feedback mechanism which asked SMEs
about their problems with public procurement in order to inform
policy discussions on the issue. The contributions to this facility
have provided the evidence which we report and discuss here.
Specifically, the paper examines:
(1) The range, frequency and nature of barriers to public procure-
ment reported by SMEs and
(2) The implications for policy and future research.
The evidence from this paper will add to the procurement and
supply chain literature, as well as being of interest to the small
business and public policy communities. There has been recogni-
tion of a limited academic interest in SMEs within the field of
procurement and supply chain management and criticism of the
preoccupation with large companies (Ramsay, 2008), although the
calls for further research have focused primarily upon SME
purchasing (Morrissey and Pittaway, 2004; Ellegaarde, 2006).
However, whilst our knowledge of the purchasing behaviour of
large organizations provides limited insights for the SME purcha-
ser, it does have repercussions upon the SME as supplier. For
example, supplier rationalization adversely affects the chances of
SMEs becoming prime contractors. This paper addresses this
aspect in relation to public procurement organizations.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. The paper
begins with a literature review that outlines the public procure-
ment context and then considers the existing evidence about SME
participation in public procurement. In the following section the
methods employed are presented; the data source is explained
and the decisions and resulting approach to the content analysis
are presented, including the coding process. In the fourth section,
the results of the analysis are presented and discussed. These
demonstrate that many of the previously highlighted barriers
continue to hinder SME participation, but that some – including
newly emergent concerns – are becoming more prominent.
Remedies and government actions are also discussed. The final
section sets out the conclusions of the study, also identifying
limitations and further research.
2. Literature review
2.1. Public procurement context
Public procurement is a significant activity for governments
because of its scale and, increasingly, because of the broader roles
it can perform (Arrowsmith, 2010; Harland et al., 2013). According
to the OECD (2013) it accounts, on average, for 12.8 per cent GDP,
equivalent to 29 per cent of general government spending. The
primary procurement aim across most jurisdictions is achieving
value for money (World Trade Organisation, n.d.) and this is the
approach adopted within the UK (House of Commons, 2014). First
explicitly articulated Cabinet Office (1984), value for money is
currently defined as: “securing the best mix of quality and
effectiveness for the least outlay over the period of use of the
goods or services bought. It is not about minimizing up front
prices” (HM Treasury, 2013: A4.6.3). However, it has been increas-
ingly recognized that public procurement can be used more
strategically to achieve additional aims (OECD, 2013). Within this
“extended policy environment” (Schapper et al., 2006: 11) it acts
as a vehicle for achieving wider socio-economic goals (Erridge,
2007) such as sustainability (Walker and Preuss, 2008), supporting
SMEs, encouraging innovation (OECD, 2013) and aiding minority
owned businesses (Ram and Smallbone, 2003; Temponi and Cui,
2008; Kidalov and Snider, 2011). As a consequence, procurement
strategies to support the environment and SMEs, for example,
have been established by the majority of OECD countries, 72 and
63 per cent, respectively (OECD, 2013). However, it has been noted
that there are no incentives for procurers to take these wider
issues into account (Schapper et al., 2006) with the suggestion that
they should be addressed through other policy initiatives (NERA
Economic Consulting, 2005). Such a range of goals provide addi-
tional challenges for procurement staff (NAO, 2013) including
policy conflicts (Loader, 2007; Preuss, 2011) and it is claimed that
the success and balance of goals achieved is affected by the
discretion and competence of procurement staff (Kidalov and
Snider, 2011).
Although value for money has remained at the forefront of UK
procurement policy, a focus on savings has also been evident
(Loader, 2007) and remains so, more explicitly, as part of the
current government’s austerity measures (House of Commons,
2013). The OECD (2013) has also identified that savings are being
sought, through a variety of measures including centralization of
the procurement function, the aggregation of purchases in order to
achieve economies of scale and by the introduction of innovative
practices. In the UK, public procurement contributed savings of d3
billion in 2010–2011, the first year of the Coalition government,
increasing to d5.4 billion in 2013–2014 (Efficiency and Reform
Group, 2014). These were achieved through centralizing the
procurement of some common goods and services, renegotiating
contracts, and reducing spend in some areas such as advertising
and consultants (House of Commons, 2013). To an extent these
measures are a continuation of a collaborative approach which has
existed over a 20 year period in an attempt to encourage govern-
ment to maximize its buying power (Loader, 2011).
2.2. Public procurement and SMEs
The concern over SME access to public procurement needs to
be viewed in a wider context which recognizes the significant role
of SMEs within an economy, both in terms of their economic
presence and the contribution that they can make to economic
growth. SMEs, in the UK defined as firms with 0 to 249 employees,
comprise 99.9 per cent of private businesses and account for 59.3
per cent of private sector employment and 48.1 per cent of private
sector turnover (BIS, 2013a). But it is their potential to stimulate
innovation, competition and job growth (BIS, 2013b; Fee et al.,
2002; Glover, 2008) contributing to economic growth that is
valued. However, evidence suggests that there are obstacles which
are hindering their success: the internal capacity and capability of
the SME, the vision of the owner, and the external environment
(BIS, 2013b). The latter category, which is the most frequently
reported, includes concerns about access to public procurement.
In recognition of their importance to economic growth, the
government is intent upon supporting SMEs by addressing obsta-
cles using a variety of measures, including improving access to
public procurement. The Coalition’s programme for government
 K. Loader / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 21 (2015) 103–112
included the aspirational target that 25 per cent of government
contracts be awarded to SMEs by the end of the Parliament in 2015
(Cabinet Office, 2010). In the current, difficult economic climate
SMEs have reported that a reduction in demand is their main
economic concern (BIS, 2013c), and therefore public procurement
provides opportunities to SMEs to gain work. Therefore its
identification as a barrier undermines its potential as a means of
support. This is borne out by figures which show low and
declining levels of SMEs either working for the public sector or
participating in the procurement process. The most recently
published Small Business Survey (BIS, 2013c) reports that whilst
26 per cent of SMEs had carried out work for the public sector in
the previous 12 months, only 10 per cent had submitted a bid,
both down on 2010 figures by 4 and 2 per cent, respectively. These
figures do not reflect the position of SMEs in the economy.
There has been an increasing body of evidence demonstrating
the low level of representation of SMEs in public procurement,
both in the UK and internationally (Glover, 2008; GHK, 2010;
Harland et al., 2013). Studies have been carried out to determine
the reasons for the low engagement and poor access, and a range
of barriers have been identified. The evidence suggests that the
reasons can be grouped into those emanating from the public
sector and others relating to the capacity and capabilities of SMEs
(Michaelis et al., 2003; Smallbone et al., 2009), and the public
sector dimension has been further divided to reflect the dual
impacts of both the public sector environment and the public
procurement process (Loader, 2013).
Some barriers which are associated with the public procure-
ment process can be prohibitive for all businesses wishing to
supply government. Slow payment, poorly defined specifications
(MacManus, 1991), a long expensive bidding process (Cabras, 2011)
and a concern that tender prices must be low (Michaelis et al., 2003)
are examples of issues that have been raised. However, there are
concerns that SMEs face additional and disproportionate challenges
which can result directly from their size and limited resources
(Smallbone et al., 2009). Several authors have identified barriers that
are associated directly with the public procurement process, ranging
from difficulties in identifying opportunities (Michaelis et al., 2003;
Loader, 2007) through to the decision to award the contract and its
subsequent management. In order to improve the success of SMEs in
securing contracts they must first be encouraged to participate in
the tendering process, but evidence suggests that there are a
number of factors which discourage SMEs from tendering; for
example contract size is often claimed to be too large for SMEs
(Bovis, 1996; Erridge et al., 1998; Morand, 2003; Loader, 2007), and
contract length can also be excessive for SMEs (Loader, 2011).
Other aspects associated with public procurement can also
discourage participation or contribute to tenders not being suc-
cessful. The need to demonstrate a track record (Loader, 2005;
Walker and Preuss, 2008; Pickernell et al., 2011), overly prescrip-
tive requirements including technical, professional and economic
criteria (Loader, 2005; Freshminds, 2008) and the long, costly and
complex tendering process (Loader, 2007; Freshminds, 2008;
Glover, 2008; Cabras, 2011; Peck and Cabras, 2011) have all been
acknowledged to disadvantage SMEs more than their larger
competitors. SMEs are also being adversely affected by develop-
ments in the broader public sector environment. Several studies
have drawn attention to the pressures that procurement officers
face in balancing competing objectives and the lack of clear
priorities (Zheng et al., 2006; Loader, 2007; Glover, 2008) and
the impact of supplier rationalization (Curran and Blackburn,
1994; Loader, 2011) both of which are seen to be more detrimental
for SMEs. For example, Peck and Cabras (2011): 21 identify the
“vulnerability of SMEs” in the face of a narrow interpretation of
value for money, with prior evidence demonstrating a belief that
SMEs are less able to compete on price (Loader, 2007).
105
Pursuit of better value for the public sector is also driving the
strategy of supplier reduction via collaboration and aggregation of
contracts, claimed by Smith and Hobbs (2002): 22 to be “perhaps
the most fundamental strategic issue currently impacting upon
SMEs selling into the public sector”, an issue still in evidence more
recently (Loader, 2011; Preuss, 2011). Other environmental factors
such as risk-averse attitudes associated with the public sector, and
the impact of devolved service delivery have also been identified
as creating barriers for SMEs (Loader, 2005; Pickernell et al., 2011;
Preuss, 2011).
However, evidence suggests that SME factors also play a role. It
has already been noted that the procurement process is resource-
demanding and SMEs appear to lack both sufficient and appro-
priate resources for the task. A lack of electronic resources, legal
expertise (Karjalainen and Kemppainen, 2008) and marketing
capability (Michaelis et al., 2003; Walker and Preuss, 2008) are
examples of resource deficiencies which are hindering progress.
Finally, various contributors to the debate have considered the
appropriateness of the public procurement market for SMEs and
attempted to present a more realistic expectation about the scope
and extent of their engagement with the process. The debate
centres upon two main issues; firstly, the sectors – or products –
that are more suited to SME supply and secondly, the position of
the SME in the supply chain. In relation to the type of supply,
evidence suggests that SMEs are most likely to be involved in the
supply of routine products (CRiSPS, 2006) and also may be suited
to supplying smaller, niche markets (Glover, 2008). Specific sectors
where SMEs are seen to have a stronger presence include facilities
management, construction, consultancy, social services (Loader,
2007; Glover, 2008; Cabras, 2011; Pickernell et al., 2011), although
tier of government has been found to influence appropriateness.
Services with a local dimension are more likely to be procured by
local government and offer opportunities for local SMEs in
particular (Loader, 2013). SMEs can supply the public sector
directly, as prime contractors, but it has been claimed that sub-
contracting is likely to provide most opportunities (Glover, 2008).
The Coalition government’s aspirational target that 25 per cent of
central government spending be with SMEs includes both direct
suppliers and those in the supply chain. However, quantifying both
amounts is challenging but especially supply chain data as most
prime contractors do not routinely collect SME statistics (NAO,
2013). Some data is available from the latest Small Business Survey
(BIS, 2013c) which found that 11 of the 26 percent of SMEs that
stated that they had worked for the public sector in the last
12 months were in the supply chain, rather than prime contrac-
tors, a decrease of 5 per cent on the 2010 figures. There are
concerns that engagement as a sub-contractor is less rewarding;
margins can be reduced, payment can be slower and the input of
the firm – its ideas – can be reduced (Glover, 2008), all of which
are likely to deter SME engagement.
2.3. SME evidence
The previous section reports data which has been collected
from both public sector organizations and SMEs, and both per-
spectives are required in order to fully understand the causes and
nature of the obstacles which are affecting SME access to public
procurement. However, greater awareness of the SME position will
enable policymakers to target their interventions to support SMEs
more effectively (BIS, 2013b). In carrying out this literature review,
the existing evidence has been analyzed and collated in order to
determine the extent of SME derived data and the methods which
have been employed. An overview of the evidence is presented
in Table 1. As can be seen, there are SME derived contributions
reported by academic studies and government and business
commissioned reports. There appears to be an increase in the
106 K. Loader / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 21 (2015) 103–112

Table 1
Public sector procurement: sources of SME evidence.

Author Year Country Data collection method Data source

Academic journal articles

MacManus 1991 US Survey All size firms
Bovis 1996 UK and Ireland Survey SMEs
Fee, Erridge and Hennigan 2002 NI Semi-structured interviews SMEs
Loader 2005 UK Survey SMEs
Suppliers and non-suppliers
Karjalainen and Kemppainen 2008 Finland Survey SMEs
Pickernell, Kay, Packham and Miller 2011 UK Statistical analysis of FSB survey SMEs
Woldesenbet, Ram and Jones 2012 UK Case studies SMEs
Suppliers to public and private sectors
Orser, Riding and Weeks 2012 US Survey SMEs
Flynn, Davis, McKevitt, McEvoy 2013a Ireland Survey All size firms
McKevitt and Davis 2013 Ireland Survey Micro suppliers
Flynn, McKevitt, Davis 2013b Ireland Survey SMEs

Non-academic (government/business commissioned reports)

Better Regulation Task Force & Small Business Council 2003 UK Review SMEs and representatives
Michaelis, McGuire and Ferguson 2003 UK Interviews All size firms
NERA 2005 UK Case studies SMEs
Freshminds 2008 UK Survey SMEs
Case studies Suppliers and non-suppliers
Glover 2008 UK Survey SMEs
Suppliers and non-suppliers
GHK 2010 EU Survey All size firms
60% SMEs
Broader studies
Temponi and Cui 2008 US Survey (Hispanic) SMEs
Peck and Cabras 2010 UK Survey All size firms
Interviews
Cabras 2011 UK Survey All size firms

amount of evidence becoming available but to date this has been
predominantly collected by the use of (semi-) structured surveys, and
to have been analyzed using quantitative approaches (see for example
Bovis, 1996; Loader, 2005; Glover, 2008; Karjalainen and Kemppainen,
2008; GHK, 2010; Pickernell et al., 2011). There is little qualitative
analysis of SME supplier generated data available, although some
detailed case study evidence has been published which has added
richness to the evidence base (NERA Economic Consulting, 2005;
Freshminds, 2008). Therefore there appears to be a need for additional
detailed contributions from SMEs, especially using qualitative
approaches, to develop the richness of the evidence base.
3. Method
The aim of this paper is to present a detailed analysis of SME
suppliers’ views in order to contribute to the existing, predomi-
nantly quantitative evidence collected from SMEs. The paper is
adopting content analysis to provide additional evidence about the
range and frequency of barriers and also to provide further detail
about the nature of barriers experienced. The data comprises the
voluntary reporting of comments by SMEs to an online feedback
facility established by the UK government specifically to elicit the
views of SME suppliers. The comments, now archived, were
publicly accessible via the official website of the Prime Minister’s
Office (GOV.UK, 2010). These voluntary contributions provide a
novel and original source of SME generated data. The data, which
is in the form of text, can be seen as naturally occurring
(Silverman, 2006) having been provided without any direction or
influence by a researcher. However it should be noted that the
contributions are likely to have been influenced by the manner of
the request for information which was negative in tone. Interest-
ingly at least one respondent commented on the negative empha-
sis of the terms of reference. The web page was headed ‘Your
problems with procurement’ followed by the questions: “What
nightmares have you had with procurement? What are we doing
wrong? How should we fix it?” Although the last element asks for
suggestions of remedies, the emphasis is upon identifying con-
cerns and problems and this is likely to have had an impact upon
the decision to provide feedback. The potential bias of the
respondents is noted and recognized in the discussion but the
content is consistent with the purpose of the paper which is to
understand more fully the nature and range of barriers, and not to
present a representative view of procurement experiences.
The feedback facility became available on 1st December 2010
and this study is analyzing the contributions reported up to and
including May 30th 2011, a period of 6 months, after which
contributions became infrequent. It was felt that this provided
an appropriate length of time to capture a sufficient volume and
range of views, and captured the comments of those suppliers
who were keen to express their views. During this period 282
contributions were posted which were all examined for relevance.
Eighteen were excluded as irrelevant as they dealt with other SME
related topics (such as cashflow or VAT) or no clear point could be
determined. In addition, another 12 were identified as being
second postings made by a previous respondent and thus their
content was combined to provide usable contributions from 252
SME respondents. Although the site required contributors to enter
a name, the company name was optional, and there was no
requirement to provide further company details such as sector or
size. Therefore it is not possible to provide a detailed analysis of
the sample based upon company characteristics or industry.
However it is clear that a range of sectors is represented including
manufacturing, service and voluntary sectors (for example: boat
building, legal, property maintenance, grounds maintenance, civil
engineering, media, IT). It is also clear that the contributors have
progressed to different stages within the procurement process,
and with varying degrees of success.
The use of content analysis, and specifically an approach
referred to as directed content analysis, is appropriate when there
 K. Loader / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 21 (2015) 103–112
is already an evidence base but where it is desirable to obtain
further detailed description (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005) which is
consistent with the aim of this paper. Content analysis can be
carried out using both a quantitative and qualitative approach and
both approaches have been used here, the combined approach
aiding triangulation (Kohlbacher, 2006). Quantitative analysis can
determine the frequencies of codes occurring and qualitative
analysis can be used to provide descriptive support for the codes
(Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). Here, the wording used to elicit the
feedback suggested that the comments would revolve primarily
around the difficulties that public procurement presents (“Your
problems with procurement.” “What nightmares have you had
with procurement? What are we doing wrong?”) and suggestions
about how to improve the situation (“How should we fix it?”) and
an initial examination of the data demonstrated that indeed the
barriers faced and suggested improvements were occurring
repeatedly. As the focus of this paper is to learn more about the
barriers, the content analysis will concentrate upon the data which
addresses this aspect. However, remedies will be addressed within
the broader discussion of the findings.
Using a directed approach it is possible to begin coding
immediately using a set of pre-determined codes which will
normally be derived from prior research evidence. The first step
is to identify key variables which form the initial coding cate-
gories, but, as Atkinson (1992) observes, material can be organized
in a variety of ways. A recent review of the literature on SME
engagement with public procurement (Loader, 2013) determined
23 types of barrier faced by SMEs and these have been chosen as
the initial set of codes for both the quantitative and qualitative
analysis. The second stage is to determine operational definitions
for the coding categories, drawing upon existing theories and
research evidence (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). For example, in
relation to public procurement, the term ‘bureaucracy’ which is
one of the codes, is associated with excessive paperwork, includ-
ing long and detailed forms and the need for suppliers to
repeatedly submit similar information with each new tender
(MacManus, 1991; Glover, 2008). However, creating operational
definitions can be challenging when terminology is vague and is
therefore subject to the researcher’s interpretation (Hsieh and
Shannon, 2005; Baden and Harwood, 2011).
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Quantitative contents analysis
The results of the quantitative contents analysis are presented
first. Each respondent’s contribution was examined and the
frequency of points relevant to each of the 23 coding categories
was systematically recorded. The length of comment varied con-
siderably and so the number of codes per comment also varied, up
to a maximum of nine from one respondent. Hsieh and Shannon
(2005) point out that it is possible that the pre-determined codes
do not capture all the data, in which case further analysis is
required to determine if a new code or sub-category of an existing
code is required. Interestingly it was found that the 23 codes did
not allow all the issues raised by SMEs to be incorporated
successfully such that their significance was reflected, and so an
additional four barriers were added to this list. For example, the
need to pay to access information was prominent in the feedback
and it was felt that this was not adequately captured within the
more general ‘Prohibitive resource requirements’ (item 13); there-
fore this has been identified as a separate category. Further
separate categories have also been created to represent: 1. the
need to supply via a third party which appears to be a new
concern revealed by this evidence; 2. the too lengthy tender
107
evaluation and decision making process; and 3. poorly written
specifications including ambiguity, duplication and lack of stan-
dardization. The latter two items are included separately because
of the useful level of detail relating to practice. The complete list of
barriers can be seen in Table 2, with the 4 additional items
identified by italics.
The first stage of the analysis coded the comments based upon
the revised listing of 27 categories and recorded their frequency.
The results of the frequency analysis across the 27 barrier types,
presented in ranked order, can be seen in Table 3. In total, 552
comments relating to barriers have been made by the respondents.
These responses are well spread across the various categories of
barrier and range from a maximum of 92 comments down to zero.
The most frequent concern attracting 92 contributions (37 per cent
of contributors) relates to overly prescriptive requirements, with
the second and third most frequent being poorly written specifica-
tions, noted by 68 respondents (27 per cent) and prohibitive
resource requirements (67 respondents, 26.6 per cent). These all
fall within the broader grouping of public sector procurement
process and it is here that the majority of problems appear to
occur, attracting 84.1 per cent of all responses. The category ‘Overly
prescriptive requirements’ refers to the need to satisfy a range of
qualification criteria (Freshminds, 2008). A closer examination of
the comments relating to this issue reveals that insurance is a
frequent concern (noted by 23), namely the seemingly excessive
and costly levels of insurance required for what can frequently be
low risk and low value work. Respondents also referred to other
criteria that are difficult for SMEs: meeting turnover thresholds, the
need to demonstrate a track record, and having policies in place
relating to a range of issues such as health and safety, equal
opportunities and the environment.
The ranking shows that the top eight types have all been
referred to by at least 10 per cent of respondents and again the
dominance of concerns relating specifically to the procurement
process, rather than the public sector environment or small
business sector, can be seen. It is worth noting the frequency of
SME reluctance to engage with the process (perceived to be
unfair), the comments about public sector procurers’ lack of
professionalism and their risk averse attitudes, and the reference
to working through third parties. In contrast it is surprising that
contract size has featured directly as a concern by only five percent
of the feedback respondents, despite having been identified as an
obstacle by many authors over a 20 year period (for example
MacManus, 1991; Curran and Blackburn, 1994; Morand, 2003; Ram
and Smallbone, 2003; Walker and Preuss, 2008). Similarly,
increased contract length was identified by only one respondent
and the trend towards a reduced supply base was not mentioned
at all by these SME respondents. These issues had both been
identified previously (Loader, 2007), although it is interesting to
note that this was based upon evidence from procurers rather than
from SMEs directly.
4.2. Qualitative content analysis
One of the benefits of this type of voluntarily reported data is
its richness, revealing both a breadth and depth of detail, and the
qualitative analysis attempts to portray this richness through the
use of selected, direct quotes. A tabular approach has been adopted
to present the words of the respondents alongside the 27 cate-
gories which were used as the basis for the quantitative analysis
(see Table 4). This approach both illustrates and supports the
coding process. The selected quotes are an attempt to capture
some of the detail, but more especially the style and emotion of
the responses shared on the site.
Some of the comments are brief, straightforward statements
outlining a lack of knowledge or a difficulty faced (for example
108 K. Loader / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 21 (2015) 103–112

Table 2
Barriers faced by SME suppliers.

Category Associated barriers

A. Public sector
A.1 Public sector environment
Policy 1. Competing procurement objectives, with lack of clear priorities
2. Supplier rationalisation leading to a reduced supplier base, and marginalisation of small
suppliers
Culture 3. Risk averse attitudes
4. Pro-large business attitudes
Organisation 5. Devolved processes produce complexity, confusion and inconsistency
A.2 Procurement process (adapted from Business Link, n.d.)
1. Identify opportunities that are available 6. Inability to determine appropriate contact
7. Lack of knowledge about procedures and opportunities
7a. Need to pay to access information
2. Determine contract requirements and decide whether or not to 8. Size of contract—volume prohibitive
tender 9. Contract length prohibitive
10. Uncertainty of work within a framework contract
3. Take part in tender process 11. Difficulty getting onto approved supplier list
Either 11a. Supply only possible via a strategic partner or other third party
a. Open procedure
Return tender by set date 12. Need to demonstrate a track record
Or 13. Prohibitive resource requirements associated with preparing bids: cost and time
b. Restricted procedure
Two stage process: 14. Overly prescriptive requirements
Pre-qualification stage 15. Bureaucracy
Invitation to tender 16. Procurers lack of professionalism: lack of training, technical expertise
16a. Poorly written specifications including ambiguity, duplication and lack of standardisation
16b. Tender evaluation and decision making process is too long
4. Contract awarded on basis of value for money 17. Narrow definition of value for money/cost focus
5. Supplier outcome:
Success. Contract awarded 18. Slow payment
Failure. Feedback on request. 19. Lack of/poor feedback

B Small Business Sector

Capacity 20. Lack of appropriate resources (management, administrative, marketing, language skills, legal,
electronic)
Skills 21. Poor completion of bids
22. Lack of required standards
Attitudes 23. Reluctance to engage with a process perceived to be unfair

Adapted from Loader (2013).

Table 3
Quantitative analysis of barriers ranked by frequency.

Barrier Type Barrier Respondents

No. Description No. %

A2 14 Overly prescriptive requirements 92 37

A2 16a Poorly written specifications including ambiguity, duplication and lack of standardisation 68 27
A2 13 Prohibitive resource requirements associated with preparing bids: cost and time 67 27
A2 15 Bureaucracy 45 18
B 23 Reluctance to engage with a process perceived to be unfair 39 15
A2 16 Procurers lack of professionalism: lack of training, poor technical expertise 30 12
A1 3 Risk averse attitudes 28 11
A2 11a Supply only possible via a strategic partner or other third party 26 10
A2 7 Lack of knowledge about procedures and opportunities 22 9
A2 17 Narrow definition of value for money/cost focus 18 7
A2 16b Tender evaluation and decision making process is too long 18 7
A2 12 Need to demonstrate a track record 16 6
A2 8 Size of contract—volume prohibitive 13 5
A2 10 Uncertainty of work within a framework contract 10 4
A2 18 Slow payment 10 4
B 20 Lack of appropriate resources ((management, administrative, marketing, language skills, legal, electronic) 10 4
A2 19 Lack of/poor feedback 8 3
A2 7a Need to pay to access information 8 3
A2 11 Difficulty getting onto approved supplier list 7 3
A1 4 Pro-large business attitudes 6 2
A2 6 Inability to determine appropriate contact. 5 2
A1 1 Competing procurement objectives, with lack of clear priorities 2 1
A1 5 Devolved processes produce complexity, confusion and inconsistency 1 0.4
A2 9 Contract length prohibitive 1 0.4
B 21 Poor completion of bids 1 0.4
B 22 Lack of required standards 1 0.4
A1 2 Supplier rationalisation leading to a reduced supplier base, and marginalisation of small suppliers 0 0
 K. Loader / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 21 (2015) 103–112 109

Table 4
Qualitative analysis of feedback.

Barrier type Respondents feedback (selected, illustrative quotes)

A.1 Public sector environment

1. Competing procurement objectives 1. Currently there is significant tension in government procurement between the agenda pursuing
centralised major contracts and one which is attempting to enable SMEs to bid for government contracts
2. Supplier rationalization 2. No response relating to this category
3. Risk averse attitudes 3. Public servants with whom we deal are now so risk averse that they are reluctant to take basic and
4. Pro-large business attitudes sensible measures around any spending decision
4. Have consistently been told that we are too small to tender
5. Devolved processes produce complexity, confusion and 5. One department not speaking to another, phrase “left hand not knowing what right hand doing” spring
inconsistency to mind.

A.2 Procurement process

6. Inability to determine appropriate contact.
7. Lack of knowledge about procedures and opportunities
7a. Need to pay to access information
8. Contract volume prohibitive
9. Contract length prohibitive
10. Uncertainty of work within a framework contract
11. Difficulty getting onto approved supplier list
11a. Supply only possible via a strategic partner or other
third party
12. Need to demonstrate a track record
13. Prohibitive resource requirements associated with
preparing bids
14. Overly prescriptive requirements
15. Bureaucracy
16. Procurers lack of professionalism
16a. Poorly written specifications
16b. Tender evaluation and decision making process is too
long
17. Narrow definition of value for money/cost focus
18. Slow payment
19. Lack of/poor feedback
6. Being able to contact the correct person in the correct dept is impossible
7. I don’t know where to look for opportunities
7a. The tendering process should be free to all and accessible by all—otherwise the process is not fair
8. The bid packages are too big and too diverse for us anyway
9. Now the whole area/county only puts one tender out for the whole area, and this is locked in for five
years. Subsequently all small local companies don’t get a look in
10. Framework contracts where you don’t even get asked to quote for any work—we have had three like
that one where when we followed up after a year of hearing nothing, the contract manager had moved on
and no-one knew the framework agreement existed!
11. The problem is getting on the list to be able to tender for small works
11a. Even though we have provided consultancy direct to a department in the past we are now being told
we have to work via a managed services provider who will add no benefit and add additional cost as
margin to themselves
12. Start-ups are disregarded and seen as unreliable as they lack track record etc.—in a climate where
business start-up is supported and hailed not understandable
13. and given the complex, time consuming and costly tendering process currently in place, we may be left
with no option but to direct our energies elsewhere
14. The amount of public liability insurance and professional indemnity insurance demanded is simply
ludicrous and disproportionate to the value of contracts we are attempting to win. For example, one 6 week
product delivery contract valued at approximately d10K–d20K, required the supplier to maintain d10M of
public liability insurance and d5M of professional indemnity insurance for 5 years post delivery!
15. Paperwork is still too long and laborious including information that you have on us already
16. The public sector needs truly professional buyers
16a. Frustrating. Because the quality of PQQs is often low. The briefs are often worse. Lazy creators copy and
paste, without thought. There is often a lack of comprehension of need and an inability to communicate it
16b. There are SMEs that are prepared to commit time and resource to engage with the tender process, but
who become disillusioned with the slow decision making
17. We have found that price is the main factor and the service you have given them over the years makes
no difference whatsoever
18. Our biggest challenge has been getting paid with payment often lagging 6 months behind the work
which is tough in terms of cash flow for any small supplier
19. At the moment you are lucky to get any formal feedback on an unsuccessful tender submission—and
when you do it is non-specific and of little value

B Small business sector

20. Lack of appropriate resources (management,
administrative, marketing, legal, electronic)
21. Poor completion of bids
22. Lack of required standards
23. Reluctance to engage with a process perceived to be
unfair
20. With the introduction of electronic tendering only, firms such as ours are at a disadvantage
21. Many don’t have the time to fill in the forms and others don’t know how to fill them successfully
22. SMEs don’t understand the rule requirements
23. It is all arranged to ensure only large companies get the work

comments 6, 7, 11); others provide detailed descriptions of situa-
tions experienced (for example 10, 14). There is a suggestion of
frustration and exasperation at times with the process (12, 16a),
and many of the respondents appear to have a low opinion of both
the process and of the staff engaged in the process (3, 5, 10, 15, 16,
19). A concern for policy makers and procurement practitioners
must be that this does not act to disengage SME suppliers from
taking part in public procurement. The following two quotes sum
up a number of respondents’ feelings and experiences, and convey
some of the despondency to emerge:
I have been trying to win SME contracts in the construction
industry for the past eight years. Up to now I have been unable
to win a single contract despite spending many hours filling out
tender documents, it seems that local government has already
decided where the contracts will go to. Letters, emails and
phone calls all get ignored. I wonder whether anything will
really change.
I recently attended a How To Tender Seminar, where I under-
stood that, in a very basic way, the Tender process actively
discriminates against us on a number of levels. I left feeling
defeated that an impartial system should be so ‘partial’.
However, occasionally, but only infrequently, there is some
recognition of the special circumstances faced by public sector
procurers:
Above all else – although difficult in a Government environ-
ment – the selection of suppliers should not be decided on
price, but on quality and value.
110 K. Loader / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 21 (2015) 103–112
I understand that you have to go through a tendering process in
order to obtain what is perceived to be “best value for money”,
but this process is way too tedious for SMEs.
For those agencies trying to improve the situation for SMEs it is
worrying that many of the respondents suggest that the situation
is deteriorating. An example of practice which is seen to be
worsening is that of firms which have previously supplied the
public sector now being told that they can only supply through a
third party (illustrated by comment 11a). SMEs see this as being
more bureaucratic, anti-competitive, and often not in line with the
customers’ needs. They also drew attention to the potential
negative consequences: firstly financial, whether additional cost
for government or less financial compensation for the SME
supplier; and secondly in quality, with larger providers engaged
to manage the process and lacking expertise in the specialist areas
of the contract.
The focus of the study is upon barriers and the pre-determined
codes adopted support this aim. However, criticisms of this
approach to analysis identify that the choice and use of pre-
determined categories can not only reinforce the chosen cate-
gories (Atkinson, 1992) but also omit material that falls outside of
these groupings (Silverman, 2006). Therefore it seems appropriate
to acknowledge that not all of the comments volunteered are
negative in outlook, despite the phrasing of the questions which
call for negative experiences to be shared, as identified in the
Method section. There are SMEs which have had some success
(“We have had some good experiences with procurement”; “As a
small company we have been very successful at winning contracts
and getting onto Framework contracts.”), some who are apprecia-
tive of the opportunity to provide feedback (“Thanks for asking the
question”, “Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We would
be happy to assist further as required.”), and others who are
hopeful about the UK Government’s stated intentions to address
the issue (“I welcome the announcements today relating to SMEs
and encouraging a less bureaucratic approach.”). Others are both
Table 5
SME respondents’ proposals matched against government actions.
Sources (government actions): Cabinet Office (2011).
SME proposals
1. Improve access to opportunities by having a centralised contact system
2. Information should be freely available
3. Contract directly with small firms
4. Avoid contract bundling, provide smaller tender opportunities, disaggregate large –Micro lots will be used where practical
contracts
5. Allow small firms to submit joint tenders
6. Involve customers in tender specifications
7. Review tender specifications, to be more encouraging for SMEs
8. Adjust contract requirements, such as insurance levels, to be proportionate to, say,
the value or contract length
9. Be more flexible over requirements
10. Devise a centralised record of accreditation and other requirements to avoid
duplication of effort
11. Simplify the process, harmonise tender documents
12. Review the basis of decision making: more flexible, more entrepreneurial system, –SME product surgeries—to enable SMEs to pitch innovative products to
more local and one which gives more weight to factors such as interviews,
presentations and site visits
13. Develop electronic tendering systems
14. Procurement staff need to be trained, and to be more professional
15. Procurement staff should be seconded to the private sector to improve
knowledge and also obtain a better understanding of the suppliers perspective
16. SMEs should be given help to establish (local) consortia
17. Greater accountability for final selection of successful tender submissions
18. Publish each department’s procurement spend by value and recipient size
positive and constructive, providing more detailed and therefore
useful comment as shown in the following example:
This in particular (referring to localized decision making) has
been apparent in the NHS since the dissolving of PASA (the
Purchasing and Supply Authority) – we’ve seen several NHS
trusts clubbing together to undertake procurement exercises –
leading to better regional opportunities for SMEs and specialist
businesses.
These contributions provide some encouragement for policy-
makers and small business groups and resonate with Glover’s
finding that 41 per cent of SMEs had a good experience of working
in the public sector once a contract was agreed (Glover, 2008).
4.3. Mapping SME respondents’ proposals against government
actions
There is a further set of content that has not yet been
presented. The government also asked for suggested improve-
ments and many were put forward. Not surprisingly these are
mostly directly related to the barriers identified. For example,
many propose a centralized record of accreditation and other
documents to avoid the burden of submitting the same informa-
tion many times over, and to harmonize and simplify tender
documentation to reduce the time and cost required for their
completion. Another common recommendation is to allow greater
discretion and flexibility to be applied with regard to the overly
prescriptive requirements such as turnover, financial history,
insurance and health and safety for lower value, or shorter,
contracts.
Many of these proposals have been identified and recom-
mended previously. The Better Regulation Task Force and Small
Business Council (2003) produced eleven recommendations as a
result of their review of the barriers SMEs face in trying to supply
the public sector, all of which were accepted by the UK govern-
ment. The recommendations included proposals that the public
Government actions
–Launch of contracts finder—to publish procurement information in one place.
–Contracts finder is freely available
–Departments will be required to use more outcome based specifications and to
avoid over-specification
–For common commodities, data now needs to be only provided once
–Introduction of a standardized PQQ
–Seeking to eliminate PQQs for central government procurements under d100,000
procurement professionals
–An interchange programme will be launched to bring private sector professionals
into public procurement and to second civil servants to the private sector
–Accountability through ‘mystery shopper’ notification process, SME panel, and
extended Supplier Feedback Servicea
–Publication of spend with SMEs
 K. Loader / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 21 (2015) 103–112
sector develop a standard prequalification document for lower
value contracts and a portal to improve access to contract
information, including a named procurement contact. However
the review Glover (2008) found that although progress had been
made since the 2003 report, SMEs continued to report similar
issues including difficulties with accessing opportunities and a
lack of standardized documentation. The Glover review’s twelve
recommendations included, therefore, a single electronic portal
and pre-qualification questionnaires that reflect standard qualifi-
cation criteria.
Just prior to the launch of the feedback facility, and during the
course of its operation, the UK Government has announced and
implemented a variety of measures in order to improve the
situation for SMEs. These have been mapped against the suggested
solutions made by the respondents (Table 5). The table demon-
strates that several areas of concern are being addressed through
the introduction of various practical initiatives such as the cen-
tralized information point and standardized PQQ, actions already
identified and recommended by the government reviews just
mentioned. However, some of the proposed actions require further
detail in order to determine their scope and therefore their
potential impact. For example the use of micro lots should help
SMEs but it is not yet clear how extensive their use will be.
Various actions have been recommended previously and some
acted upon, but clearly the evidence here has demonstrated that for
many small suppliers, difficulties remain. Challenges will be to
make SMEs aware of the new measures and to monitor the use and
consistent application of the measures by public sector procurers.
5. Conclusion
This paper has examined the challenges facing SMEs in supply-
ing the public sector. This paper has contributed to our knowledge
by providing additional evidence obtained by analysing the com-
ments of SMEs that have been voluntarily provided to a UK
Government online feedback facility. This source of data has the
benefit of not being subject to direction or input from the
researcher, although the terms of reference set by government
have influenced the nature and tone of the feedback.
The data was analyzed using both a quantitative and qualitative
approach to content analysis which enabled a variety of evidence to
emerge. It was clear from the feedback that SMEs were experien-
cing a wide range of obstacles that were adversely affecting their
success in gaining public sector work. The quantitative analysis
determined that the burden of overly prescriptive requirements,
including qualification criteria such as health and safety policies, is
the most common concern. Whilst many of the main issues raised
are related to the procurement process, it was notable that SMEs
also held a poor opinion of the public procurement staff. Issues such
as poor preparation of specifications, a lack of knowledge of the
market and lack of communication, especially in the form of
feedback were frequently commented upon. Some barriers were
revealed which had not featured prominently in previous literature
and reflect a deteriorating situation. For example a number of
respondents drew attention to the increasingly common require-
ment for SMEs to supply via a third party, with implications for
competition, cost and quality. Also the emphatic criticism of
specifications should be noted. In contrast, the apparent lack of
concern about supplier rationalization and lengthy contracts is
surprising, and the relatively low concern with contract size should
be of interest to small business groups and government.
The qualitative analysis revealed detail about SME supply
experiences which is helpful in allowing us to understand further
the nature of the difficulties. For example the analysis determines
that the burden of prescriptive requirements consists of a number
111
of elements: the requirements are seen to be disproportionate to
the scale and value of the contract, they are excessive to small
companies with their limited resources and are often inappropri-
ate to the nature of the work. Further examination identified the
need for high levels of insurance as a specific example of a costly
and often inappropriate requirement. Also evident from the
qualitative analysis was the feeling of frustration about the process
which was seen to work in favour of larger companies. Its rigidity
and standard bureaucratic approach were felt to intrinsically work
against smaller suppliers. The suppliers also put forward a variety
of suggestions to improve their chances of success and some of
these are now being addressed by government, although the scope
of some of the new measures remains unclear at the moment.
The evidence suggests that there are implications for all parties
that have an interest in this issue, principally policy makers and
SMEs and their representatives, but also including bodies such as
those involved in training procurement professionals. Policy makers
need to question why SMEs are continuing to report the same
concerns and obstacles, even though they have been acknowledged
previously within government commissioned reviews, such as the
report Glover (2008), and recommendations made and accepted.
Ensuring that SMEs are aware of measures is important, and
policymakers and SME representatives need to work together to
determine which methods are most effective for communicating
opportunities and processes to SMEs. Frequently voiced concerns
about the professionalism and competence of procurement staff
suggests that the implementation of initiatives must also be
addressed with care. Public procurement organizations need to
ensure that their staff apply existing and new measures properly
and consistently, which may require consideration of the appro-
priateness and level of training currently available.
The limitations of the study are acknowledged. Some of the
criticisms of employing content analysis, such as the subjective
choice and interpretation of coding categories, have already been
mentioned. However, it is also recognized that SMEs are not a
homogenous group and care must be taken when investigating the
impact of phenomena within or upon the sector. The lack of
organization detail available did not allow a more nuanced
analysis to be conducted. Finally, the comments which have been
analysed may also suffer from reporting bias as they have been
voluntarily reported by self-selecting SMEs. Therefore no claims
can be made about the representativeness of the sample or the
views expressed.
References
Arrowsmith, S., 2010. Horizontal policies in public procurement: a taxonomy.
J. Public Procure. 10 (2), 149–186.
Atkinson, P., 1992. The ethnography of a medical setting: reading, writing and
rhetoric. Qual. Health Res. 2 (4), 451–474.
Baden, D., Harwood, I.A., 2011. The effects of procurement policies on corporate
social responsibility activity: content-analytic insights into the views and
actions of SME owner-managers. Int. Small Bus. J. 29 (3), 259–277.
BERR, 2007. SME Supply Update. Department for Trade and Industry. HMSO,
London.
Better Regulation Task Force and Small Business Council, 2003. Government:
Supporter and Customer? HMSO, London.
BIS, 2013a. Business Population Estimates for the UK and Regions, 2013.
BIS, 2013b. SMEs: The Key Enablers of Business Success and the Economic Rationale
for Government Intervention. BIS Analysis Paper Number 2.
BIS, 2013c. Small Business Survey 2012: SME Employers.
Bovis, C., 1996. Public Procurement and Small and Medium Sized Enterprises in the
United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, Certified Accountants Educational
Trust, London.
Business Link, (n.d.). Overview on selling to Government. The Procurement Process.
Available at: 〈http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=10
73792570&r.i=1073792569&r.l1=1073861169&r.l2=1073858827&r.l3=1074033
478&r.s=sc&r.t=RESOURCES&type=RESOURCES〉 (accessed 14th October 2011).
Cabinet Office, 1984. Government Purchasing: A Multi-Department Review of
Government Contract and Procurement Procedures, London: HMSO.
112 K. Loader / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 21 (2015) 103–112
Cabinet Office, 2010. The Coalition: Our Programme for Government. HM
Government.
Cabinet Office, 2011. Procurement Policy Note—Further Measures to Promote Small
Business Procurement. Information Note 05/11. London.
Cabinet Office, 2013. Consultation Document: Making Public Sector Procurement
More Accessible to SMEs. London.
Cabras, I., 2011. Mapping the spatial patterns of public procurement. A case study
from a peripheral local authority in Northern England. Int. J. Public Sect.
Manage. 24 (3), 187–205.
CRiSPS, 2006. Delivering Supply Strategy. What Considerations Should Local
Authorities Take into Account When Developing a Strategy to Trade with SMEs,
University of Bath, Bath.
Curran, J., Blackburn, R., 1994. Small Firms and Local Economic Networks. Paul
Chapman Publishing, London.
Efficiency and Reform Group, 2014. End of Year Savings 2013 to 2014: Handout. HM
Government.
Ellegaarde, C., 2006. Small company purchasing: a research agenda. J. Purch. Supply
Manage. 12, 272–283.
Erridge, A., Fee, R., McIlroy, J., 1998. Involvement of SMEs in public procurement.
Public Procure. Law Rev. 7 (2), 37–51.
Erridge, A., 2007. Public procurement, public value and the Northern Ireland
project. Public Adm. 85 (4), 1023–1043.
Fee, R., Erridge, A., Hennigan, S., 2002. “SMEs and government purchasing in
Northern Ireland: problems and opportunities. Eur. Bus. Rev. 14 (5), 326–334.
Flynn, A., Davis, P., McKevitt, D., McEvoy, E., 2013a. Mapping public procurement in
Ireland. Public Procure. Law Rev. 22 (2), 74–95.
Flynn, A., McKevitt, D., Davis, P., 2013b, The impact of size on small and medium-
sized enterprise public sector tendering. (0266242613503178 published online
October 1, 2013. Available at: 〈http://isb.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/09/
29/0266242613503178〉). Int. Small Bus. J. (25/10/2013).
Freshminds, 2008., Evaluating SME Experiences of Government Procurement,
A Report for the Scorecard Working Party.
GHK, 2010. Evaluation of SMEs Access to Public Procurement Markets in the EU.
Final Report, DG Enterprise and Industry, European Commission, Brussels.
Glover, A., 2008. Accelerating the SME Economic Engine: Through Transparent,
Simple And Strategic Procurement HM Treasury, London.
GOV.UK, 2010. Small Business— Your Problems with Procurement. Prime Minister’s
Office, 10 Downing Street. Available at: 〈http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/
small-businesses-%E2%80%93-your-problems-with-procurement/〉 (accessed 11th
April 2011).
Harland, C., Telgen, J., Callender, G., 2013. International Research Study of Public
Procurement. In: C., Harland, G., Nassimbeni, E., Schneller (Eds.), The Sage
Handbook of Strategic Supply Management, Sage, (Chapter 16).
HM Treasury, 2013. Managing Public Money.
House of Commons, 2013. Public Procurement: Small Businesses and Savings.
Public Procurement Standard Note SN/EP/6069.
House of Commons, 2014. Public Procurement. Public Procurement Standard Note
SN/EP/6029.
Hsieh, H., Shannon, S.E., 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.
Qual. Health Res. 15 (9), 1277–1288.
Karjalainen, K., Kemppainen, K., 2008. The involvement of small- and medium-sized
enterprises in public procurement: impact of resource perceptions, electronic
systems and enterprise size. J. Purch. Supply Manage. 14 (4), 230–240.
Kidalov, M.V., Snider, K.F., 2011. US and European public procurement policies for
small and medium-sized enterprises (SME): a comparative perspective. Bus.
Polit. 13 (4) (Article 2).
Kohlbacher, F., 2006. The use of qualitative content analysis in case study research.
Forum: Qual. Soc. Res. 7 (1) (Article 21).
Loader, K., 2005. Supporting SMEs through government purchasing activity.
Int. J. Entrep. Innov. 6 (1), 17–26.
Loader, K., 2007. The challenge of competitive procurement: value for money
versus small business support. Public Money Manage. 27 (5), 307–314.
Loader, K., 2011. Are public sector procurement models and practices hindering
small suppliers? Evidence from English local authorities. Public Money Manage.
31 (4), 287–294.
Loader, K., 2013. Is public procurement a successful small business support policy?
A review of the evidence. Environ. Plann. C: Gov. Policy 31 (1), 39–55.
MacManus, S., 1991. Why businesses are reluctant to sell to governments. Public
Adm. Rev. 51 (4), 328–344.
McKevitt, D., Davis, P., 2013. Microenterprises—how they interact with public
procurement processes. Int. J. Public Sect. Manage. 26 (6).
Michaelis, C., McGuire, M., Ferguson, L., 2003. SBS Diversity in Public Sector
Procurement Survey. Final Report, Databuild, Birmingham.
Morand, P., 2003. SMEs and public procurement policy. Rev. Econ. Des. 8 (3),
301–318.
Morrissey, B., Pittaway, L., 2004. A study of procurement behaviour in small firms.
J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 11 (2), 254–262.
NAO, 2013. Improving Government Procurement. The Stationery Office, London.
NERA Economic Consulting, 2005. A Study of the Benefits of Public Sector
Procurement from Small Businesses, Report prepared for the Small Business
Service, Department of Trade and Industry, HMSO, London.
O'Brien, G., 1993. Public procurement and the small or medium sized enterprise.
Public Procure. Law Rev. 2, 82–92.
OECD, 2013. Government at a Glance 2013: Procurement Data. OECD Meeting of
Leading Practitioners on Public Procurement. Available at: 〈http://www.oecd.
org/gov/ethics/Government%20at%20a%20Glance%202013_Procurement%
20Data%20GOV_PGC_ETH_2013_2.pdf〉 (accessed 7th October, 2013).
Orser, B., Riding, A., Weeks, J., 2012. Federal SME procurement outcomes: implica-
tions for public policy. In: Proceedings of the 35th ISBE Conference, “Creating
Opportunities through Innovation: Local Energy, Global Vision”, 7th—8th
November 2012, Dublin.
Peck, F., Cabras, I., 2011. The impact of local authority procurement on local
economies: the case of Cumbria, North West England. Public Policy Adm.
26 (3), 307–331.
Pickernell, D, Kay, A, Packham, G, Miller, C, 2011. Competing agendas in public
procurement: an empirical analysis of opportunities and limits in the UK for
SMEs. Environ. Plann. C: Gov. Policy 29, 641–658.
Preuss, L., 2011. On the contribution of public procurement to entrepreneurship
and small business policy. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 23 (9–10), 787–814.
Ram, M., Smallbone, D., 2003. Supplier diversity initiatives and the diversification
of ethnic minority businesses in the UK. Policy Stud. 24 (4), 187–204.
Ramsay, J., 2008. Purchasing theory and practice: an agenda for change. Eur. Bus.
Rev. 20 (6), 567–569.
Schapper, P.R., Veiga Malta, J.N., Gilbert, D.L., 2006. An analytical framework for the
management and reform of public procurement. J. Public Procure. 6 (1 & 2),
1–26.
Silverman, D., 2006. Interpreting Qualitative Data, third ed. Sage, London.
Smallbone, D., Kitching, J., Xheneti M., Athayde, R., 2009. Procurement and Supplier
Diversity in the London 2012 Olympic Games. In: ICSB World Conference 21–24
June 2009, Seoul.
Smith, P., Hobbs, A., 2002. SMEs & Public Sector Procurement, Research Report
Prepared for Small Business Service, Shreeveport Management Consultancy.
Temponi, C., Cui, W., 2008. Factors impacting participation of Hispanic small
businesses in government contracting in the USA. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev.
15 (3), 504–526.
Walker, H., Preuss, L., 2008. Fostering sustainability through sourcing from small
businesses: public sector perspectives. J. Cleaner Prod. 16 (15), 1600–1609.
Woldesenbet, K., Ram, M., Jones, T., 2012. Supplying large firms: the role of
entrepreneurial and dynamic capabilities in small businesses. Int. Small Bus.
J. 30 (5), 493–512.
World Trade Organisation, (n.d). WTO and Government Procurement. Available at:
〈http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/gproc_e/gproc_e.htm〉 (accessed 17th
September, 2014).
Zheng, J., Walker, H., Harland, C., 2006. The role of SMEs in public procurement: a
review of literature and research agenda. In: Proceedings of the 15th Annual
IPSERA Conference, April 6–8 California: San Diego.