From my council days, I do seem to remember that a financial check was part of the routine package before signing a contract. Don't want to get part way through the work and find the company's collapsed or is defaulting on payments to sub-contractors and bringing the Council into disrepute (no matter who is hired, the public will always see "The Council" getting it wrong). It was seen as part of legal Due Diligence to protect Council Tax payers' money and services.
The standard measure of quality was also routine. In my case with IT, it would be something like Microsoft certification if we were looking to buy in a series of PC software training courses. It did mean that I had to automatically discount a number of smaller companies which I was sure could do the job. However under the EC tendering regs I used at the time (not guaranteed to be the same now), all organisations had to provide some kind of proof that they were up to the job and in order to level the playing field, the same proof had to be supplied by all. In reality, the "levelling" process actually knocked out some legitimate candidates (in my view). I seem to remember raising this with Legal and being told that the discounted companies could go through the appeals process. However, this would involve them getting legal representation - ultimately they'd probably lose and the action would cost them more than getting the required certification that would allow them to be considered in future.
I have similar reservations about using the IfA RO list as a measure, but it's not much different to a commercial organisation providing certification which is effectively bought and paid for - you just have to sit through a few days of training. Unless there's some kind of chartered body providing accreditation which is accepted as industry-standard (and would still cost money to obtain), the council just has to go for what appears to be the next best thing.
There will inevitably be a patchwork effect, as - if the above still holds true - each Council is free to specify the quality measure they use for each job, contract or tender.
The standard measure of quality was also routine. In my case with IT, it would be something like Microsoft certification if we were looking to buy in a series of PC software training courses. It did mean that I had to automatically discount a number of smaller companies which I was sure could do the job. However under the EC tendering regs I used at the time (not guaranteed to be the same now), all organisations had to provide some kind of proof that they were up to the job and in order to level the playing field, the same proof had to be supplied by all. In reality, the "levelling" process actually knocked out some legitimate candidates (in my view). I seem to remember raising this with Legal and being told that the discounted companies could go through the appeals process. However, this would involve them getting legal representation - ultimately they'd probably lose and the action would cost them more than getting the required certification that would allow them to be considered in future.
I have similar reservations about using the IfA RO list as a measure, but it's not much different to a commercial organisation providing certification which is effectively bought and paid for - you just have to sit through a few days of training. Unless there's some kind of chartered body providing accreditation which is accepted as industry-standard (and would still cost money to obtain), the council just has to go for what appears to be the next best thing.
There will inevitably be a patchwork effect, as - if the above still holds true - each Council is free to specify the quality measure they use for each job, contract or tender.