The false sense of a PSL: Why transparency beats overconfidence

Most organisations with a contingent workforce think their Preferred Supplier List (PSL) has them covered. A panel of trusted suppliers refreshed every couple of years should mean compliance, consistency, and control… right?

Not quite.

As our Head of Enterprise Solutions at Solve, Cameron Robinson, puts it:

“There’s a strong sense of over confidence in the market. Companies think that because they’ve got a PSL and run a tender exercise every one or two years, they’re sorted, supplier management box ticked. But the reality is very different.”

The problem with PSL overconfidence

A PSL can often create a false sense of security. While on paper, it looks like risk management. In practice, managers still find ways to bypass the system, and performance across suppliers remains wildly inconsistent.

Cameron explains:

“One supplier might be filling 20% of roles in three days flat, while another is taking weeks and still underdelivering. But without real-time data, the business can’t see the difference.”

The outcome? Businesses keep giving work to under performing suppliers simply because they’re on the panel. Quality and cost benefits are missed.

Where transparency breaks down

Beyond supplier performance, many companies don’t have clear visibility of even the basics:

· How many contingent workers they have on assignment right now

· Who those workers are, where they came from, and how much they’re being paid

· Whether agency mark-ups and margins match what was agreed

· Whether contractors are compliant with legislation and internal policy

As Cameron puts it:

“You shouldn’t have to spend days digging through spreadsheets or chasing suppliers to answer these questions. That information should be live and available in seconds.”

Without transparency, organisations are exposed to three major risks:

1. Financial risk – overpaying due to hidden costs, unclear margins, or incorrectly applied fees.

2. Operational risk – projects delayed because the wrong suppliers are being used or contractors aren't being hired in time.

3. Compliance risk – exposure to legislative breaches if suppliers or workers aren’t properly managed.

The bottom-line impact

This isn’t just about governance. It’s about money.

Cameron has seen organisations save thousands of dollars per contingent worker once they had clear visibility of rates, margins, and supplier performance. For companies running dozens, or even hundreds, of contractors, those savings stack up fast.

And that’s just the direct cost. The operational benefit is often even greater:

· Projects delivered on time because the right talent starts when they’re needed.

· Teams more productive because you’re consistently hiring A-grade contractors.

· Fewer hidden costs from delays, inefficiencies, and compliance gaps.

As Cameron puts it:

“Surely everyone can identify with what work feels like when you’ve got an A-grader in your team versus a D-grader who everyone else has to pick up after. If you knew you were going to get more A-graders into your business, you’d jump at the chance.”

What’s the smarter play?

Instead of trusting that a PSL guarantees results, organisations need real-time data on:

· Supplier performance

· Contractor pay and compliance

· Total workforce cost and distribution
‍

This transparency gives leaders the ability to make results-based decisions, not assumptions based on a tender process from 18-24 months ago.
‍

Here at Solve,we can help organisations diagnose their exposure, highlight the gaps, and build the processes, systems, and routines that make contingent workforce management streamlined, transparent, and cost-effective.
‍

Ready to cut costs and reduce risk? Get in touch with our experts to find out how data transparency can transform your contingent workforce strategy.

‍