Agenda item

RESOLVED: That the following referral be forwarded to Mayor and Cabinet:

Business Panel:

1.     Notes that the scoring system and the balance between quality and price is not robust nor transparent when awarding contract to organisations.

2.     Calls for the Council to re-examine its process of quality versus cost, and ensure there is a thorough examination of the factors within both price and quality.

3.     Is not convinced continuity or proximity of provision are given sufficient thought in the transition period as part of the evaluation and that needs to be weighted accordingly.

4.     In accordance with the Administration’s Manifesto commitments to use an in-house provider and secure services locally whenever possible, prominent sections of the process should examine the advantages and disadvantages of in-house and local provision.

It is proposed that:

·         The scoring system should be very clear and easy to understand.

·         Mayor and Cabinet should take time to consider proposals from officers

before making a decision.

·         Sufficient time and consideration must be given to responses to scrutiny in

recognition of the need for parity of esteem.

·         In future: quality, location, continuity and in-house consideration should

feature largely when awarding contracts.

The Committee also asks that Mayor & Cabinet asks officers to consider best practice, including with regard to social value, from other local authorities and report back to Mayor & Cabinet and the Public Accounts Select Committee. Salford City Council is cited as a potential example of good practice.

3.1       The Vice-Chair introduced the referral from Business Panel. It was reported that on 29 January 2019, Business Panel had considered a Mayor and Cabinet report on the Award of a contract for the Carer Information Advice and Support Service and had decided to call the decision in. On 6 February 2019, Mayor and Cabinet considered the Call-In but were satisfied that due diligence had been undertaken and that the correct decision had been delivered. The decision was upheld although it was agreed that the contract would be closely monitored. On 19 February 2019 Business Panel agreed to make a referral to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee asking it to support a review of the Council’s Procurement Procedures, as it was not satisfied that its concerns regarding underlying issues with the way in which procurement was being carried out, had been addressed.

3.2       The committee discussed current procurement procedures and the following views were expressed:

·         The ranking system was simplistic and should be more complex to allow better analysis.

·         Contracts were sometimes underbid in order to win the contract, but then not fulfilled at a cost to the council. There needed to be a thorough interrogation of the prices put forward in bids.

·         Contract reports were usually entirely exempt, whereas a better approach might be to redact the truly exempt information or put this information in a part 2 appendix with the main report being part 1. This would better accord with the Administration’s stated aims of openness and transparency.

3.3         It was agreed that the referral from Business Panel requesting a review of the Council’s procurement procedures would be endorsed, with one amendment regarding best practice, and forwarded to Mayor and Cabinet.

3.4         RESOLVED: That the following referral be forwarded to Mayor and Cabinet:

Business Panel:

1.     Notes that the scoring system and the balance between quality and price is not robust nor transparent when awarding contract to organisations.

2.     Calls for the Council to re-examine its process of quality versus cost, and ensure there is a thorough examination of the factors within both price and quality.

3.     Is not convinced continuity or proximity of provision are given sufficient thought in the transition period as part of the evaluation and that needs to be weighted accordingly.

4.     In accordance with the Administration’s Manifesto commitments to use an in-house provider and secure services locally whenever possible, prominent sections of the process should examine the advantages and disadvantages of in-house and local provision.

It is proposed that:

·         The scoring system should be very clear and easy to understand.

·         Mayor and Cabinet should take time to consider proposals from officers

before making a decision.

·         Sufficient time and consideration must be given to responses to scrutiny in

recognition of the need for parity of esteem.

·         In future: quality, location, continuity and in-house consideration should

feature largely when awarding contracts.

The Committee also asks that Mayor & Cabinet asks officers to consider best practice, including with regard to social value, from other local authorities and report back to Mayor & Cabinet and the Public Accounts Select Committee. Salford City Council is cited as a potential example of good practice.