Agenda item - CALL IN: PROCUREMENT OF EXTERNAL LEGAL ADVISERS FOR THE MERIDIAN WATER PROGRAMME

Agenda item

CALL IN: PROCUREMENT OF EXTERNAL LEGAL ADVISERS FOR THE MERIDIAN WATER PROGRAMME

To receive and consider a report from the Director of Law and Governance outlining details of a call-in received on the Operational Decision taken on Procurement of External Legal Advisers for the Meridian Water Programme (Report No. 221)

 

The decision that has been called in was an Operational Decision taken on 27 March 2019 and included on the Publication of Decision List No: 60/18-19 (List Ref: 1/60/18-19) issued on 29 March 2019.

 

It is proposed that consideration of the call-in be structured as follows:

· Brief outline of the reasons for the call-in by representative (s) of the members who   have called in the decision

· Response to the reasons provided for the Call-in by a Cabinet Member responsible for taking the decision

· Debate by Overview and Scrutiny Committee and agreement of action to be taken

 

Please also see the Part 2 agenda

Minutes:

The Committee received a report from the Director of Law and Governance outlining details of a call-in received on the Operational Decision taken on Procurement of External Legal Advisers for the Meridian Water Programme (Report No. 221)

 

NOTED that this report was considered in conjunction with the information in the part 2 agenda.  All discussion was held under the part 1 section of the agenda.

 

The Chair invited Councillor Laban to outline the reasons for call-in.

 

Councillor Laban highlighted the following:

  1. It is not clear why the decision to continue with the original contract - Trowers and Hamlins LLP was taken so late, when it had expired on 4 March 2019. Therefore, there had been a break in continuity.
  2. Although it had been stated that the Procurement and Commissioning Board had approved the procurement and use of the CCS (Crown Commercial Service) Framework in August 2018, it took eight months to award the contract. Using the framework had taken longer than it would have done using the OJEU (Official Journal of EU). Knowing that the contract was due to expire 4 March 2019 it is not clear why there was this delay.
  3. Although it has been stated that best value has been achieved, it is not clear how this has been assessed, for example whether there has been any benchmarking undertaken.
  4. Under the contract we are paying via an hourly rate system, it is not clear why this should be preferable to using a capped fee service.

 

Cllr Boztas left the meeting at this point.

 

The Chair said it may be helpful if the Director of Law & Governance could explain why it was considered a crucial time for the contract to continue with the same provider rather than to transition to an alternative. Also, why if this is crucial why the contract is only for a year.

 

Responses given were provided by Jeremy Chambers and Melanie Dawson as follows:

  1. Throughout the delivery of the Meridian Water Project, there will be different points where it may be advantageous to have a new procurement for legal advice.  However, this is not the time for this as we are in a transitional phase and there are significant benefits in terms of efficiency and effectiveness in ensuring continuity of service with Trowers and Hamlins LLP. This company have extensive knowledge of the complexities of the Meridian Water project and their experience would be necessary as the next phase of Meridian Water is brought forward.
  2. Robust contract monitoring is undertaken.  We are sourcing our own in- house team and this would be helped by extending the Trowers & Hamlins LLP contract for the one year term.  Trowers & Hamlins LLP would support the in-house team only where there is insufficient capacity or expertise in-house.  Council officers are currently exploring the possibility of an arrangement whereby trainee solicitors at the council undertake a period of work at Trowers and Hamlins LLP, at no cost to the council. 
  3. It was acknowledged that delays had occurred. This was primarily because the CCS framework had not been ready, the launch date of the CCS Framework was outside officer’s control. Had it been ready, and the decision could have been taken earlier, Jeremy Chambers stated that the same decision would have been reached.
  4. In terms of using a capped fee service – the framework did not allow for this and costs are usually much heavier, Jeremy Chambers would not advise using a capped fee arrangement. The response to reasons for call- in also states that given the uncertain scope of services that will be required over the next 12 months it would be unrealistic to expect any firm of solicitors to agree to a capped fee at the outset of the contract.

 

Other points discussed included:

  1. Councillor Smith said it had been noted that the ‘Framework’ had not been ready, and he asked if officers in the Legal Team were responsible for this or was it those in Regeneration?  Jeremy answered that it was the Crown Commercial Service who had launched it later, with insufficient information provided. 
  2. It was confirmed that Trowers and Hamlins LLP had originally been included on a framework for a four- year period.
  3. That some of our trainee solicitors may for a short period during the term of the contract be placed with Trowers and Hamlins LLP who are providing mentoring – this will be beneficial to our ‘in house’ solicitors ‘growth of knowledge’. The arrangements for this are being finalised.
  4. Councillor Hockney asked for the approximate number of days of billing the contract figure was based on. It was stated that this is a fee rate basis, there are not a set number of fixed days given. The money assigned would be determined by need.
  5. It was confirmed that we were happy that the quality provided by the company was robust, they have embedded knowledge in respect of areas of land at Meridian Water. This is not a good time to change provider but this may change in future – we shall be using more in-house staff as we build capacity, however there is not a time-line for this.
  6. Councillor Hockney asked if we had looked at the use of retainers for rolling over 3 month, or 6 month periods.  It was stated that this would have been an expensive way to continue. The most expensive way would have been to continuously place orders on an ad hoc basis.

 

Councillor Laban did not wish to add anything further.

 

Following the discussion, Overview and Scrutiny Committee considered the reasons provided for the call in and responses given. Having considered the information, the Committee agreed to confirm the original portfolio decision:

 

1.    To approve the direct award of contract to Trowers & Hamlins LLP (in accordance with the CCS Framework for Wider Public Legal Services) for the provision of legal services in relation to the Meridian Water Programme for a one-year period.

 

Cllrs Levy, Aramaz and Jewell voted in favour of the original decision, Cllrs Smith and Hockney abstained. The original operational decision was therefore agreed.

Supporting documents: