Agenda item

The reasons for call-in received from ten Members of the Council, together with officer responses to the reasons for call-in.

The reasons for the call-in were presented by Cllr Lee Chamberlain as Lead Member.

Cllr Chamberlain summarised the concerns in respect of the decision. The scoring of the tender submissions was questioned. There was concern that the recommended contractor’s bid may not be feasible or sustainable. There was concern that either the selected contractor would fail to deliver the safety inspections to the required standard, or that there would be further funding adjustment requests once the contract was secured. Assurance was sought that the service would be delivered within budget, and that proper inspections would be completed.

The Chair asked officers for their responses.

Joanne Drew, Strategic Director of Housing and Regeneration, provided context that the service would cover around 15,000 Council homes and was one of ten contracts this year for compliance services. The Council’s Housing function had a strong team for statutory compliance which performed very strongly. They worked with Procurement colleagues and used professional contractors.

Andrew Cotton, Interim Investment and Resident Safety Programme Director, responded in further detail to confirm that the successful bidder had confirmed compliance with the specification. He provided assurance that the bidder met the quality standard in this function. Quality control included that technicians held appropriate qualifications, the company performed quality control, there were test checks, and that there would be contract monitoring by Council officers. KPIs were agreed and specified in the contract. There were provisions for improvement notices and for contract termination. In respect of the pricing, this was broadly in line with pre-tender estimates. A clarification meeting had been held with the contractor, who advised that they used multi-skilled technicians, avoiding the need for revisits. They avoided use of sub-contractors. They successfully delivered services to other local authorities. The scoring and weighting within tender evaluations would be made explicit in future reports. The tender process had been reviewed, and it was supported by the external procurement specialists.

The Chair welcomed questions from other members of the committee:

Q1.  Which other local authorities worked with this contractor?

A1.  They included Lewisham, Greenwich and Camden boroughs, and Thurrock.

Q2.  Could officers give assurance that the budget would not be exceeded?

A2.  There would be effective contract monitoring. Regular reports were provided and there was robust monitoring of budgets and processes to manage any potential overspending within the Council. The risk of overspending had been examined: if there was a need for spending for safety that would be a priority for the Council and require re-budgeting, but this contract was for regular servicing so was quite predictable in respect of costs.

Q3.  Further details were requested on how the successful bidder’s tender submission had been evaluated.

A3.  Important aspects within the bid were highlighted.

Q4.  Why was the decision made to offer one contract for the whole borough?

A4.  It was considered more efficient to use one contractor for the whole borough.

Q5.  Further details were requested on the inflation allowance specified.

A5.  This was standard practice, and was averaged over the period of the contract.

Q6.  Was the holding of a clarification meeting with the bidder exceptional?

A6.  This was normal practice, and had no impact on the scoring.

Q7.  Further details were requested in respect of the promise of social value and ethical employment policy from the bidder.

A7.  This was a commitment from the contractor and they could be held to account on that. On the request of Cllr Rye, the specific commitments would be provided to members.

ACTION:  Andrew Cotton

Q8.  Further details were requested in respect of contingency and the contract price.

A8.  The contingency was normal in these contracts. The successful bidder had confirmed they used multi-faceted technicians.

Q9.  Further details were requested in respect of the expectations and the monitoring of the contractor’s work by Council officers.

A9.  It was confirmed there would be certification of the work programme, directed by the Council. There would also be financial management in respect of the costs of the work. Data would be monitored, evaluated and tested through the internal audit function. There would also be quality assurance from the contractor.

Q10.  How frequently would meetings take place between the Council and the contractor?

A10.  Meetings were anticipated monthly.

Q11.  Were there means to terminate the contract if issues arose?

A11.  The processes were set out: from informal expression of concern, to formalised procedures and, if not satisfactorily resolved, to serving of notice and termination of the contract. This was an industry standard contract and was robust.

Q12.  Further details were requested in respect of the use of the external consultancy company Echelon Consultancy Limited, and accountability.

A12.  The company was confirmed as an established specialist and worked on procurement support. LB Enfield officers scored the tenders. The consultancy were accountable for compliance with the procurement process and rules.

Q13.  Further details were requested in respect of certification and test checking of the contractors’ work.

A13.  Some work such as on communal area lighting would be certified by the operative. There would be tests of a sample by the company’s own supervisor. There would be further tests of a sample by Council officers to ensure quality was satisfactory. The company had to maintain quality standards to maintain their certification. For their accreditation they needed to have demonstrated quality systems. It was confirmed that two Council officers were qualified to carry out test checking of the works. This was consistent with the numbers in other local authorities and sufficient for covering sample checks.

Q14.  Details were requested of engagement with the residents.

A14.  It was confirmed there would be contact with the residents due to the nature of this contract, particularly where there was a need to access properties. This would be done in line with the equality procedures and the engagement team had awareness of best methods.

Q15.  Details were requested on climate change implications and carbon reduction.

A15.  The successful bidder would make fewer visits to properties as the technicians could do more checks in one visit. This would have an impact on mileage. There would be use of local suppliers where possible.