Issue - meetings

ES 20078

Members were asked to undertake pre decision scrutiny of the report regarding the procurement of moving traffic contravention cameras. The final decision concerning the recommendations of the report would be taken by the Executive. There were 13 cameras to procure, and it was hoped to begin enforcement later in 2021.

The recommendation was that the cameras would be procured via APCOA (the existing contractor). APCOA would sub-contract the procurement to TES Limited. 

A Member asked for assurances that the quality of the images would enable prosecutions to take place, and also asked if LBB would be able to add to the number of cameras being used going forward. The Head of Shared Parking Services stated that additional cameras could be added to the network in the future if required. Evidence of image quality would be provided by the contractor before LBB entered into a contractual arrangement.

The Vice Chairman asked if consideration had been applied to undertaking a joint procurement initiative with Bexley, with the possibility of making  efficiencies/savings. The Head of Shared Parking Services replied that no direct conversation to that end had taken place. However, if in the future the camera network was going to be extended, then this was something that could be considered.

The Chairman asked about the vendor (TES), reminding the Committee that they were a small business with approximately 8-10 staff. He inquired us to what protection LBB would have if TES went bust. This was because the Council had experienced previous issues when a company had gone bust and the Council had been unable to access the affected systems. He would not wish the situation to arise whereby TES went bust and then LBB was left with non-functioning cameras. The Head of Shared Parking Services responded that TES was a company that was known to the Council as they had provided services with respect to mobile CCTV cars in Bexley. She expressed confidence in their ability to fulfill their contractual obligations. However, she agreed with the Chairman that it would be prudent to include assurances in the Council’s agreement with APCOA which would make it clear that APCOA would take responsibility for any risk associated with using TES as a sub-contractor. 

A Member pointed out that in his view it should be the Council’s policy to support small and medium sized enterprises, and as TES was known to the Council then they should be given the opportunity to undertake the work.

RESOLVED that it be recommended to the Executive that they accept the recommendations of the report.