Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr Tim Stevens.

Cllrs Simon Fawthrop, Kate Lymer and Michael Turner collaboratively apologised for having to leave by 7.00pm to attend the Plans Sub Committee No 4.

Apologies were also received from Amanda Henry, and Jan McWhinnie.

There were no new declarations of interest.

The Vice-Chairman and one Member raised concerns that the minutes of the LJCC meeting for 25th February 2016 did not properly reflect the tone and nature of the meeting regarding the Library Service.

There were no concerns raised regarding the factual accuracy of the minutes for 25th February 2016, and so they were agreed as a correct record.

The Staff Side would like to ask the following question:

Unite have noted that all of the reports concerning the IT contract that have gone to various committees, have been part 2 reports.

The written response provided and the response to the 23rd March Executive do not suggest that these wider costs, borne partly by staff, have been reported and therefore factored into decisions.

Were the wider costs to the Council reflected in these reports? 

Background Information-Previous Question and Answer

There was a question from the Staff Side at the previous LJCC meeting pertaining to the IT contract, which was not answered on the evening of the meeting, and it was agreed that a written answer be disseminated to the Committee in due course.

The question and subsequent answer is detailed below. Please note that the original question was split into 2 sections, so there are effectively 2 questions and 2 answers.

The original question is written in the red text and the answer is in the blue text:  

The Council has just announced the awarding of the IT contract to BT with estimated savings of 10%.  Is this further savings on top of the SunGard contract subsumed by Capita that was intended to give 25% savings? 

The SunGard /Capita contract replaced two contracts, one run by Liberata for IT services and one by Demovo for telephony. The contract was also awarded jointly with Lewisham.  Amalgamating two services into one contract and letting jointly with Lewisham gave savings of approximately 25% overall. The discount for the joint arrangement with Lewisham amounted  to 17% of the total savings. The withdrawal of Lewisham at  the contractual break point would have led to the joint arrangements savings element being lost from 1^st April 2016 .

The Part 2 Executive reports which have been considered by the E&R PDS Committee, and the Contracts Working Group, detailed how the BT savings would be achieved. This was not a straightforward calculation as the 2 contracts were not like for like; the BT framework had elements included that were outside the scope of the Capita contract. These arose from projected changes post 2016 including, the efficiencies that come from the framework model of procurement, the inclusion in the main contract price of certain charges e.g.–the People`s Network, where Capita  made a separate charge, and server hardware maintenance being included in the overall  contract price, and the flexibility we have around the consumption based model. Overall the BT contract is projected to give an estimated initial 11% saving compared to the revised Capita contract costs without Lewisham.

Now we are at the change of contracts is there a “final account” / report to the Contracts Committee setting out any true savings achieved and does this reflect in any way the wider costs to the service through IT failures to the IT service?

The contractor has delivered on budget. Key Performance Indicator information has been reported to E&R PDS and latterly at the Contract  ...  view the full agenda text for item 31.

The Staff Side asked the following question:

“Unite have noted that all of the reports concerning the IT contract that have gone to various committees, have been part 2 reports.

The written response provided and the response to the 23rd March Executive do not suggest that these wider costs, borne partly by staff, have been reported and therefore factored into decisions.

Were the wider costs to the Council reflected in these reports?” 

The Employer’s Side answered by stating that the report to the Executive and Resources PDS Committee meeting on 12th March 2015 was a public report, and contained a detailed review of contractor performance. Other reports dealing with contracting options were quite properly part 2 reports.

Under the CAPITA contact, there was a requirement to have a minimum system availability of 99%. The contractor met this performance standard throughout the contract period, and in the last 5 quarters of the contract, commencing at Year 4 Quarter 4 and running through to contract end at Year 5 Quarter 4, the system availability was  99.62%, 99.6%, 99.47%; 99.5% and 99.47%.

The Employer’s Side highlighted that it was important to be aware that the contractor had responsibility for core systems, e.g. Outlook and Lync, but was not responsible for directly supporting “line of business” applications. The ICT contractor’s responsibility was to ensure the operating platform was kept up to date.  This would be achieved by proper maintenance, security updates/ back-ups, and engaging with the Application Vendor if there were issues.

The Employer’s Side referenced the previous response: 

 “It must be remembered that  IT issues can arise from  a variety of sources including but not limited to user error , hardware failures, data corruption, issues with third party suppliers and software and external events, as well as issues arising from contractor performance . Whilst there is increasing dependency on IT, not all tasks undertaken are dependent on IT.”

It was acknowledged that system availability dipped below 99.6% for the final 3 quarters of the contract. However the contractor did meet the KPI requirements; system availability was in line with the previous contract, and for the reason set out, it was neither possible or appropriate to undertake the suggested calculation.

Gill Slater responded by presenting an overview of the various costs and savings of the previous and current IT contracts. She expressed the view that the data presented did not allow for the wider costs that may have been experienced due to systems failure, and that all costs should be fairly reported. The Staff Side contended that the Liberata contract demonstrated significant failings of a contracted out service. The Staff Side expressed the view that if wider costs were not reported, then that was a significant worry; they felt that all contracts should be open and vigorously assessed.

Lesley Moore (Director of Commissioning) responded by stating that all the elements of costs and savings with and without the partnership with Lewisham (for the previous IT contract with Capita), had been clearly outlined.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

The Staff Side would like to ask the following question:

Lessons are learnt from all contracts.  At the 23^rd March Executive, members asked for a report back on the Total Facilities Management Commissioning project once due diligence was underway before a decision could be taken, particularly if it was felt that staff needed reassurance.  The Commissioning Team agreed that discussions between the contractor and staff should be taking place.  Are Members aware how the lessons learnt from the TLG contract are being used to inform the TFM proposals?

The Staff Side asked the following question:

Lessons are learnt from all contracts.  At the 23^rd March Executive, Members asked for a report back on the Total Facilities Management Commissioning project, once due diligence was underway, before a decision could be taken-- particularly if it was felt that staff needed reassurance.  The Commissioning Team agreed that discussions between the contractor and staff should be taking place.  Are Members aware how the lessons learnt from the TLG contract are being used to inform the TFM proposals?

Lesley Moore (Director of Commissioning) attended to answer the question.

The Vice Chairman (Kathy Smith) proposed that this item be deferred. Instead, a paper would be prepared by Kathy Smith for the next meeting, focusing on what the Staff Side perceived as deficiencies in the Landscape Group contract. This proposal was agreed by the Committee. 

RECOMMENDED that the Staff Side present a paper to the Committee, outlining their concerns concerning the contract that was outsourced to the Landscape Group.  The paper should be available two weeks before the next meeting of the LJCC to allow members to understand the issues.

The Staff Side would like to ask the following question:

Does the Council have a publically accessible Corporate Risk Management Policy Statement and Strategy?  If so does it consider and address the risks to the organisation, in terms of Resilience, as the Council moves towards an increasingly commissioned authority?

The Staff Side asked the following question:

Does the Council have a publically accessible Corporate Risk Management Policy Statement and Strategy?  If so does it consider and address the risks to the organisation, in terms of Resilience, as the Council moves towards an increasingly commissioned authority?

It was noted that an email was sent to both sides on June 3^rd detailing the following answer that had been provided by Mr David Stevenson:

“A copy of our Risk Management Policy Statement is attached; this is available on the intranet.

Within our overall Risk Management Strategy, LBB identifies various risk categories, including the operational risk category ‘Contractual and Partnership’ which includes ‘Risks associated with the failure of contractors to deliver services or products to the agreed cost and specification. Procurement, contract and relationship management. Overall partnership arrangements.’

Whilst the Policy Statement and Strategy do not specifically mention Resilience (Business Continuity) and commissioning, both have been identified as corporate risks.  

Attached is an extract from the Corporate Risks / Organisational issues that were presented to Audit Sub-Committee in April”.

Two documents had been attached to the email for clarification, these were:

·  Risk Management Policy Statement

·  An extract of a document presented to the Audit Sub Committee in April 2016 which outlined Commissioning and Business Continuity/Emergency Planning risks.

These documents were also tabled at the meeting.

Mr Stevenson attended the meeting to brief the committee and answer questions.

Gill Slater highlighted that the Risk Management Policy was not publically available, and that this was a source of concern to the public. She asked why “Risk” was not factored into Gateway reports, and new contracts. She expressed the view that as all change involved risk, then potential risks to the Council should be documented in the reports.

Cllr Colin Smith acknowledged that risk should be identified in contracts, but queried why risk should just be confined to new contracts, as there would also be similar risks applicable to existing services. It was often the case that risk management was better handled in the commercial sector, and it was not necessarily the case that risks would increase though outsourcing.

The Director of Human Resources stated that every organisation would hold a risk register. The risk to the Council lay in holding the contractor to the terms of the contract. Every report set out key issues, financial considerations, legal issues, staffing implications, and impact assessments.

The Director of Commissioning explained to the Committee that the commissioning process looked at what was required, and in what ways this could be achieved. This may involve outsourcing, but it also meant that sometimes services would remain in house. A detailed business case would be prepared by officers that would assess all possible options. The report would then go to Members who would then make the final decision on whether or not the service would be out sourced or not. It had also to be borne in mind that limited budgets were available.

Councillor Wilkins stated that she was interested  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

The Committee is requested to note that the next meeting will be held Wednesday 19^th October 2016 at 6.30pm.

The date of the next meeting was confirmed as Wednesday 19^th October 2016.