The Staff Side would like to raise the issue of what they perceive to be problems with the service delivery of contracts commissioned to the private sector.
Minutes:
The matter of alleged contractual problems was opened on the Staff Side by Gill Slater who focussed on what the Staff Side perceived as problems with the Capita IT contract. The Staff Side commenced by referencing the report that went to the Executive and Resources Committee on the 12th March 2015. This was report number CSD 15044-- Capita Secure Information Systems Contract Monitoring Report. The Staff Side argued that it was not democratic for an organisation to be self-reporting, and that Capita had failed to advise that their KPI target with respect to calls answered during 2014, had not been met.
The Staff Side contended that Capita were not achieving their service request resolution targets, and that the report outlined Capita’s failings. It was further argued that Capita did not accept responsibility or liability for their actions. The Staff Side noted that the IT contract had originally been allocated to SunGard, but the contract had gone to Capita after a subsequent buy out.
Lesley Moore (Assistant Director-Corporate Projects and Transformation) attended the meeting to speak about commissioning and contracts, and to answer any questions that may arise. She advised Members that officers in the Commissioning Group were currently reviewing the governance arrangements, particularly if more complex services are outsourced.
To get a balanced view, the Assistant Director informed the Committee that she personally had oversight of the Liberata contract, and had recently called in the Head of Liberata for a meeting to discuss a problem with KPI’s. Weekly meetings were held subsequently until the targets were hit. The Assistant Director stated that LBB were keen to avoid reputational risk, and that regular monitoring took place. She then went onto explain about the approach to contract management and the associated resources allocated which will vary depending on value of the contract, strategic importance and the level of risk. Some contracts would therefore require monthly meetings with the provider, some quarterly and some less frequently.
A Member made the comment that there were huge issues with Liberata and housing benefit processing errors, and that because of this there were instances where individuals had lost their tenancy. The Member continued that she had attended a meeting with Peter Turner (Finance Director) and with Liberata in an attempt to understand the mechanisms and processes involved in dealing with housing benefit claims. The Member expressed concerns to the Committee that the scale of housing benefit errors was not being communicated properly to Members and PDS Committees. The Member expressed the view that Councillors needed to understand contracts. Concern was also expressed at the possibility of reducing PDS Committees resulting in less accountability and scrutiny.
The Assistant Director-Corporate Projects and Transformation, stated that where there existed large contracts and multiple contracts, it was unrealistic to expect that there would never be any problems; however it was the case that when problems were identified, LBB had the authority to hold contractors to account.
There was some confusion in the meeting initially as to the differences between “thin” and “fat” clients, and so clarification was provided by the Assistant Director. It was explained that a “thin” client referred to the retention of core expertise within the Authority, and that it would always be the case that this would be required to deal with complaints, and to oversee the monitoring and the fulfilment of contracts.
The Chairman suggested that a seminar or training be set up for Members to assist in the understanding of the contracting and commissioning process. This was agreed by the Committee.
The Committee were in agreement that there should be more involvement by Members in contract monitoring.
RESOLVED:
(1) that a seminar or some form of alternate training be set up to aid Members in their understanding of the commissioning process, and the monitoring of contracts
(2) that there should be more Member involvement and scrutiny of contracts.