Agenda item

Report CEO 15010

Report CEO15010 was the report “Expenditure on Consultants 2014/15 and 2015/16” written by Lesley Moore (Assistant Director for Special Projects and Transformation). The report was originally written for the ER PDS Committee who had requested a full report on Consultant expenditure in the last year, and was now also being referred to the Public Protection and Safety PDS Committee for further scrutiny of the contracts relating to Public Protection.

The Chairman referred the Committee to Appendix 2 of the report which detailed the Public Protection Safety Portfolio Contracts. She directed the attention of the Committee to the consultancy contract given to Osborne Thomas Ltd with respect to work carried out in undertaking a staff investigation concerning a disciplinary matter. The cost of this single contract was £10,710. The Chairman asked why an outside consultant was employed to carry out this work when it seemed sensible that this sort of work could be undertaken by LBB HR. The Executive Director for Environmental and Community Services responded that this consultant was procured by HR as they felt that in this particular instance, they did not have the capacity to undertake the work.

Councillor David Cartwright echoed the concerns expressed by the Chairman, and wondered how the PDS Committee could ascertain if the total expenditure on consultants for the Public Protection Portfolio (nearly £47k) was value for money or not?  The Executive Director for Environmental and

Community Services answered that more detail was available, but the information was not detailed on this particular report. Cllr Cartwright felt that the Committee should see more detail of this contract so that they could scrutinize properly.

The Chairman then turned her attention to the consultancy costs of £27,968K paid to Eclipse Research Limited with respect to CCTV consultancy. She asked if this was value for money, given the problems that had emerged with the CCTV contract.  The Executive Director for Environmental and Community Services stated that it should be borne in mind that a gap had been left by the departure of the CCTV Manager. It was this consultant that had formulated the CCTV contract that LBB had gone to market with. The Director was of the opinion that in this case the consultant had done a very good job. The contract had been the subject of a legal challenge over the procurement process. The fact that the legal challenge had been defeated swiftly by LBB’s Legal Team, was a testament to the soundness of the original contract process used by the consultant.

Cllr Michael Tickner observed that in all of the Public Protection Portfolio contracts, only one tender for the contracts was being looked at; he expressed the view that the contracts were not being tendered properly. The

Executive Director for Environmental and Community Services explained to the Committee that all of the contracts were tendered using an online system called “Due North”. He felt that it may be helpful if more than one system could be used. Cllr Tickner enquired if the contractors had to pay a fee to register on the online portal; the answer to this was no.

Cllr Samaris Huntington Thresher stated that the fact that in all these cases there was only one bid for contracts was a cause for concern and that this should be challenged. She also made the observation that this problem was not confined to the Public Protection Portfolio. She queried how the marketing for these contracts was being undertaken. She suggested that LBB look at new ways of marketing contracts, possibly using the LBB website as one alternative. She was keen to involve local businesses. The Executive Director for Environmental and Community Services pointed out that in some instances it was the case that the market was very specialised, and in these circumstances it was often difficult to get comparisons. Cllr Samaris Huntington Thresher was interested to know what percentage of contracts accounted for single bids, and was of the opinion that this was a matter that should be referred back to the E&R PDS Committee.

The Vice Chairman stated that officers were following Contract Procedure Rules and had acted in accordance with their delegated authority under the Rules.

RESOLVED that the report on Expenditure on Consultants be referred back to the E&R PDS Committee for further scrutiny.