Agenda item

The Director of Education and the Commissioner: Education introduced the item and explained that in the period from August to September 2016, three Education contracts had been put forward for authorisation from the Portfolio Holder for Education.  In each case, authorisation for an exemption to competitive tendering was sought to allow continuation of existing contract arrangements – but with insufficient time given to the Portfolio Holder, before the existing contract terms expired, to reasonably allow consideration of alternative courses of action. 

The Sub-Committee considered a report which provided background to the Education contracts in question, and information on management action taken to avoid further instances of late notified decisions on contract actions.

The Portfolio Holder for Education had expressed significant concern at being presented with multiple incidences of late notified requests for authorisation; and asked the Director of Education to ensure that management action was taken to ensure that all future requests for similar authorisations (contract extensions and exemptions) were sought with at least six months remaining on the existing contracts terms, in line with the latest version of the Bromley Contract Procedure Rules.

In June 2016, ECHS had been restructured so that commissioning support, previously separately based within the ECHS Commissioning Team, was transferred into the respective departments within ECHS. From August 2016 onwards, the Commissioner Education had been tasked with providing oversight and monitoring of the contract portfolio within Education.  It was noted that responsibility and accountability for each contract still sat with the relevant Head of Service or Budget Holder.  The Commissioner Education now maintained a regularly updated status report on every contract held within Education Services.  This was closely cross referenced with the ECHS Contract Register, with updates provided to the ECHS Procurement Team on a regular basis. The status report was Red/Amber/Green rated with Red contracts identified as at risk with immediate action necessary and Amber contracts identified as requiring action imminently (or action was underway and on track).  The timeline for contract action was clearly identified for each contract.  The status report was regularly circulated to all Education Managers and, more importantly, was a standing item at the fortnightly Education Management Team meeting where the status of each contract was reviewed.

This action had demonstrated immediate improvement in the timeliness of contract actions within the Education department.  All contracts due to end in March 2017, requiring Education Portfolio Holder authorisation for extension and/or exemption, had been successfully finalised six months in advance of the contract end date.  Likewise, authorisation for similar contract actions below the threshold for Portfolio Holder authorisation, had been completed six months prior to the contract end date.  For other contracts that were due to end in March 2017, a Request for Quotes or tender process was underway.  Heads of Service had been informed that no authorisation for extension or exemption, at any authorisation level, would be supported for any contract that required a tender process or Request for Quotes process to take place – it would be up to the Head of Service to manage any issues that arose from any delay in completing the tender process.

It was not possible to guarantee that all exemption authorisation requests were finalised no later than six months prior to the existing contract end date as there were circumstances that could arise outside of officer control.  However, the Education department expected that, notwithstanding exceptional circumstances outside of officer control, all future contract authorisation actions requiring Member decision would be presented at least six months in advance, allowing proper consideration of alternative options to be given.

The Commissioner: Education provided assurances to the Sub-Committee that a series of management actions had been put in place to ensure that avoidable delays in contractual processes did not occur in the future.  Contracts were being closely monitored and contractual processes were either already completed or underway for those due to expire in March 2017.

The Chairman reported that the robust management action that had been taken was in line with what he would have expected from his previous experience working with the Department.  The Chairman sought further information concerning how the situation with James Dixon Primary School had arisen.  In response, the Director of Education explained that the school had been in a period of transition with a change in Head Teacher.  As a school they had been concerned about the impact of expansion on the school as a whole.  Following months of discussion and negotiation a point was reached where the school declared they were not ready for permanent expansion.  The Director of Education further reported that the school would shortly be converting to academy status.

In response to a question concerning the budgetary implications of a waiver that had been approved but not used, the Director of Commissioning confirmed that there would be no budgetary implications as the release of funding would only be triggered once the waiver was used.  The Departmental Head of Finance would have been involved in identifying funding for the contract and would ensure that the necessary funding was available.  A Member suggested that reports seeking contract waivers should provide an explanation of the budget from which the funding had come.

Turning to the Education Department Contracts Register, the Chairman noted that the SIMS Licenses for schools contract would not continue and queried whether another service would be put in its place.  In response, the Commissioner: Education confirmed that the contract would not be replaced as academies were responsible for funding their own licenses and it was not financially viable for the Local Authority to fund licenses for the few remaining maintained schools.  All affected schools were informed in September 2016 and no issues had been raised.

The Committee considered the challenges surrounding SEN Transport and the savings that were required in order to contain spending within budget.  The Director of Commissioning stressed that a significant piece of commissioning work surrounding SEN Transport needed to be undertaken.  Work to identify how money was currently being spent and whether more service users could be placed in Borough had already begun.  The Director of Education reported that a paper, seeking to review an alternative framework for SEN transport to include a broader range of providers, would be presented to the Executive in due course.  The Chairman agreed that a fundamental review of SEN transport was required as current options were limited which in turn limited the potential for savings.  A new approach to SEN transport was required.  The Director of Commissioning reported that she met regularly with the Chief Executive, the Director of Education, and the Head of ECHS Finance to review how the SEN transport service was delivered.  In the future, in order to address budgetary issues, a change in the policy approach to SEN transport may be required.  Work had only just commenced on this and would continue until a viable resolution had been identified.

RESOLVED: That the report and the management actions put in place to ensure timely action in relation to Education contracts in future be noted.