In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, questions to the Resources Portfolio Holder must be received in writing 4 working days before the date of the meeting. Therefore please ensure questions are received by the Democratic Services Team by 5pm on Thursday 15th March 2018.
Minutes:
The following question for verbal response was received from Cllr Ian Dunn:
Please explain the rationale behind the weighting of 60% to price and 40% to quality applied to the evaluation of virtually every contract awarded by the Council. Please explain why this weighting is equally applicable to a project contract such as school construction and an ongoing service contract.
Reply:
The general approach, particularly given the financial pressures facing the Council, is that tenders will be marked 60% Price and 40% Quality, unless otherwise agreed in consultation with the by the Head of
Finance. A case will need to be made for why the financial score would need to reduce downwards.
However, within the 40% Quality score, all service providers will need to reach a minimum score of 5 (out of a possible 10) in each element of the quality score, otherwise they will not progress forward.
The evaluation process is included in Guidance Notes held on the Managers Toolkit, however, the 60/40 split needs to be reviewed more closely when considering Building Contracts where elements of quality may be embedded in the specification, in which case the adjustment on price could increase.
Supplementary Question:
Cllr Dunn noted that some Local Authorities took a different approach and have different weightings to the split between price and quality. Cllr Dunn asked the Portfolio Holder why the view of 60/40 had been taken rather than a variable approach.
Reply:
The Portfolio Holder noted that there was flexibility in certain cases however in the vast majority of cases a 60/40 split was deemed to be appropriate. The Portfolio Holder noted that LB Bromley had been well in advance of other Local Authorities in terms of outsourcing and processes had been perfected over a period of time. The 60/40 split reflected the current pressures faced by the Council and ensured that contracts were let in the most economical way as well as ensuring the quality element. The Portfolio Holder concluded that he was satisfied that 60/40 was the right balance.
Supplementary Question 2:
When was the last time a contract was assessed using a different split?
Reply:
As a result of feedback from the market the Modular Homes contract was tendered using a 50/50 split. The Contract for Learning Disabilities was also tendered on a 50/50 price/quality basis. When activities for the Pension Fund were being reviewed a 70/30 split in favour of quality was used as it was felt that quality was needed.
Supplementary from Cllr Wilkins:
Is there not a case for reviewing this as there have been a number of instances of a limited number of contractors expressing interest as a result of questions around the quality criteria. Cllr Wilkins cited Mission Care as an example.
Reply:
On behalf of the Portfolio Holder, the Director of Commissioning highlighted that LB Bromley worked with Mission Care and had secured good spot rates on beds. Historically, where block beds were purchased there were often voids. Mission Care had always represented good value to the Council. There was no evidence of bids not being submitted as a result of quality criteria. When the Council did not get the bids it was expecting feedback was always sought and no such feedback had been received in relation to quality criteria.
Supplementary from Cllr N. Bennett:
Can the Portfolio Holder confirm that in drawing up contracts and specifications often quality is agreed within the contract.
The Portfolio Holder confirmed this to be the case and suggested that moving forward there was a need for the Council to ensure that a considerable safety net was put in place in terms of the way in which contracts were monitored.