Agenda item

CEO 18003

 

The Committee was presented with the Part 1 report on the Corporate Contract Register and Contract Database update, and the accompanying print out of the corporate contracts register from the contracts database. Members were invited to consider the report and the contracts register.

 

The Chairman referenced contract ID 11, which was the Council Fleet Hire Contract, due to expire on 15^th May 2019. The contract had recently been looked at by the Commissioning Board, and would shortly be going to the Executive for approval.

 

The Chairman noted a problem in that there was growth within the contract with respect to the existing fleet of cars. The Director of Regeneration, Renewal and Recreation had been unable to access all of the data and information that was required to answer the Chairman fully on this matter as officers had been on leave.

 

The Director of Regeneration, Renewal and Recreation identified two issues:

 

1- The need to enter into a commercial framework agreement with Crown Commercial Suppliers.

 

2- The Council policy with respect to the provision of lease cars would need to be looked at, and this would involve discussions with the Chief Executive and the Head of Human Resources.

 

The Director of Regeneration, Renewal and Recreation stated that it was not critical for all of the relevant data to be available now, as any issues relating to the contract could still be looked at by the November meeting of the Executive.

 

The Chairman expressed concern as to how the anticipated growth could be mitigated. He was happy to delay further discussion of the matter so that the relevant data could be provided, and so that the substantive issue of Human Resources policy with respect to lease cars could be clarified.

 

The Director of Commissioning stated that the contract had been flagged on the database as a framework issue that was time sensitive. A separate report would be required concerning Council policy with respect to lease cars. The Chairman was happy to progress with discussions around the framework agreement and he asked if there was a back-up plan if the framework agreement failed.

 

The Head of Commissioning and Procurement advised that LBB could use alternate framework agreements if necessary. The Director of Regeneration, Renewal and Recreation stated that the Fleet Manager was engaging in the process, and that the timescale in relation to the framework agreement was not a significant risk. The Director of Commissioning stated that what was required was to understand the total contract cumulative value. The Chairman said that he could not see how the growth could be mitigated.

 

The Chief Executive commented that the issue that needed to be dealt with was the issue of recruitment and retention, which added to the complexities of the situation. It could be the case that it would be necessary to still have a lease car policy due to recruitment and retention issues. The extra costs would then have to be mitigated in another way.

 

The Chairman expressed concern regarding the practice of incorporating lease cars in the remuneration package for a particular group of people in the Council. The Chairman stated that as far as he was aware, the Council had agreed to adopt a policy of decreasing its pool of leased cars, and that this policy had not been changed.

 

The Chief Executive explained that what he needed to ascertain was what level of posting in social care the lease offering was applicable to. The Chairman expressed concern that no meeting of Members had been held at any level to discuss what in effect may be a breach of policy. The Chairman was concerned that the number of lease cars had increased substantially. The Chief Executive pointed out that LBB needed social workers.

 

The Director of Commissioning outlined that a piece of work was required to ascertain how many social care staff took lease cars, and how many took cash alternatives. This would be investigated by the Director of Regeneration, Renewal and Recreation and the Director of Human Resources. This information would then be presented to the GP&L Committee and would form part of the next budget strategy. It would be necessary to determine also what the maximum contract value would be. The Chairman was worried about setting a precedent for policy reversal; he also suggested that in some cases the use of a pool car may suffice. He was also concerned that the number of cars being leased under the contract was increasing, and so the growth pressures would need mitigating.

 

The Executive Director of Environment and Community Services was called forward to provide an update around the Mortuary Contract. The Chairman expressed concern about the lack of competition for the contract. He was concerned about the length of time that had been taken in attempting to resolve the issue. He stated that LBB had missed the opportunity to build a mortuary themselves. He was perplexed as to how LBB had got into such a mess and was now seemingly backed into a corner.

 

The Executive Director explained that the market for the service was very restricted. An option had been looked at with respect to LB Croydon; this would have involved capital expenditure. The contract had been tendered in the normal way, but no other bids had been received. The Portfolio Holder had agreed to enter into negotiations with the PRUH, and these were now progressing. The prices that had now been quoted were higher than the prices that LBB had paid previously. However, it had been the case that the prices that LBB had paid over the last 10—15 years were less than the usual market price.

 

The Chairman stated that currently the number of post mortems undertaken on behalf of LBB was roughly 600 per annum at a cost of £250.00 each. He was concerned that this cost might treble. The Executive Director responded that the cost was likely to be at least double, but not treble. The Chairman enquired how this cost would be mitigated. The Executive Director replied that the cost pressure would either be dealt with within the portfolio or corporately.

 

The Director of Commissioning and the Chairman commended the work that had been undertaken by the Assistant Director for Public Protection in this regard. She was not only involved in the current negotiations, but had been working on developing a commissioning strategy for the future so that LBB would not find themselves in this position again. The Chairman stressed that officers should make clear at an earlier stage when problems were emerging. Now LBB was left in the difficult position of negotiating with a monopoly. The Director of Commissioning assured that there had been no earlier indicators that LBB would not get a compliant bid. 

 

A Member enquired if some form of joint mortuary contract agreement could be undertaken with LB Bexley. The Committee heard that LB Bexley was in the same position as LB Bromley, and would probably benefit from the current negotiations between LBB and Kings NHS Trust.

 

The Committee had a discussion concerning the risk element of entering into negotiations with Kings NHS Trust as they were in financial measures. The general consensus of the Committee and officers was that it would be better to enter into a negotiated agreement which involved LBB investing a capital sum. This would be of mutual benefit as Kings would appreciate the capital injection, whilst LBB could negotiate some form of control.

 

A Member asked if the service could be taken back in house. It was explained that this idea had been rejected in the past because it was deemed to be too expensive. A Member highlighted the fact that LBB had an investment fund that had been used to buy properties. She suggested that it may be prudent to investigate if the fund could be used to build a new mortuary or to refurbish the building in Beckenham that had been used as a public mortuary previously. This suggestion was seconded by another Member. The Chairman said that this was something that may be worth investigating. The Executive Director of Environment and Community Services felt that it would be better to have a partnership and capital investment agreement with Kings—this would save on the cost of building a mortuary from scratch. The Director of Commissioning briefed that going forward, a report would go to the Commissioning Board that would investigate the viability of LBB using its own mortuary.

 

It was agreed that when the new capital plan report regarding LBB building a mortuary from scratch, or refurbishing an existing building (like the former mortuary building in Beckenham) was available, it should be presented to the Contracts and Commissioning Sub Committee as an information item. The initial scrutiny of the report would be undertaken by the Environmental Services PDS Committee. 

 

The Committee discussed the Highways Engineering Consultancy Contract with AECOM, and the Openview Security Solutions Contract, with Openview Security Solutions Limited. It was noted that the Highways Engineering Consultancy Contract was a framework contract that had been procured via a framework agreement. It was explained that in this case, a full procurement exercise was not required and that any modifications to the contract would be achieved via change control notices. The preferred option was to continue with the term contactor, but fall-back options were available if required.

 

The Chairman was concerned that there may be a systemic issue existing whereby issues were not being looked at early enough. The Chief Executive referenced the red flags on the database, and explained that officers were also working to ensure that the contracts that were marked with red squares, did not progress to contracts that would be flagged as red.

 

The Chairman received an update on the Openview Security Solutions Contract. It was noted that this was a contract for automatic bus lane cameras. Part of the contract was for maintenance, and part of the contract was for software. The maintenance part of the contract was no longer used as it was not cost effective. Investigations were under way to see if the CCTV maintenance could be undertaken as part of the wider CCTV contract. The contract had been red flagged as discussions had not been finalised, and because the contract manager’s notes were not informative enough.

 

An update was provided on the Waste Disposal Contract. The final bids for the contract were due in by 2^nd October, and it was anticipated that the contract would be in place by April 1^st. 

 

The more substantive issue was around ECHS contracts. The Chairman expressed concern about the number of ECHS contracts that had been delayed in going to the Commissioning Board. The Chairman asked what the Deputy Chief Executive and the Chief Executive would be doing to minimise the delay in the finalising of these reports, so that they did not end up in a ‘red flag’ status.

 

The Chairman referred to item 3 on the Commissioning Board Work Plan which was The Children’s Commissioning Plan. The Chairman was very concerned about the number of times the plan was due to be presented to the Commissioning Board, but had not been presented. The Chairman was equally concerned that the reason given for this was that no one was available to present the report. It was noted that eight reports were due to be presented to the Commissioning Board on 24^th September. The Chairman was concerned because the growth in the contracts needed to be looked at and mitigated. He was concerned that in many cases the business plan or Business Gateway reports had been delayed. The Chairman wanted to understand what was being done to prevent many of the substantial ECHS reports from going into the red-flagged category.

 

The Director of Commissioning explained that not everything on the Commissioning Plan was a new contract, some were service re-designs. The Chairman stated that he was equally concerned about service re-design as this was also indicative of cost pressures. He wondered if ECHS was being staffed correctly. The Chief Executive stated that this was something he would be investigating further. The Chairman continued that the matter raised the fundamental question of how the Council should be operating across all of its services. Should the Council be operating over two strands? One could be an Operational Group, and the other strand could be a Central Commissioning Control Group. The other matter was whether or not staff had received the correct training, were happy in their work, and possessed the required expertise. The Chief Executive assured that all of these matters were being considered.

 

A Member enquired if LBB had staff in this area that possessed the relevant knowledge, expertise and intellectual ability. He hoped that in the future the staff would have sufficient expertise so that consultants would not be required. The Chief Executive assured that the staffing levels in the Commissioning Team had been increased, and that this would be enhanced if required. It may also be possible to transfer staff in from other areas. The Director of Commissioning said that she had a young team that she was developing, and who were growing in expertise and knowledge.

 

The Director of Commissioning referred the Committee to item 3 on the Commissioning Board Work Plan which was the Children’s Commissioning Plan. This was a Plan that she had been working on with Mark Davidson (currently employed on a consultancy basis). The Plan was the first stage in the commissioning strategy, and the report was currently with the Director. This was an important strategy document that would impact on various strands including learning disabilities, the elderly and mental health. The Chairman voiced concerns about using high level consultancy staff. His concern was that in terms of contractual deadlines there was sometimes a drift; the other concern was that when contact with the consultant was lost, there was a loss of knowledge base.

 

A Member confirmed that in October, a report was being presented to the Executive, Resources and Contracts PDS Committee concerning contractors. He also expressed concern regarding situations where the contractor was also an official officer, and with the associated delegation of powers to the contractor in that role. He suggested that this was a matter that could be looked at by the Constitutional Improvement Working Party. The Chief Executive said that he would take the matter forward, and it was agreed that the Chief Executive attend the next meeting.

 

 

 

 

RESOLVED that:

 

1)  When the new capital plan report regarding LBB building a mortuary from scratch, or refurbishing an existing building (like the former mortuary building in Beckenham) was available, it should be presented to the Contracts and Commissioning Sub Committee as an information item.

 

2) The Chief Executive should investigate the matter of consultants (in their role as official officers) receiving delegated powers, and whether or not this matter should be referred to the Constitutional Improvement Working Group

 

3) The Chief Executive attends the December meeting.