Agenda item

DRR 18/043

Members were presented with a report that provided them with an update on the provision of the Library Services contract with GLL over the first six months of operation. It was noted that the value of the contract over a ten year period was £40,739,536. The report indicated that the transfer of the library service had gone well, and that the contractor had been delivering the contract in accordance with service specifications and key performance indicators. The report had also been scrutinised at the Renewal, Recreation and Housing PDS Committee on 18^th September.

The Director of Regeneration (Colin Brand) and the Principal Client Officer for Libraries (Tim Woolgar) attended to present the report and to answer any questions.

The Committee was appraised that the contract was for a term of 10 years, with the option to extend by a further 5 years by mutual agreement. The contract had commenced on 1st November 2017. The transfer had been complex and had involved the TUPE transfer of over 130 staff, decommissioning and commissioning of major IT systems and hardware, as well as changes to the operational management of multiple satellite sites.  The process had been achieved with minimal effect on customers and with the maintenance of all essential services.

The Chairman noted that the Committee had been provided with the various KPIs and default indicators for the contract pre-meeting. The Chairman commented that the information provided with respect to the KPIs was detailed and extensive. He felt that the level of attainment with respect of the KPIs had been set to a reasonably high standard.

Mr Woolgar explained that 20 KPIs had been selected to represent the key elements of the service. These were KPIs that would be necessary to grow and maintain the service. During the initial six months of the contract, it had been agreed that no default penalties would be applied. It had been highlighted to the contractor during that period that there were certain areas where penalties would normally have been applied. The contractor had taken these factors on board as the contractor was keen to avoid financial penalties.

The Chairman was pleased to note that minimum disruption had been caused by the transfer and by industrial action. The Chairman referred to the percentage of children visiting the library, and said that wherever possible he would prefer to receive actual numbers rather than percentages.

The Chairman stated that he was always interested in innovation, and he was pleased to note that there had been a 33% increase in the download of E-Books. Mr Woolgar explained that the increase was probably due to ongoing marketing of the service by the Library, and because of the fact that an increased number of titles were now available. The Chairman praised the joint working with two other libraries which had increased the book supply.

The Chairman asked if all libraries were part of the Community Toilet Scheme. The response to this was no, as in most cases the cost of refurbishing existing libraries for toilet facilities was prohibitive. However, when new libraries were being built, they would be built with toilets.

The Vice Chairman referred to section 3.15 of the report which discussed the review of learning and maturity, and he asked how these targets would be set. Mr Woolgar responded that the contractor had to explain their proposals for this in a service plan that was measurable.

The Vice Chairman also enquired if ongoing efficiencies and performance figures would be built into the contract. Mr Woolgar responded that the contractor was expected to develop the service, and that savings would be reacquired into the service.

A Member stated that she was present at the Renewal and Recreation PDS Committee when the Library contract was first commissioned. She felt that the service level agreements and KPIs should have been seen at the meeting, and before the Gateway 1 stage. She also wondered if the type of service users were being monitored. It would be helpful to see if the number of users from groups such as ethnic minorities and children had increased.

Mr Woolgar confirmed that this type of question was asked in surveys, but the public were not obligated to answer.

A Member referred to section 8.1 of the report which was a table outlining responses to a survey. She requested clarification concerning the percentages noted in the table, as their meaning was unclear. Mr Woolgar stated that this was a matter that he would investigate further so that the relevant meanings could be provided. 

The Chairman was happy with the report and with progress to date. He was pleased with the economies of scale that had resulted from the integration with other libraries.

A Member queried the cost of monitoring the KPIs, and asked how many staff were involved in the monitoring. The Director of Regeneration, Renewal, and Recreation answered that there was already a thin client team, and this was expected to get thinner. 

RESOLVED that the report is noted, along with the performance of the service provider.