RESOLVED:  that under section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for this item of business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Schedule 12(A) of the Act, relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person and it was considered that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.

(This is the complete Minute of the discussion that took place during the exclusion of the public and press. No separate summary has therefore been prepared.)

(Councillors Bettington, Bowen, Councillor Cutter, Harvey, Hubbard, Hunt, Jones Preece and Robertson declared personal interests.)

The Committee reviewed the decision of the Cabinet Member (Health & Wellbeing) concerning the procurement of services for children and young people.

The decision had been called in by three Members of the Committee: Councillors MAF Hubbard, JLV Kenyon and SJ Robertson.

A document was circulated at the meeting setting out a redacted, and consequently publicly available, version of an exempt report previously circulated to Members of the Committee.  A public and redacted version of  questions submitted by those who had called-in the decision together with the responses was also circulated.  The questions and responses had not been available for circulation prior to the meeting. 

The Committee was advised that contractual negotiations were continuing and that it was important to ensure that every party involved was treated fairly and that commercial confidentiality was preserved.

On that understanding a representative of a Trust that funded third sector organisations was invited to address the Committee about general concerns they had about some aspects of the process that had been followed.   They expressed concern that it was their impression that some actions had been taken that did not comply with the Council’s compact with the Third Sector and that the way in which the process had been conducted, with short notice of changes to arrangements, had made it difficult for charities, who were reliant on volunteers,  to participate in the process.

One of the Members who had initiated the call-in emphasised that given the importance of the services under consideration and concerns expressed by a number of volunteers the decision had been called in to ensure that the procurement process had been conducted properly.

The Director of People’s Services commented that efforts had been made to improve commissioning and procurement processes to ensure that the providers clearly understood the processes and the services that they would be expected to provide.  The Assistant Director noted that the Service was keen to improve its processes and learn from the first year of operation and had taken steps to ensure that it did.

The Head of Commissioning (Children’s Services) commented on the arrangements that had been made to tender for the services under discussion. She observed that four months’ notice had been given of the intention to end the existing contracts and that providers had been advised that they should start to implement the exit strategies that they had been requested to produce in July 2012 to show how they would manage contracts until the end of March 12.  She acknowledged that there had been some slippage in the contractual process.  This was not uncommon when dealing with something of such complexity.

The Interim Category and Supplier Relationship Manager then gave a thorough explanation of the procurement process itself and .

In discussion the following principal points were made:

·         Concern was expressed at the slippage in the process and the uncertainty this had created for service providers and service users. In response the Director commented that the need for improvements in this part of the process was acknowledged and improvements were proposed.

·         The fairness of the process was questioned.  The report to the Cabinet Member had stated, at paragraph 7, that some services that had been previously procured individually had been grouped together the view being that this would make them more attractive to potential providers and potentially secure greater value for money.  However, no provider had tendered for 3 of the lots of services offered under the single tendering exercise for targeted and specialist family support, previously provided under three separate contracts. It was suggested that this meant that the strategy had therefore failed, raising a number of questions about future service delivery and who would provide a service apparently unattractive to existing providers.  It was suggested that the effect on the care economy in the County also needed to be taken into consideration.

The report noted that discussions were now taking place with preferred providers.  The basis on which these discussions could take place and their appropriateness was also questioned.

In response it was stated that the issue was not about the services themselves changing and becoming unattractive.  A number of providers had registered interest on the Council’s procurement portal.  The issue was the stretch targets included in the tender and the capacity of providers to meet these targets.

For the lot where the evaluation of the tenders received had found that the tenders did not meet some technical and financial criteria, and the three lots where no tender had been received, the Council had exhausted the formal procurement route and could open discussions with other preferred providers.  The aim was to provide a revised and more targeted service.  Having tested the market the Council could now consider its options.  These included the option of the Council itself providing services.

The tendering process was continuing and no evidence had been provided that small providers were being excluded from the process.

Some Members expressed regret that the length of discussion on other issues on the agenda had affected the Committee’s ability to consider the issue before them to the degree that it deserved.  It was suggested that this was a failing of the new scrutiny model that required the single scrutiny committee to cover all aspects.

RESOLVED:  That the Cabinet Member’s decision be accepted on the basis that the Committee was satisfied with the procurement process,  and the acknowledgment that lessons had been learned that would need to be taken into account in future procurement exercises.