To invite general scrutiny committee to review proposals for the re-procurement of building maintenance and cleaning services and:

·        make any recommendations to the executive they feel would improve the efficiency or effectiveness of the short term proposals; and

·        consider whether to establish a time limited task and finish review to inform the assessment of the longer term option to move to an outcomes based model of procurement for these services.

The Committee was invited to review the short term proposals for the reprocurement of building maintenance and cleaning services, on the basis of a single contract replacing the existing two contracts, and consider if it wished to establish a task and finish group to inform the assessment of the longer term option to move to an outcome based model of procurement for these services.

The Property Services Manager (PSM) presented the report based on the slides appended to the report.

In the course of discussion the following principal points were made:

·        In response to questions the PSM commented as follows:

            It was asked whether asbestos assessments covered by the contract would be conducted in a way that would preclude some problematic issues recently experienced in undertaking building works from occurring and whether knowledge of the council’s building stock and of previous work undertaken by the council to its buildings could inform assessments to avoid any surprises that then had an impact on costs.  The PSM commented that there were two types of survey: a management survey used for managing the day to day operation within a building, and an invasive type used when carrying out works that cut into a structure.  The industry practice was normally to undertake invasive works only as and when it became apparent that they were needed.  The contract would give the council access to both kinds of survey.  The targeting of resources did need to be taken account of but did not form part of the procurement process itself.

The proposal to move to a single contract for building and cleaning services had emerged following discussion with both current providers who had both indicated support for a combined tender.  The benefit of this approach to the council was a reduction in time spent managing the contracts and simplified processes.

A number of firms provided a range of such services.  There were synergies between the two contracts.  This did involve sub-contracting but this was common practice.  In addition as the amount of work the council could offer under separate contracts reduced the offer off a larger contract covering more services was more attractive to prospective tenderers.

A concern was expressed that a reliance on sub-contractors reduced the council’s ability to insist upon the quality of services.  The PSM commented that performance targets governed service quality and included targets relating to social outputs, addressing concerns about undue pressure on sub-contractors and the terms and conditions of their staff.

The PSM clarified that the reference at paragraph 4 of the report to procuring individual contracts referred to individual orders being raised for each projected piece of work.  Systems were not in place to deliver such an approach and there was insufficient staff resource.

The PSM explained how an outcomes based model would operate.

·        A concern was expressed about the way in which the report had been brought to the Committee without it having been considered and scheduled as part of the consideration of the Committee’s work programme.  The Cabinet member – finance, housing and ICT commented that he had requested the matter be brought to the committee once it had transpired that the intention was to move to an outcomes based model of procurement.  He had reservations about this approach. One of his concerns related to the balance between the savings it was argued would result from increased productivity and the possible reduction in quality of service.  He was also mindful of the expertise needed to ensure that performance against key performance indicators was effectively managed under such an approach.  Whilst there appeared to be little option but to proceed with the short term proposal there was an opportunity to give consideration to arrangements for the longer term.  He also expressed surprise that maintenance costs had not reduced to some degree given the council’s disposal of property, and refurbishment work to retained stock that should mean warranties were in force.

·        It was observed that Parish Councils and others had arrangements with the current contractors, whether through the council’s contract or separately, and it was requested that officers be mindful of the importance of communicating any contractual changes to those potentially affected by them.

·        The Cabinet member – contracts and assets commented that in his view there were some aspects of the spend within the existing contracts that warranted the committee’s consideration.  In response a member suggested that this reinforced the importance of reports to the committee being clear as to what they were asking or expecting the committee to do.

·        The Chief Finance Officer confirmed that it was incumbent on the council not the contractor to ensure that revenue and capital expenditure was correctly accounted for and there were mechanisms in place to ensure that this was the case.

It was requested that a further report should be brought to the committee addressing matters of concern identified during the debate.

RESOLVED: 

That      (a)     a further report/scoping statement be presented to the Committee to enable it to decide how it wishes to be involved in any further consideration of this matter and to what timetable and to include a review of matters of concern identified during the debate; and

              (b)     officers be requested to be mindful of the importance of communicating any contractual changes to those potentially affected by them.