Issue - meetings

The Sustainability, Procurement and Efficiency Portfolio Holder AGREED to award the contract to the South Cambridgeshire District Council in-house team as the lowest bid and the Most Economical Advantageous Tender; and NOTED the changes made to working practices, terms and conditions and numbers of permanent posts on the establishment, as described in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the report. 

Decision taken and published on 23 July 2009; call-in expires at 5 pm on 30 July 2009.  Decision can be implemented from 31 July 2009 if not called-in.

The Sustainability, Procurement and Efficiency Portfolio Holder:

(a)               AGREED that £100,000 be included in the 2009/10 Capital programme on the basis that the financing of this amount be met from the insurance theft claim payment (as outlined above) and the Awarded Watercourses Drainage Infrastructure Fund; and

(b)               REQUESTED that the Council uses its best endeavours to purchase second hand plant and that, should this be unsuccessful, the Portfolio Holder be informed of the reasons why before any order for new plant is placed. 

Decision taken and published on 23 July 2009; call-in expires at 5 pm on 30 July 2009.  Decision can be implemented from 31 July 2009 if not called-in.

The Sustainability, Procurement and Efficiency Portfolio Holder AGREED to award the contract to the South Cambridgeshire District Council in-house team as the lowest bid and the Most Economical Advantageous Tender; and NOTED the changes made to working practices, terms and conditions and numbers of permanent posts on the establishment, as described in paragraphs 18 and 19 of this report.

Cabinet on 11 September 2008, in response to member concerns over the operational costs of the Awarded Watercourses Service, resolved to open the process to competitive tender, the results of which were presented to the Sustainability, Procurement and Efficiency Portfolio Holder for decision.  Four tenders were returned, three from external companies and one from the Council’s in-house service, of which the in-house service was considerably less expensive and, when evaluated and scored in terms of reporting and programming, knowledge and experience, health and safety, contract and project management proposals and quality and capacity, had scored the highest of the four bids.

Officers confirmed that the process had been thorough and done in accordance with EU procurement procedures, which the Council was legally obliged to follow.  There had been twenty-five initial expressions of interest, but although the process had been simplified as much as possible, allowing tendering on individual aspects of the service and including a Pre-Qualification Questionnaire to help the Council identify interested parties and tailor the process accordingly, no submissions had been received from local farmers and it was difficult to identify what more the Council could have done to encourage their interest.  The uncertainty experienced by officers in the service during the tendering process was commented on and the Portfolio Holder appreciated their hard work and the successful outcome of the tender, which confirmed that the Council’s own service was providing the best value for money and retained with the authority invaluable local knowledge.

The Sustainability, Procurement and Efficiency Portfolio Holder AGREED to award the contract to the South Cambridgeshire District Council in-house team as the lowest bid and the Most Economical Advantageous Tender; and NOTED the changes made to working practices, terms and conditions and numbers of permanent posts on the establishment, as described in paragraphs 18 and 19 of this report.

The Sustainability, Procurement and Efficiency Portfolio Holder:

(a)               AGREED that £100,000 be included in the 2009/10 Capital programme on the basis that the financing of this amount be met from the insurance theft claim payment (as outlined above) and the Awarded Watercourses Drainage Infrastructure Fund; and

(b)               REQUESTED that the Council uses its best endeavours to purchase second hand plant and that, should this be unsuccessful, the Portfolio Holder be informed of the reasons why before any order for new plant is placed.

In November 2008 a tractor and flail mower owned by the authority were stolen from the depot in Lolworth where the awarded watercourses plant and equipment were stored.  Replacement of the equipment or hiring of new equipment was delayed pending the outcome of the awarded watercourses services tender, and the tender documents had included the cost of providing replacement equipment.

Having compared the cost of hiring equipment versus purchasing the equipment outright, the Portfolio Holder concluded that it would cost the authority more to spot hire equipment each year and that this, coupled with the uncertainty of obtaining equipment during the fifteen-week period it was needed annually, confirmed that outright purchase was the better option.  The Council was bound by certain purchasing regulations, mostly relating to health and safety requirements, which limited the range of equipment available, and it was essential that the flail mower and tractor were compatible, as the cost of custom-fitting the two pieces could cost the authority approximately an additional £1,500 annually.  The initial estimate for the purchase of a new tractor and flail mower was £94,000, of which the insurance for the stolen equipment would pay about £33,000.  In light of the economic circumstances and the pressures on the Council’s budget, the Portfolio Holder asked officers to investigate purchasing second-hand equipment in the first instance, but, should this be unsuccessful, to be able to demonstrate that the purchase of new equipment provided the best value for money.

The Drainage Manager explained that South Cambridgeshire was unique in the amount of watercourses it had and the amount of work it undertook, so opportunities for sharing the equipment were limited, as it was essential only during a specific period each year.  The Portfolio Holder was discussing with the Ecology Officer use of the equipment for maintaining and restoring ecological habitats in the district.  Officers confirmed that the equipment storage facility had been moved within a compounded area with guard dogs, and with on-site staff living nearby, and that GPS tracker units had been ordered and would be installed as soon as they had been delivered.

The Corporate Manager (Health and Environmental Services) agreed to speak to the Accountancy service to identify a better way to publish the Awarded Watercourses Drainage Infrastructure Fund in the Council’s budget book.

The Sustainability, Procurement and Efficiency Portfolio Holder:

(a)               AGREED that £100,000 be included in the 2009/10 Capital programme on the basis that the financing of this amount be met from the insurance theft claim payment (as outlined above) and the Awarded Watercourses Drainage Infrastructure Fund; and

(b)               REQUESTED that the Council uses its best endeavours to purchase second hand plant and that, should this be unsuccessful, the Portfolio Holder be informed of the reasons why before any order for new plant is placed.

Could the Portfolio Holder please advise of the present position regarding the Tendering for the Awarded Watercourses Maintenance and the possible purchase of new or extra equipment?

Councillor BR Burling asked the Sustainability, Procurement and Efficiency Portfolio Holder the following question:

Could the Portfolio Holder please advise of the present position regarding the Tendering for the Awarded Watercourses Maintenance and the possible purchase of new or extra equipment?

Councillor Mrs SM Ellington, Environmental Services Portfolio Holder, answered the question in the absence of the Sustainability, Procurement and Efficiency Portfolio Holder. Councillor Ellington advised that tenders had been sought for the Awarded Watercourses Maintenance Contract in May 2009; those received had been verified and a report prepared, since published and made available on the Council’s website, for consideration at a Portfolio meeting on Thursday 23 July.

With respect to the purchase of new and extra equipment, the Portfolio Holder apologised for the late withdrawal of the report on this subject from the last Cabinet meeting and the inconvenience this had caused to Members, especially Councillor Mason, who had attended the meeting specifically for that item. She assured Councillor Mason that the report had been withdrawn following the receipt of new information which neither she nor officers had discovered until shortly before the meeting. A report recommending the approval of funding for replacement equipment had also been submitted to the meeting on Thursday 23 July for consideration.

The Leader, in consultation with the Chief Executive, withdrew this item from the agenda following confirmation that Council, on 5 December 2002, had delegated authority to the Portfolio Holder with responsibility for land drainage to use the Land Drainage Infrastructure Improvement Fund for land drainage purposes, including the purchase of plant. 

The Leader, in consultation with the Chief Executive, withdrew this item from the agenda following confirmation that Council, on 5 December 2002, had delegated authority to the Portfolio Holder with responsibility for land drainage to use the Land Drainage Infrastructure Improvement Fund for land drainage purposes, including the purchase of plant. 

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder

(a)               approved the tender documents attached to the report for tendering;

(b)               invited the Contractors listed in the confidential appendix to tender for the works; and

(c)               noted the timetable for the tendering and evaluation process to be undertaken.

Decision taken 24 March 2009 and published 25 March 2009.  Call-in expires 1 April 2009 and decision can be implemented from 2 April 2009 if not called-in.

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder

(a)            approved the tender documents attached to the report for tendering,

(b)        invited the Contractors listed in the confidential appendix to tender for the works, and

(c)        noted the timetable for the tendering and evaluation process to be undertaken.

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder considered a report seeking her authority to agree the tender documents in relation to the competitive tendering of the  maintenance of Awarded Watercourses throughout South Cambridgeshire.

The Corporate Manager (Health and Environmental Services) highlighted a number of aspects in the documents attached to the report.  He explained how each of the five organisations being invited to tender had satisfied officers at the pre-qualification stage .  If, ultimately, the Council felt unable to award a new contract, its present arrangements would continue.  

The Portfolio Holder was referred to the Award Criteria set out in paragraph 1.3.4 of the invitation to tender, against which each tender would be assessed objectively.  Referring to the difference in weighting, the Corporate Manager (Health and Environmental Services) explained that this reflected the  importance attached to the  various aspects of the submissions.

Officers stressed that the specification had been drawn up so as to give tenderers as much flexibility as possible in responding.

In reply to questions, the Drainage Manager

·           said that the successful tenderer would be asked whether they wished to acquire the Council’s existing plant.

·           confirmed that he would have responsibility for approving emergency cover.

·           confirmed that he would be responsible for making sure that the successful tenderer acquired appropriate local knowledge as soon as possible.

In connection with paragraph 1.2.5, the Corporate Manager (Health and Environmental Services) summed up by saying that tenderers should consider the ‘risks’ involved in carrying out the contract, and incorporate into their bids an appropriate financial element.  He noted the comment that parish councils should be able to help by sharing their local knowledge with the eventual contractor.

The Portfolio Holder noted the possible impact of the new contract on the Section 106 Infrastructure Fund.

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder

(a)            approved the tender documents attached to the report for tendering,

(b)            invited the Contractors listed in the confidential appendix to tender for the works, and

(c)        noted the timetable for the tendering and evaluation process to be undertaken.

The Corporate Manager reported that twelve responses had been received in response to the advertisement process, including an internal application and that six were likely to be invited to submit a tender. The tenders would be considered on the Most Economically Advantageous Tender criteria, ie 40% price, 60% quality. It was anticipated that evaluation of the pre-qualification responses would take place in early February; draft specifications and contract documentation would be submitted to the Portfolio Holder for consideration in March; a formal invitation to tender would take place in April; an offer given to the successful tenderer in July and a start date in August.

It was noted that Members would not be part of the evaluation, however, they would set the evaluation criteria against which tenders would be evaluated.

Cabinet RESOLVED:

(1) To undergo a competitive tendering process and obtain tenders for the works from external contractors and the in-house service.

(2) That the tenders so obtained are for all the separate aspects of the works such that the maximum flexibility may be used in the evaluation of the tenders. The contract length to be five years extendable by mutual agreement for a further two. It may then prove beneficial to use a combination of external contractors and a portion of the inhouse service. 

Cabinet RESOLVED:

(1) To undergo a competitive tendering process and obtain tenders for the works from external contractors and the in-house service.

(2) That the tenders so obtained are for all the separate aspects of the works such that the maximum flexibility may be used in the evaluation of the tenders. The contract length to be five years extendable by mutual agreement for a further two.  It may then prove beneficial to use a combination of external contractors and a portion of the in-house service. 

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder presented a report setting out options and recommendations for the future of the Council’s awarded watercourses service.

Concern was expressed that the cost of maintenance at £850 per kilometre appeared high and it was hoped that this cost could be reduced.

The Corporate Manager, Health and Environmental Services added that he did not favour letting the whole contract to one provider, and that the Council should be looking to promote competition in both price and quality whilst retaining flexibility.

The Pitt Report into the 2007 national floods

Cabinet was advised that the Scrutiny and Overview Committee would review the Pitt Report at its December meeting.  The report, commissioned by the government, was likely to have implications for the Council in its management of surface water drainage systems in the district, therefore it was important to build flexibility into any recommendations for action at this stage.  

Local Expertise

Local Ward Members raised concerns that contractors potentially lacked the necessary knowledge to deal with local issues. 

The Leader advised that the recommendations sought to contract out maintenance work and would not substitute local knowledge in management issues, and advised further that Cabinet did not feel it necessary to wait for the full response to the Pitt Report because of the flexibility in the recommendations before it.

Cabinet RESOLVED:

(1) To undergo a competitive tendering process and obtain tenders for the works from external contractors and the in-house service.

(2) That the tenders so obtained are for all the separate aspects of the works such that the maximum flexibility may be used in the evaluation of the tenders. The contract length to be five years extendable by mutual agreement for a further two.  It may then prove beneficial to use a combination of external contractors and a portion of the in-house service.