Venue: Room 102, Hackney Town Hall, Mare Street, London E8 1EA. View directions
Contact: Jackie BarrettItems No. Item
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Mayor Pipe and Tom McCourt, Deputy Director – Public Realm & Planning
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 17 November 2009 and 9 December 2009
3.1 Minutes of the meetings held on 17 November 2009.
AGREED that the minutes of the meeting held on 17 November 2009 were a correct record of the meeting.
3.2 Minutes of the meetings held on 9 December 2009.
AGREED that the minutes of the meeting held on 9 December 2009 were a correct record of the meeting.
Matters Arising from the Minutes of 17 November 2009
Chris Hudson, Assistant Director of Procurement and Fleet, in reply to a question from Councillor Alcock, confirmed that a report on Clissold Park Works would be presented to the Committee in May/June If further information was required before then this could be provided to Members.
4.1 Committee Work Programme – Forward Procurement Plan Briefing Note with Appendix 1
Contact Juliet Okwuraiwe – 020 8356 3675
4.2 Hackney Procurement Board – Notes of the meeting held on 1 December 2009.
- 2010-01 inc Low Risk-Jan, item 4. PDF 187 KB
- Minutes , 01/12/2009 Hackney Procurement Board, item 4. PDF 48 KB
4.1.1 Noted that the following item was on the Forward Procurement Plan as a red item:
DALSTON LIBRARY FIT OUT
Nicola Baker Assistant Director Culture .stated that the construction element of the project had been completed. Officers had a number of issues with the Contractor and had therefore met with Officers from the Legal Department to discuss this issue.
Officers had proposed a number of ways forward to the Mayor and the Chief Executive with regard to the future revenue cost of the Library. When this decision had been finalised a delegated powers report would be signed off by the Chief Executive.
Officers hoped that a Review Point 2 report would be presented to the Committee in March 2010; this would become clearer in the following 2-3 weeks. If this was not possible a delegated powers report would be presented to the Chief Executive.
The Chair stated that she would hope to see a report presented to the Committee In March 2010 with as much information as was then available included; Officers could then present a more detailed report at the earliest opportunity stating the actions that had been taken
4.2 Hackney Procurement Board – notes of the meeting held on 1 December 2009 were noted.
PROCUREMENT FORWARD PLAN REVIEW PRESENTATION EDUCATION AND THE LEARNING TRUST'S CAPITAL PROGRAMME
RECEIVED a presentation from Allan Wood Corporate Director of Children’s Services on Education and the Learning Trust’s Capital Programme. (A copy of the presentation is available upon request from Democratic Services).
The following question and answer session took place:
1. What is being done to encourage school’s to reduce their reserve balances?
Allan Wood confirmed that Officers were encouraging school’s to reduce their reserve balances and that a number of schools had used some of their balances to contribute to capital projects.
2. What are the funding issues for Phase 3 of the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) project?
Alan Wood explained that the key issue was the gap between the cost of current proposals and BSF funds. Officers were are seeking to close the gap by looking at current proposals, making best use of the total sites available and looking at the possibility of disposal of any surplus site to fund the proposed schemes.
3. What does PfS stand for?
It was explained that PfS was the abbreviation for Partnerships for Schools which is a Government Agency working for and monitored by the Government.
4. What measures are in place to protect the play space schools current have?
Allan Wood stated that there was no programme in place to develop the footprint to remove the play space of schools. Most of the Primary Schools in Hackney had the recommended amount of play space.
5. With regards to grant funding are officers aware of the pitfalls which can follow as with the Play Pathfinder grant phase 2 money that was obtained before the phase 1 had been reviewed and revenue costs had been explored?
Allan Wood stated that the maintenance issues with the Play Pathfinder project were being addressed with training being provided to housing and parks personnel. Officers were confident that lessons had been learnt from the Play Pathfinder project.
6. Was Thomas Fairchild School going to go from a 1½ form entry to a 3 form entry?
It was confirmed that demand for places in the next 3-5 years was going to increase. Officers were looking to see how the demand would be met, including the possibility of a 3 form entry school on the Thomas Fairchild site.
7. What measures were in place to monitor the 5 new youth clubs?
Each project was monitored by senior staff in the Youth Service and by senior officers from the Learning Trust. Risk registers were being developed and problems were highlighted as early as possible and solutions found.
8. Will the Primary Capital Project supply the demand for future Primary places?
Officers were confident that there was sufficient funds in the capital programme to met the increase demand for places projected for the next 3-4 years
9. Were officers confident that there sufficient increased amount of school places in the appropriate areas of the Borough?
Officers were confident although if an unexpected demand for places were experienced this could cause some problems.
10. How were the demands ... view the full minutes text for item 5.
This Report provides an update on the contract with Northgate Arinso which covers the hosting of the Council’s Human Resources System and the provision of a managed Payroll service.
In reply to questions from the Committee she confirmed that when the contract had started there were not sufficiently trained staff in-house to carry out the work. This had since changed. The work required to be carried out was low level administration work that would be supervised and supported. TUPE arrangements for 2 ½ members of staff would be met if required. The increased cost of the in-house service would be met by the revised cost of the contract.
Cllr Linden asked if officers had shared issues with regard to this contract with Officers from Team Hackney and other partners and had discussions taken place around shared services? Caroline Anderson stated that this was a complex area and timescales had not allowed this to have taken She stated that where the sharing of public services had taken place they had reverted back due to the complexity of pay and condition processes and policy. Conversations had occurred across London with regard to the overlap of supporting generic activity.
Members stated that they would like the outcomes of the discussions that had occurred across London with regard to this included in a report back to the Committee in March 2010.
ACTION: CAROLINE ANDERSON
Councillors stated that they had only been given a short amount of time to look at this report before it had been submitted and this was happening with other reports as well. Chris Hudson agreed to take this issue up with Directorate Procurement Managers
ACTION: CHRIS HUDSON
1. To note the overall performance of the Contractor and the action taken by officers and the Contractor to review the contract with a view to improve service delivery.
2. To note the intention of the AD of HR & OD to continue discussions with the Contractor to clarify the specification and bring part of the service in-house.
3. To note the intention of the Corporate Director of Customer and Corporate Services to approve a variation to the contract to aid service improvement through in-sourcing part of the currently contracted activities.
This report provides an update on the implementation of the new Agency staff supply contract and Randstad’s performance to date.
Members were pleased to hear that this contract had successfully been implemented and asked that for future reports the Equalities information was evidenced with figures included to justify the information.
RESOLVED to note the performance of the Service Provider and the implementation of the contract and system to-date.
This report details the progress and benefits of the straight forward fleet replacement of 17 passenger transport buses for Community Services
Norman Harding introduced the report as set out. In reply to a question from a Member Norman Harding confirmed that lessons had been learnt from the unique way the vehicles had been leased and officers would be reverting back to the standard leasing procedure for the next contract.
Note the content of this report and the progress made by Officers and the Suppliers in the implementation of the Contract.
This report provides Members with updated information on the Parking Enforcement Contract (“PEC”) awarded to the incumbent contractor in December 2004 for five years with the option to extend for two further years.
Seamus Adams Head of Parking Services introduced the report as set out. In reply to a Members question Seamus Adams confirmed that monitoring was carried out through spot checking, mobile cameras being moved in and out of the area and mystery shopping. If a reduction in illegal parking was identified officers would look to see what other duties the Control Parking Officer’s (CPO) could carrying out using the equipment they were provide with such as the reporting of graffiti or possibly reduce the amount of CPO’s.
Seamus confirmed that evidence gathering, consultation workshops balancing the risks and benefits would be undertaken and included in the next Review Point 2 report.
1.1. Approve a further (and final) one year extension to the term of the PEC to September 2011.
1.2. Note that the KPIs measured in accordance with the PEC have been reviewed in line with and agree to a new set of streamlined KPIs to better measure and reflect the contractor’s performance in key areas of service.
1.3. Note the developments made in relation to Parking Services as outlined in this report.
This report is requesting the approval to progress with procurement of new short break services for disabled children and young people.
- Restricted enclosure
This report updates Members on price reductions achieved in negotiations regarding contracts for short breaks for disabled children and young people, after the Review Point 4 report was submitted for the meeting. Three further awards of contracts are recommended following these price reductions.
Service 2 – Home and community-based support services
Following clarifications on needs and inputs with bidder G, the cost of the recommended contract award to provide 700 hours of services within the Orthodox Jewish community has been reduced from £14,000 to £13,860 per year.
Service 3 – Holiday playschemes and activities
Following clarifications on needs and inputs with bidder V:
- The cost of the recommended contract award to provide their high-needs (1:1 supervision) holiday playscheme to 12 young people for two weeks has been reduced from £24,297 to £19,341 per year, a reduction of 20.4%.
- The cost of awarding a contract for their other holiday playscheme for young people with moderate needs has been reduced from £20,513 to £15,407 per year, a reduction of 24.9%. The main body of the RP4 explained that the quality of this tender was high but the price had been unfavourable. However, this reduction in price of nearly one-quarter makes the value for money of the service much more favourable and more in line with other bidders already recommended for contract awards, A contract award is therefore now recommended to bidder V for this reduced cost of £15,407, to provide the playscheme to 24 young people for two weeks. This comes from within the additional budget for a further possible contract award in this service area included in Exempt Appendix 3.
Following clarifications on needs and inputs with bidder T, the cost of the recommended contract to provide 4,000 hours per year of holiday playschemes has been reduced from £88,000 to £77,760 per year.
Service 4 – Weekend clubs and activities
Following clarifications on needs and inputs with bidder T, the cost of the recommended contract to provide 300 hours per year of holiday playschemes has been reduced from £6,600 to £5,832 per year.
Service 5 – After-school/evening clubs and activities
Following clarifications on needs and inputs with bidder V:
- The cost of awarding a contract for a Saturday evening club for disabled young people has been reduced from £35,298 to £27,151 per year, a reduction of 23.1%.
- The cost of awarding a contract for a weekly evening club focused on integration with mainstream youth clubs has been reduced from £40,545 to £28,378 per year, a reduction of 30%.
The main body of the RP4 report explained that the quality of these tenders was high, but the prices had been unfavourable. However, these very substantial reductions in price make the value for money of the services much more favourable and more in line with other bidders already recommended for contract awards. Contract awards are therefore now recommended to bidder V for:
- the reduced cost of £27,151 to provide a Saturday evening club ... view the full minutes text for item 10.
This report updates Members on the performance of the Supporting People programme and the progress of the procurement strategy.
- Supporting people Appendix 1, item 11. PDF 58 KB
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 12./2 is restricted
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 12./4 is restricted
- Restricted enclosure
To note that the current spot purchase
arrangements of specialist Home Care Services will continue until
April 2010. This will ensure specialist care provision continues to
be delivered and also allow reasonable time for the implementation
to occur whilst transfer takes place.
Clerks note at this point in the proceedings Councillor Linden left the meeting.
DATE OF FUTURE MEETINGS
Future meetings will be held at 5.00pm on:
09 February 2010
16 March 2010
09 February 2010
16 March 2010
EXEMPT MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 17 NOVEMBER 2009
To approve the minutes of the exempt part of the meeting held on 17 November 2009
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 14./3 is restricted