Agenda item

(1)       The report updated Members on the TESC procurement process. On 14 March 2012 the decision was taken not to extend the current Jacobs contract beyond 31 March 2013. Members agreed that ‘in house’ expertise would be supported by a new core contract where general commissions were secured. In addition, a competitive ‘framework’ of specialist suppliers would be procured.

Market Engagement

(2)       On 16 May 2012, the Leader of the Council welcomed senior representatives from over 40 local, national and global organisations to Kent. Presentations gave an overview of KCC’s requirements including the procurement strategy and desired solution, including key aspects of the contract. On 24 and 25 May 2012, Enterprise & Environment (E&E) held a Market Engagement event to identify and discuss solutions to deliver Technical and Environmental services for Enterprise and Environment.

Commissioning and Procurement Board

(3)       On 25 June 2012, the KCC Commissioning and Procurement Board approved the recommendation that the Council should procure a Core Contract plus specialised Lots. This would allow a core contract worth about 80% of the annual £4m - £5m budget to attract suitable companies whilst also delivering the Council some economies of scale. The TESC would be developed to allow other KCC Directorates and District Councils in Kent to commission services.

(4)       The Paw-Print detailed in the report was used to illustrate how the Technical and Environmental Services Contract (TESC) would be comprised of a Core Services contract for the majority of the professional services, with some smaller specialist contracts (“toes”) and internalised services.  The Paw-Print approach gave better flexibility in the procurement of services and greater choices without significant additional procurement costs.  The Council did not want the risk of having a number of different suppliers and therefore inter-dependencies within a process - the management of this would be complex – particularly if there were disputes as this would increase contractual liability upon KCC.  To mitigate this, only specialist work was being split out, for example work that was undertaken either at the beginning or the end of a process, or work that was an independent, standalone function.

(5)             The report set out details of the next steps which consisted of

Core Contract - Pre-Qualification; Invitation to Tender (ITT); Tender Presentations: Preferred Bidder Identified; Mobilisation

The Smaller (“Toe”) Contracts

H&T Internalisation

Waste Management

(6)     The proposed contract spend by KCC would be approximately £4m - £5m per year for an initial period of up to 5 years, with possible extension(s) for a further 5 years. This was a significant potential reduction on historic spend through the “Jacobs” contract which was worth around £12m – £13m per year in 2010/11.

(7)       The TESC aimed to encourage the use of local Kent supply chains and employment of a % of Kent apprentices in a similar way to the Enterprise Term Maintenance contract. The Materials Testing and Coring contract was one that might suit the local labour market. The contract would use key indicators to drive performance with financial penalties if standards were not met.  At the PQQ stage, applicants had been assessed on their experience at attracting inward investment/funding for successful transport schemes and strategies. H&T would look to utilise the knowledge through the new contract.

(8)       RESOLVED that:-

(a)       the contents of the report be noted;

(b)               the next steps as detailed in the report be agreed, thereby authorising the Cabinet     Member to sign and award the future contract; and

(c)        a small group of Members help with both the Bidders Clarification Day and assessment of the Tender Presentations.