Contents
Report 6 of the 6 December 2010 meeting of the Resources and Productivity Sub-committee, sets out the summary of requests for contract action received in Procurement Services within the last quarter, with a particular focus on the requests that fall under the remit of Single Tender Actions (STA).
Warning: This is archived material and may be out of date. The Metropolitan Police Authority has been replaced by the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPC).
See the MOPC website for further information.
Requests for contract action – management information
Report: 6
Date: 6 December 2010
By: Director of Resources on behalf of the Commissioner
Summary
This report sets out the summary of requests for contract action received in Procurement Services within the last quarter (July 2010 - September 2010), with a particular focus on the requests that fall under the remit of Single Tender Actions (STA) and submitted via the associated form 1049. The report provides details of compliance with EU Procurement law and the MPA Contract Regulations by providing members with information on the number of requests for STAs against each of the legal exemption types and provides a summary of the number and value of those approved and declined. The ‘exempt’ is detailed in Appendix 1.
A. Recommendations
That members
- Note the summary of competed tenders received in the second quarter of 2010/11 and the control of single tender exemptions through Procurement Services and the MPA.
- Note that further updates will continue to be provided to the Resources and Productivity Sub-Committee on a quarterly basis.
B. Supporting information
1. Members have previously agreed the content and presentation format of the Contract Action - Management Information report, on a quarterly basis, to afford them the opportunity to have sight of contracting activity that is not competed, but undertaken compliantly with EU Procurement law and MPA Regulations. The report (“Update on the control of Single Tender Actions”) was last presented to the Resources and Productivity Sub-Committee on 13 September 2010
2. Requests for Contract Action - This management information report will continue to be presented to Members on a quarterly basis. The next update will be issued on 14 March 2011 to the Resources and Productivity Sub-Committee.
Management Information
3. A variation to the CapGemini contract was approved by the Authority on 22nd April 2010 and processed that month. This does not form part of data in tables 1 and 2 for reporting purposes, as the high value of the variation would skew the results. Further information is in exempt Appendix 1.
4. Table 1 details the number of requests by month for contract action (Form 1049) received since April 2009.
Table 1 - Requests for contract action
| 2009/10 | 2010/11 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Value - £m | Number | Value - £m | |
| April | 41 | 14.3 | 58 | 40.4 (5) |
| May | 57 | 27.5 | 56 | 27.1 |
| June | 94 | 16.5 | 75 | 46.7 (6) |
| July | 117 (1) | 70.1 | 47 (7) | 33.2 |
| August | 92 | 27.5 | 61 (7) | 30.4 |
| September | 116 (1) | 22.4 | 68 (7) | 15.9 |
| October | 98 | 61.9 | ||
| November | 78 | 41.9 | ||
| December | 87 | 149.4 (2) | ||
| January | 96 | 71.5 | ||
| February | 107 | 134.7 (3) | ||
| March | 97 | 12.7 (4) | ||
Notes
(1)-(4) Comments were reported in ‘Request for Contract Action - Management Information report’ dated 5th July 2010.
(5)-(6) Comments were reported in ‘Request for Contract Action - Management Information report’ dated 13 September 2010.
(7) There is 46% reduction in requests for contract action in this quarter compared to same quarter in the last financial year. Majority of this reduction relates to requests received from Directorate of Information (40% less than last period, reducing from 221 requests to 137). The high request rate in the last financial year is due to several major IT related projects and decrease in this financial year relates to budget constraints.
5. Table 2 details the number of requests processed by month for variations or extensions to existing contracts since April 2009. These outline where a non- competitive approach has been taken by virtue of the fact they were either a variation or an extension to an existing contract.
Table 2 - Number and Value of Variations and Extensions processed
| 2009/10 | 2010/11 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Value - £m | Number | Value - £m | |
| April | 3 | 0.1 | 31 | 3.9 |
| May | 31 | 1.9 | 27 | 3.5 |
| June | 41 | 3.2 | 24 | 4.2 |
| July | 42 | 6.7 | 19 | 2.4 |
| August | 32 | 3.2 | 25 | 6.6 (11) |
| September | 65 (8) | 18.3 (9) | 23 | 3.1 |
| October | 35 | 4.6 | ||
| November | 14 | 2.2 | ||
| December | 28 | 12.4 (10) | ||
| January | 38 | 6.4 | ||
| February | 26 | 1.7 | ||
| March | 60 | 4.8 | ||
Notes
(8)-(10) Comments were reported in ‘Request for Contract Action - Management Information report’ dated 5th July 2010.
(11) Value includes two (2) variations, total value of £3.9m. For details see Appendix 1 - Exempt
6. Table 3 details the number of single tender actions processed by month since April 2009. These outline where a non-competitive approach has been taken by virtue of the fact that they were single tender actions.
Table 3 - Single tender actions processed
| 2009/10 | 2010/11 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Value - £m | Number | Value - £m | |
| April | 14 | 1.1 | 15 | 0.9 |
| May | 22 | 3.4 | 21 | 5.2 (13) |
| June | 15 | 1.7 | 19 | 2.6 |
| July | 28 | 1.4 | 15 | 0.7 |
| August | 18 | 1.1 | 21 | 0.9 |
| September | 33 | 3.3 | 35 | 2.2 |
| October | 26 | 4.6 | ||
| November | 16 | 0.7 | ||
| December | 26 | 3.2 | ||
| January | 24 | 12.8 (12) | ||
| February | 20 | 2.0 | ||
| March | 58 | 2.3 | ||
Notes
(12) Comment was reported in ‘Request for Contract Action - Management Information report’ dated 5th July 2010.
(13) Comment was reported in ‘Request for Contract Action - Management Information report’ dated 13 September 2010.
7. Table 4 details the seventy (70) requests for an exemption/ exclusion to competitive tendering (single tender action) considered by Procurement Services during the reporting period. This table excludes one (1) request at a value of £29,000 that was declined as the urgency was caused by the late submission of the request, see details in note 14 in Appendix A - Exempt. The data in table 4 is broken down by both number and value against each of the exemption types claimed, and indicates whether they were approved or declined.
Table 4 - Single Tender Actions processed during the quarter
| Exemption Types (15) | Number received | Value received | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Approved | Declined | Approved - £m | Declined - £m | |
| Absence of appropriate tenders following a previously advertised procurement | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| For technical or artistic reasons, or for reasons connected with protection of exclusive rights, the services, supplier or works may be provided only by a particular provider | 31 | 15 | 1.35 | 0.64 |
| A contract following a previously advertised design contest | 2 | 2 | 0.09 | 0.08 |
| For security reasons advertising would not be in the best interest of the Authority | 5 | 1 | 0.23 | 0.02 |
| Additional works or services which were not foreseen at the time of contract award but have now become necessary for the performance of a previously tendered contract | 1 | 0 | 0.08 | 0 |
| Work or services similar in nature to that covered by a previous tendered contract and have now become necessary for the performance of that contract | 5 | 2 | 0.19 | 0.04 |
| A genuine unforeseeable event arose which is not attributable to the Authority and competition was impracticable where the urgency of need is such that it did not permit the full procurement process to be carried out | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| When goods to be purchased or hired under the contract are to be manufactured solely for the purpose of research, experiment, study or development | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| To take advantage of particularly advantageous terms for the purchase of goods in a closing down sale. | 3 | 0 | 0.26 | 0 |
| Replacement goods which can only be sourced from the same contract | 2 | 1 | 0.78 | 0.03 |
| Totals | 49 | 21 | 2.98 | 0.81 |
Notes
(15) The above descriptions exemptions have been broken down and taken from the exemptions and exclusion contained within the Public Contract Regulations 2006.
C. Other organisational and community implications
Equality and Diversity Impact
1. There are no specific race, equality or diversity implications arising from this report, but it is notable that equality of opportunity is promoted by competitive tendering processes. This pertains especially to the support of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs).
Consideration of MET Forward
2. By ensuring the number of tenders that follow a competitive process is maximised, follow EU Procurement law and MPA Contract Regulations, we support the delivery of the Procurement element of Met Support by improving our infrastructure, driving out waste, improving value for money and concentrating resources on fighting crime
Financial Implications
3. The data demonstrates that the vast majority of spend (80% tendered competitively and 15% variation/ extensions within existing contracts) is complaint and, therefore, every effort has been made to achieve value for money in the procurement process.
4. The costs associated with the activities set out above are covered within existing budgets, as approved in the Medium Term Finance Plan. Individual contract actions will be approved through the normal MPS/MPA approval process and any specific savings generated through these individual contracts will be recognised in future Business Group Business Plan submissions.
Legal Implications
5. All contracts are required to be let in accordance with the Public Contract Regulations 2006, EC Treaty principles and the MPA Contract Regulations.
6 MPA/MPS Governance procedures require all contract award reports with a value that exceed £1 million to be submitted for scrutiny and approval to the MPS Management Board, Contracts Board and/ or the MPA. DLS form part of the governance process to ensure compliance with the procurement regime and will address relevant issues within the Legal Implications of the covering report.
7. There are no direct legal implications arising from this report which is submitted as part of the Governance process and for performance monitoring.
Environmental Implications
8. Whilst there may be environmental implications when individual requests for contract actions are processed, no additional environmental implications arise at this stage of management information reporting.
Risk Implications
9. All requests for contract actions have been dealt within appropriate time frame and established procedures, thus reducing the risk of non compliance and supplier challenge to the MPA/ MPS
D. Background papers
None
E. Contact details
Report authors: David Woosey, Acting Director of Procurement Services, Resources Directorate (DoR), MPS.
For more information contact:
MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18
Send an e-mail linking to this page
Feedback