Public Sector Comparator – Best Practice example Edinburgh

Dear Councillors

 

On Thursday 22 November the report naming the preferred bidder for NSCSO is to be published.

 

I want to take an opportunity to provide you all with a real example of a Public Sector Comparator (internal improvement plan) looks like in practice.

 

You should all be aware that the One Barnet Programme has not followed best practice in adopting a Public Sector Comparator alongside the Competitive Dialogue Process.

 

This enclosed report from Edinburgh Council (to view click here) provides an insight into how a complex procurement process has been open to public scrutiny and information has been shared with councillors and key stakeholders.

 

The key elements coming out of this report include :

 

1. Scrutiny

Under paragraph 4.9 the report refers to Gateway Reviews being carried out throughout the lifetime of the procurement process.

 

1.1  Have there been any such reviews to provide robust independent assurance to guide ‘councillors’ in Barnet Council?

1.2  If so, have they been made available to councillors?

 

2. Independent Validation

In 5.3 of the report KPMG recognises the importance of the public sector comparator and the report concludes:

 

“KPMG were commissioned to assess the deliverability and associated risks and benefits of the internal improvement plan or public sector comparator. The review concluded that, whilst the public sector comparator provided a legitimate comparison for the purposes of the procurement process, that further work was required to develop the vision into a robust design and deliverable plan.”

 

2.1 On what grounds was the inclusion of a public sector comparator ruled out of procurement process?

 

3. Information to councillors

 

In the case in Edinburgh councillors were independently informed of the critical risks around procurement savings under paragraph 4.11 of the report where it states:

 

“The latest review has also highlighted the risks identified at 4.7 associated with Capita’s procurement savings proposals. The Gateway Review emphasises the importance of a robust risk assessment of both the internal and external proposals.

 

The Capita Bid provides greater savings but the councillors were informed under the Risk section about the critical risks for the deliverability of savings including the following:

·         “Complex commercial mechanisms for calculation and delivery of savings expose the Council to significant risks that may have financial or operational impact

 

·         Realisation of procurement savings has significant dependency on services in other areas of the Council which are not directly influenceable by either the Partner or the Intelligent Client Function

 

·         External changes to implement Universal Credit represents major service change that will require early and effective management.”

 

3.1 Have councillors been provided with the risks to the deliverability of the savings as provided to Edinburgh Councillors included in Appendix 2

 

Recommendation:

 

Councillors are unable to take an informed decision about the NSCSO contract award until the following has been completed.

 

·         Public sector comparator for NSCSO is completed to compare alongside the preferred bidders solution

·         Independent validation of the deliverability of savings and assessment of associated risks

·         Comprehensive series of Gateway Reviews for NSCSO       

Public Services are littered with broken promises, contact variations and changes which always end up costing the tax payer more.

 

 

Best wishes

John Burgess

Branch Secretary.

Barnet UNISON