PAPER C2

Purpose : For Decision

Committee :    EXECUTIVE

Date :              26 FEBRUARY 2002

Title :              WAIVING STANDING ORDERS FOR THE CONTRACT TO ADMINISTER THE CITIZENS’ PANEL

PORTFOLIO HOLDER - RESOURCES

SUMMARY/PURPOSE

Approval is sought to waive standing orders in respect of tendering the contract to administer the IOWC Citizens’ Panel. The contract includes undertaking and managing the consultation work as well as reporting on results of these exercises in collaboration with key officers.

BACKGROUND

The council has been using a panel for the past two years as an integral part of its consultation strategy. The panel is primarily devoted to work relating to best value reviews. This work has to continue and during the next two years the membership of the panel itself will need changing.

The initial contract was deliberately kept short so that the council was not bound to any one approach while at the same time giving the panel chance to prove both itself and the need for such a service. Since the original decision, Government advice has confirmed support for the approach taken. However, the contract ends in March 2002 and a decision on its replacement is required urgently.

The existing contractor (MORI) successfully went through the full tender process in April 2000 and won the contract convincingly on the basis of cost, approach and experience of working with local authorities. Since then they have exceeded the expectations of their remit and continue to provide high quality product and services, within budget, in time and without any hitches. They have also shown themselves to be very flexible.

During the first two-year contract, MORI has combined its existing understanding of the national context with a growing local knowledge. It adds value by providing benchmarking data, an in-depth understanding of issues in local governance and knowledge of central Government’s modernising agenda. It is unlikely that any other supplier could match this.

The results of the panel work on the Island attract credibility because they are independent and robust. The research methodology is replicated nationally with around 250 other local authorities.

MORI is the single largest provider of research expertise to both local and central government. It has significant resources invested in developing this area of work and, therefore, a significant stake in maintaining its market position. This is entirely dependent on maintaining excellent relations with its clients and ensuring customer satisfaction. This is a good predictor of the council's chances of continuing to receive the same level of service experienced over the last two years.

The work required over the next two years will build on that done to date since the initial awarding of the contract. Extending current arrangements will maintain continuity.

It has taken time for the panel to be established and to build confidence across the council and the wider community in its value and usefulness. It is now starting to come into its own. A significant change in its handling and administration at this critical point might be detrimental to the process, not only for panellists but for officers also. Extending the contract will minimise any risk.

Although the council has some analytical and research skills, the level of specialisation and expertise we receive cannot be matched in house.

A full re-tendering process at this stage would mean cancelling or delaying the ongoing consultation process by some months. This in turn would have a major impact on the Best Value Review process as the reviews could not be undertaken or completed, and therefore the schedule would need to be altered or some reviews not done.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The contract currently costs £18,000 a year. The overall cost of the two year extension being proposed is therefore expected to be in the order of £36,000 to which will need to be added the cost of replacing the current panel over the next two years. Clearly, the precise cost of the extension will not be known until the end of any tendering or negotiation process. However a tendering process is likely to be more time consuming and one officer would need to be freed up in the communication team to undertake this. Cover for this post would incur some additional cost. The costs of a renewed contract will be met from the consultation budget.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

What is being recommended is a single negotiated tender. The council's standing orders do not spell out the circumstances when this may be appropriate but the usual approach is to restrict these to extensions to existing contracts, emergency works and proprietary or fixed price items where there is no satisfactory alternative. This contract is below the threshold for EU procurement rules to apply and could be treated as an extension to an existing contract that, for technical reasons, could not be awarded to another contractor.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

None

Contact Point: Tony Geeson823291