PAPER C
|
RESOURCES SELECT COMMITTEE- 6 SEPTEMBER 2004 PRINTING PROCUREMENT REPORT OF THE
PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR RESOURCES |
REASON FOR SELECT
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
At its meeting of 2 February, the Committee asked to be updated on
the effectiveness of the Council’s new protocol for procuring printing.
|
ACTION REQUIRED BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE (a)
To receive information from the Compliance & Risk Manager
concerning the effectiveness of the Council’s printing protocol. (b)
To consider what further steps, if any, are needed. (c)
To determine what further monitoring is needed for future reporting
to this Committee. |
BACKGROUND
The Council’s protocol for procuring printed material was introduced
with effect from 1 April this year.
Its aim is to ensure that whenever possible, the Council achieves value
for money when deciding the source of its printing requirements. This involves making the best use of its own
printing operations, but because of demand, inevitably involves achieving the
best value that it can from external suppliers.
The main principle of the Protocol is that the Council’s Print Unit
Manager is the focal point of all print procurement, regardless of whether it
is printed “in-house” by our own unit or whether it is sourced from “outside”. The Protocol therefore requires that all
Council departments consult with the Print Unit Manager concerning the source
of printing. In this way the Print Unit
Manager can decide :-
(a)
whether the
printing can be done by his own unit economically; or
(b)
which company,
from a standing list of suppliers, can offer the best value to the Council.
The first question therefore is : Is the Protocol being observed? From invoices for external printing so far
this year the Print Unit Manager was unaware of only 2 out of 50 (4%). (Both were for the same service area and the
Manager has now been reminded of the Protocol’s requirements.) This indicates that to an overwhelming
extent, the Protocol is being observed.
Secondly, how successful has the Protocol been in helping to achieve
better value for the Council? According
to records kept by the Print Unit Manager, having sourced 27 items on behalf of
Council departments, he has received quotes which for the highest price would
have cost the Council £68,514, and the lowest (which has invariably been
chosen) the price would have been £44,115.
This suggests that the savings achieved are somewhere between £1 and
£24,399 and on average are £12,200.
This represents over 17% of the cost if the highest price had been
paid. This clearly indicates that the
Protocol has been particularly successful.
[Appendix A provides a complete listing of items that were sourced with
the help of the Print Unit Manager.]
There does appear, however, to be some further scope for
improvement. In some cases (the Print
Unit Manager estimates only 4) insufficient time is being allowed for the Print
Unit Manager to seek competitive quotes and there is no option other than to go
to the supplier who can cope with the order in the timescale required.
Secondly, whilst the Print Unit Manager has been able to influence the
27 items mentioned above, he estimates that there are as many situations where
the source of printing continues to be determined by the ownership of the
original design and art-work. This is
clearly an issue which will take time to resolve, but in the longer term, the
Council must aim to prevent this from happening. Conceivably, the savings
quoted above could have been doubled if it were not for this problem. This, as Members will know, will be one of
the issues highlighted by a report on Graphic Design to be presented in
December.
There are two further benefits to be mentioned. Firstly, the Print Unit Manager estimates
that, were it not for the Protocol, external prices for printing would be in the
region of 20% higher than they are.
This suggests that awareness amongst the suppliers that the Council is
seeking greater competition, is having a beneficial effect. Secondly, the Print Unit is always being
considered as the first option if it can be done cost-effectively, which should
have the effect of maximising its workload.
Table 1 below shows the relative balance of in-house versus externally
sourced printing over recent years and in the first 4 months of the current
year.
|
Year |
Internal |
External |
Total |
||||
|
Financial Year |
In-House Work |
Work for Non IWC Customers |
In-House Work for IWC |
Estimated Outsourced Value |
|
||
|
£ |
£ |
£ |
£ |
(%) |
£ |
(%) |
|
|
2000-01 |
264,092 |
40,708 |
223,384 |
(38) |
369,968 |
(62) |
593,352 |
|
2001-02 |
251,191 |
42,753 |
208,438 |
(30) |
491,468 |
(70) |
699,906 |
|
2002-03 |
226,678 |
21,854 |
204,824 |
(26) |
589,093 |
(74) |
793,917 |
|
2003-04 |
248,022 |
28,224 |
219,798 |
(31) |
497,466 |
(69) |
717,264 |
|
2004-05 |
87,211 |
6,549 |
80,662 |
(47) |
91,380 |
(53) |
172,042 |
The above table indicates that the relative proportion of printing
performed in-house is increasing, although it is still very early days. Despite this improvement, the Unit is
unlikely to achieve full recovery of its cost if it continues at this rate
throughout the remainder of the year.
The Head of Corporate Policy and Communications is shortly to commission
a review of the printing service which will examine this and related issues in
greater detail.
The Select Committee is asked to note the contents of this report and
to consider what further recommendations it wishes to make to the Portfolio
Holder for Resources.
RELEVANT PLANS,
POLICIES, STRATEGIES AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Relevant plans/policies are:-
The Print Unit Service Plan.
The Council’s Print Unit Protocol.
CONSULTATION
PROCESS
The Print Unit Manager and Head of Policy and Communications have been
consulted in drafting this report.
The main financial and legal implications of this report are that the
Council has a duty to achieve best value in its procurement arrangements.
There are no significant crime and disorder or risk management
considerations involved.
APPENDICES
ATTACHED
Appendix
A - Outside Printing Price Comparisons 2004/5.
Print
Unit Performance Monitoring reports.
Analysis
of invoices for external printing.
Analysis
of Outside Printing Price Comparisons.
Contact Point : Bob
Streets, Compliance & Risk Manager, ( 823622,
e-mail bob.streets@iow.gov.uk.
OUTSIDE PRINTING PRICES COMPARISONGS 2004/5 – QUOTES RECEIVED 2004/5 TO DATE (JULY 2004)
|
Title of Work |
Quantity |
Highest Quote £ |
Lowest Quote £ |
Potential Saving £ |
|
Advice to Homeowners leaflet |
10,000 |
1,083 |
731 |
352 |
|
Be Wise-Be Safe leaflet |
1,000 |
666 |
345 |
321 |
|
Visitors Guide Ryde Harbour |
5,000 |
1,010 |
545 |
465 |
|
Browns Golf flyer |
10,000 |
866 |
280 |
586 |
|
Annual Progress Report Engineering |
500 |
10,758 |
6,576 |
4,182 |
|
CLASS Booklet Education |
500 |
2,220 |
1,308 |
912 |
|
Staff Newsletter single issue |
6,000 |
2,821 |
2,227 |
594 |
|
Staff Newsletter contract on 6 issues |
6,000 |
13,362 |
10,176 |
3,186 |
|
Arts & Crafts Guide, Arts Unit |
20,000 |
1,895 |
949 |
946 |
|
Venue Brochure Ryde Theatre |
10,000 |
695 |
436 |
259 |
|
Medina Leisure Centre Activities Programme |
10,000 |
1,236 |
742 |
494 |
|
Medina Estuary Circular Walks Leaflet |
30,000 |
7,273 |
4,848 |
2,425 |
|
Ventnor Botanic Gardens Map |
20,000 |
1,485 |
623 |
862 |
|
Children’s Library Activities leaflet |
4,000 |
620 |
343 |
277 |
|
Coastal – A1 size posters |
15 |
435 |
270 |
165 |
|
Medina Children’s Party leaflet |
1,000 |
385 |
156 |
229 |
|
Waterside Pool Summer Swim leaflet |
1,000 |
275 |
121 |
154 |
|
Rev Western Yar Estuary Plan |
200 |
3,113 |
1,475 |
1,638 |
|
Medina Children’s Party leaflet (2) |
2,000 |
333 |
270 |
63 |
|
Go Wild on the Web leaflet (SC) |
1,000 |
862 |
430 |
432 |
|
Primary Schools Admissions booklet |
5,000 |
5,288 |
3,289 |
1,999 |
|
Middle and High Schools Admissions booklet |
6,000 |
5,679 |
3,589 |
2,090 |
|
Concessionary Fares leaflet |
5,000 |
709 |
635 |
74 |
|
Classic Car Rally 2004 poster A4 |
200 |
160 |
60 |
100 |
|
Classic Car Rally 2004 poster A3 |
150 |
235 |
75 |
160 |
|
Isle of Wight Census Atlas |
500 |
3,083 |
1,993 |
1,090 |
|
Literature Festival 2005 leaflet |
45,000 |
1,967 |
1,623 |
344 |
|
Totals |
|
68,514 Highest |
44,115 Lowest |
24,399 Difference |