8.
In brief, 22 proposals were received, which were
analysed and reduced to a long list of 6. Further submissions were sought from
the 6 long listed candidates and a short list of 3 put forward to a further
evaluation process – a ”beauty parade” interview in front of elected members
and officers on 28 September.
9.
The reason for involving a large number of elected
members of the majority group (rather than just the Cabinet) in the interview
stage was to ensure that there would be widespread ownership of the process –
and of the award of the contract to the successful proposer.
10.
Evaluation at the two preliminary stages was by
officers, with a group of members providing challenge and validation. Each
stage involved an assessment of the quality of written proposals submitted.
11.
Evaluation of proposals at the interviews stage was
more subjective. Although criteria for evaluation were agreed, the task of the
assessing group was to judge the individual qualities, including track record
and presentation, of each of the three candidates.
12.
A final evaluation process is currently being
undertaken. The member group will evaluate the interview process of 28
September and will make a recommendation to the Cabinet. The member group will address two
questions. Firstly, to consider whether
the brief set out in Appendix 1 remains the preferred way of delivering the
outcome. Secondly, to consider whether
the evaluation process resulted in a clear outcome identifying a preferred
change agent.
13.
As is usual in public reports concerning procurement
processes yet to reach a conclusion, the proposers will not be identified, and
referred to as A, B and C.
14.
References will need to be taken up in respect of at
least the successful candidate and appointment must be subject to contractual
terms being finalised.
STRATEGIC CONTEXT
15.
The procurement of an external advisor to enable rapid
evaluation, and if desirable procurement, of a strategic partner is an
essential part of the delivery of Aim High, when adopted.
CONSULTATION
16.
Consultation
on this procurement is part of consultation on Aim High – phases of which (with
staff and unions) have already been completed. In particular consultation was
undertaken with staff prior to adoption of revised service delivery structures
on 28 August. The outcome of that
consultation was reported to the Cabinet – and Unison spoke at the meeting.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET
IMPLICATIONS
17.
Due to the variety of proposals being made, it is difficult to predict
with any certainty, what the final cost of consultants might be. Typically, if the project to engage a
strategic partner proceeds, then the cost will be significant, since the Council
will require both these consultants and indeed other expert advice. A similar
project at another Council required input from external sources costing £1.5
million. This can be considered in the range of ‘normal’ for what the Council
is seeking to achieve.
18.
One way of managing this risk of
uncertainty around cost is to break the project down into phases so that there
are natural break points as we progress, allowing us to both validate the
recommendations that consultants are making and to decide whether to extend
their brief to the next stage.
19.
If the Council proceeds with the first part of the consultants’ work –
a phase which could be described as ‘feasibility and scoping’ – the cost to the
Council could be limited to £70,000. Making further progress to the next
decision point (ie developing an outline business case) might cost a further
£100,000 but there is no need for a decision to be made on that until the
completion of the first phase.
LEGAL
IMPLICATIONS
20.
The tendering process is prescribed under EU rules –
which have been adhered to. Expenditure on exploring alternative ways of
delivering services is ancillary to the substantive functions under
consideration, and is pursuit of the duty to deliver best value services under
the 1999 Local Government Act – or alternatively can be seen to be pursuing the
economic, social and environmental wellbeing of the Island.
21.
It is a feature of the negotiated tendering process
that the specification being procured can change during the procurement
process, as the procuring and/or proposing parties refine their ideas as to
what is best suited to deliver the outcomes being sought, or because factors
external to the procurement process change the desired outcome.
OPTIONS
22.
There are three main options:
(i)
Appoint proposer C, for all or some of the
specification set out in the brief at Appendix 1 – subject to references and
contract.
(ii)
Eliminate proposer A, and undertake further assessment
of B & C to ensure a clearer outcome from the evaluation process.
(iii)
Revisit the procurement brief, and the evaluation
process to date, and undertake a further negotiation with proposers B and C, in
the light of that development – postponing appointment until after an
assessment of further submissions submitted in the light of any amendments to
the brief. Possible amendments to the brief could include reducing the amount
of consultancy input and seeking a secondment or temporary appointment to
support the development of in house resources.
(iv)
Not to pursue with the procurement.
EVALUATION/RISK MANAGEMENT
23.
Evaluation of the options needs to weigh a number of
factors:
·
Timeframe
A
significant reason for seeking external assistance is to ensure rapid
preparation evaluation of the business case – and to commence any subsequent
procurement. Any option involving delay should be seen as bringing an avoidable
risk to the desired outcomes.
·
Specification/Brief
The
specification emerged using internal analysis, knowledge of similar exercises
elsewhere, and a soft market test (to assess what external expertise was
available).
In
parallel to the procurement exercise set out in this report, further work was
being undertaken to develop and adopt Aim High, to visit and assess the
experience of other authorities, and to implement the new service delivery structures
adopted on 30 August.
It is
critically important that the brief which will form, in turn, the contractual
specification is the right one. Although speed is of the essence, proceeding
with a brief/specification which is not the right one will involve assuming
avoidable risk.
Put
simply, expenditure on pursuing the wrong brief is likely to be wasted, at
least in part. Time can also be lost in this manner.
·
Confidence/Capacity
Producing,
evaluating and delivering a business case for a strategic partner will be a
difficult task. The externally procured change agent must not only have the
technical competence and experience, but also have the confidence of strategic
and political decision makers within the organisation.
The
three short listed candidates have been assessed as having the technical
expertise and experience to deliver the brief. The interview stage assessed two
candidates as having similar ability to gain the necessary trust and
confidence.
The
purpose of the interview stage of the process was designed to test the extent
to which the candidates could gain the trust and confidence of the decision
makers within the organisation.
The
successful candidate must not only be positively assessed (as having the
ability to gain the confidence of the majority
of decision makers) but also on a more negative basis (as not being likely to
fail to gain, or lose, the confidence of a minority
of decision makers).
The
risk of loss of confidence in the change agent, even by a minority of the
organisation, is the risk of damage to the delivery of the long term objectives
– of assessing and delivering new ways of delivering improved services.
Experience elsewhere suggests that such loss of confidence results in
substantial delay and additional cost.
24.
Each of the short listed candidates suggested a
mechanism for balancing the risks, which could b incorporated into a revision
of the brief.
The methodologies all proposed
phasing the work. Each proposal varied in how the work might be phased – but
each included an initial feasibility stage, lasting between 6 and 12 weeks.
The purpose of the feasibility stage
is to assess in high level terms, whether there is any scope at all for a
strategic partner to assist more rapid delivery of service improvement.
Subsequent phases, if the
feasibility study confirms they are desirable, will produce and asses outline
and full business cases. The final phase is procurement of a partner.
Awarding the contract for with clear
break points – and assessment criteria for success at each stage - would allow
an early start, in phase assessment of the quality of delivery by the appointed
change agent and their ability to undertake subsequent phases, and further
development of the specification for subsequent phases.
The cost of the first phase is
unlikely to exceed £70,000.
25. The
additional validation of the interview stage of the procurement process, by the
member group established for that purpose throughout the procurement process,
to be reported to the cabinet meeting, is an assessment of the sufficiency of
that process. Only if further assessment is required to be undertaken should
there be delay in making an appointment.
|
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is
recommended that, in the light of the recommendation of the members panel
(i)
subject to contract, a change agent is appointed to
deliver a phased programme, starting with a feasibility study
(ii)
clear success criteria are developed to assess the
delivery of each phase of the programme
(iii)
during, and in the light of the feasibility study, a
specification is drawn up for further phases of work.
|
BACKGROUND
PAPERS
Proposals
and assessments (will be subject to partial exemption under Sch 12A Local
Government Act 1972).
Contact
Point : Bob Streets, Telephone: 823203 Email: [email protected]
|
MR MIKE
FISHER
Chief
Executive
|
CLLR
ANDY SUTTON
Leader
of the Council
|
APPENDIX
1
EXPRESSIONS
OF INTEREST
and/or
INVITATION
TO SUBMIT OUTLINE PROPOSALS
for
MANAGEMENT
CONSULTANCY SERVICES IN RELATION TO
THE
DEVELOPMENT AND PROCUREMENT OF A STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP TO PROVIDE SUPPORT
SERVICES TO THE COUNCIL
1.
Introduction
The Isle of Wight Council is a Unitary
Authority with 48 elected members and approximately 5500 employees. The Council
is currently embarking upon an ambitious agenda of change with the aim of
further modernising its governance arrangements and improving the services to
the public it serves. Coupled with a strong drive to achieve genuine value for
money and efficiency throughout, we are keen to further explore the potential
scope for the Council to engage with a Strategic Partner to deliver a range of
support services.
2.
Current situation
A number of strategic initiatives are already being
considered and variously pursued by the Council. The following are amongst the
most significant projects (or potential projects) presently “in the frame”:-
·
Integration of Adult
Services with the local Health Service Trusts. This potentially includes
appropriate/common support service functions.
·
Efforts to transform the
Council as a more customer centred organisation. This is underpinned by various
business process re-engineering activities to bring about more effective front
office/back office operations and supported by the development of a robust
Customer Relationship Management (CRM) capability.
·
A possible Private
Finance Initiative (PFI) for our highways network.
In addition, the Council, in common with all local
authorities, is striving to achieve a number of stretch targets in relation
to:-
·
The (Gershon) Efficiency
Review
·
Implementing
e-Government
·
Comprehensive
Performance Assessment. (The Council was given a “Fair” rating during the 2004
CPA round; it is actively working to improve on this in the next assessment
that is due to take place in 2006).
Also, the local elections in May this year resulted in
a significant change in overall political control of the Council. The new
Administration has an ambitious change agenda and many new policies are being
pursued. A number of innovative changes to the constitutional and governance
arrangements have already been implemented and plans for a proposed
organisational restructure have recently been announced.
The Council’s newly stated aim is “To be regarded as
an excellent council in securing the provision of high quality local services
for local people”, and the ‘2020 Vision’ is to be “A progressive island built
on economic success, high standards and aspirations, and a better quality of
life for all”. The Council’s key priorities have been refocused as follows:-
·
Economic development and
regeneration
·
Healthier communities
and older people
·
Safer communities
·
Children and young
people
The
Island itself
Located in the south of England about four miles from
the mainland, the Isle of Wight covers an area of 147 square miles (38100
hectares) and its coastline is 57 miles long. The Island is a predominantly
rural area with the principal town of Newport at its centre and a number of
other towns each playing a role in the economy of the Island. The other key
towns are Ryde, Cowes, East Cowes, Sandown, Shanklin, Ventnor and Freshwater.
Approximately 50% of the Island is designated an Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty.
The Island has a population of approximately 133,000
people. Demographically, this features an above average proportion of older
residents (approximately one quarter being of retirement age), whilst the
proportion of residents from ethnic minority groups is very low (about
1.3%).
The principal sectors of employment on the Isle of
Wight are wholesale, retail, hotels and catering (31%); public services,
education and health (29%); and manufacturing (17%). Tourism plays an important
part in the Island’s economy, with a total of about 2.7million visitors each
year.
Further information about the Island generally is available
on our website http://www.iwight.com
“The
Brief”
Clearly there is a significant programme of change
underway. The ever-increasing demands faced by the Council and the expectations
of it mean that incremental progression alone is unlikely to fully deliver
success. So almost inevitably change has to be transformational. Helping us
identify the best way of achieving that in practice is where you as a
consultancy can deliver what we are looking for.
The Terms of Reference for the Commission
are:
Appropriate consultancy support to enable
the Council and its partners to:
·
Evaluate
whether or not a Strategic Partnership can deliver improvements in the
efficiency, effectiveness and economy of its operations against seeking to
achieve the changes purely in-house;
·
Identify
which support and direct services could be delivered through such a
partnership;
·
Evaluate the
various options for implementing a Strategic Partnership.
Then, dependent on the decision taken at
the feasibility stage:
·
Procure a
strategic partner, including:
-
going to the
market
-
briefing
potential suppliers
-
evaluating
bids
-
appointing a
preferred supplier
-
negotiating a
contract
·
Preparation
for and transition of services to the partnership
·
During all stages
of the initiative to communicate effectively with all of its staff and
stakeholders.
The chosen consultants will be required to work
collaboratively with the Council at all times and seek to optimise knowledge
and competence transfer to the Council’s staff
Essentially we would consider there to be four
critical factors for success:-
·
We must have confidence
in your ability to help us identify the most appropriate solution for the
Island
·
Any proposals must
facilitate an effective knowledge transfer, thereby ensuring the necessary
skills could be embedded in our organisation after any consultancy assignment
has finished
·
The over-riding
objective is to successfully implement the most appropriate solution
·
Your proposal must be
competitive, but its quality will form a large part of the evaluation.
In addition,
·
You must demonstrate
that your proposal will include the nomination of a dedicated individual who
will lead the consultancy assignment and be available to the client, ‘on site’
for a significant proportion of each week, for the duration of the
implementation programme
·
There is an expectation
that the project will utilize the experience of an elected member from another
council with experience in a project of this nature. This arrangement could be
set up on your behalf by the Isle of Wight Council if required.
Expressions
of Interest/Outline Proposals
If you are interested in the possibility of working
with the Council in this connection, we would like to hear from you. Please
submit your outline proposals in writing to M J A Fisher, Chief Executive
Officer, Isle of Wight Council, County Hall, Isle of Wight Council, Newport,
Isle of Wight, PO30 1UD to arrive no later than 12 noon Friday, 9, September
2005.
In doing so, you should clearly state the following
information:-
·
Your company details and
relevant background information
·
Your specific experience
and capability to meet our requirements
·
Examples of similar work
with other local authorities or public sector clients
·
Any commercial or other ties
that might inhibit your total independence as a consultancy
·
Outline proposals as to
how you would intend to approach the work
·
Likely results and
realistic outcomes
·
The basis of your fees
and provisional costings.
APPENDIX
2
STRATEGIC PARTNERING/ CHANGE
MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT
SELECTION PROCESS
2
August Advertisement placed in Official Journal of the European
Union (OJEU) requesting proposals to provide consultancy support to the Council
9
September Deadline for submission of proposals
– 22 responses received
9-11
September Evaluation of bids by
officers
12
September Officers met to
longlist candidates. Decision taken to seek further clarification from
longlisted candidates
15 September Member
panel met to validate recommended longlist
21September Deadline
for clarification to be received. All six longlisted candidates submitted a
response.
21-22
September Officers consider responses
22 September Member
Panel decide shortlisting of three candidates
28
September Formal presentation of
proposals by each shortlisted candidate to majority group
11
October Cabinet decision to appoint preferred bidder.
COPY OF RECORD OF DECISION
|
Agenda
item
|
Strategic Partner - Appointment of a Change Agent
|
|
Decision
reference
|
28/05
|
|
Decision
taken
|
a)
That
subject to references, and to contract, to appoint proposer C to deliver an
initial feasibility study, with a time estimate of 6 weeks at a cost up to
£35,000
b)
During,
and in the light of, the feasibility study the specification for further
phases of work is revised.
Once the decision had been taken, the Leader of the Council advised
Members that PA Consultants had been appointed as Change Agent for the
Council
|
|
Reason
|
To facilitate the development of, a
strategic partnership
|
|
Additional
reasons
|
None
|
|
Options
considered and rejected
|
a)
Eliminate proposer A, and undertake
further assessment of B & C to ensure a clearer outcome from the
evaluation process.
b)
Revisit the procurement brief, and
the evaluation process to date, and undertake a further negotiation with
proposers B & C, in the light of that development - postponing
appointment until after an assessment of further submissions submitted in the
light of any amendments to the brief. Possible amendments to the brief could
include reducing the amount of consultancy input and seeking a secondment or
temporary appointment to support the development of in house resources.
c)
Not to pursue with the procurement
|
|
Interests
|
Cllr Roger
Mazillius declared a personal interest as his son was a Director of a Company
who provided services to the Council
|
|
Additional
advice received
|
None.
|
