Archived decisions
8 Process Followed in Engaging External Consultants for Project Team Roles
8.1 The principle of retaining some external consultants within the Project Team had been specifically referred to in the Cabinet report of December 2005. The Cabinet approved the budget for the engagement of consultants, which contained all the resources necessary for meeting the costs of external consultants. There had been no variation since.
8.2 As for the process by which the other consultants were to be retained, in his email of 24th February 2006, the Head of Corporate and Legal Services stated:
"As for the other appointments, these were not discussed and our view is that sufficient time exists for a mini-competition to be undertaken, again through the S-Cat procedure. This should not take more than a few weeks. I would not consider it appropriate to avoid such a mini-competition on the basis that it is now urgent...due obviously to the time that has passed since last autumn i.e. our own delays can't justify the avoidance of competition."
8.3 The E-Government and Corporate IT Manager emailed the Board Chairman on 27th February 2007 stating:
" Regarding the other two posts where I am recommending we go external, I have already appointed [Consultant B] as Service Adaptation Manager (designate) following a similar process that we went through in selecting [Consultant A] (this time a competitive selection process using five agencies). Again, this is below the £75k threshold, and if we wanted to extend to a longer term, we could address this through a more formalised process if required.....Would you like me to discuss this with [the Head of Corporate and Legal Services]?"
8.4 On 28th February the Board Chairman replied by email, stating:
"Only if it is necessary."
8.5 We asked the E-Government and Corporate IT Manager what he understood this to mean. He said that he interpreted this as meaning that the Board Chairman did not think it necessary to report back to the Head of Corporate and Legal Services, and therefore he did not do so.
8.6 The Board Chairman clarified his intention to the Investigation Team. This was that if what the E-Government and Corporate IT Manager was proposing resulted in any non-compliance, then he should raise it with the Head of Corporate and Legal Services. As Board Chairman, he would not have spent any time dwelling on this, but expected the E-Government and Corporate IT Manager to make his own judgement as to whether what was being proposed was illegal, and should therefore be checked out with the Head of Corporate and Legal Services. The Board Chairman's position was that he had contacted the Head of Corporate and Legal Services for advice, and had told everyone involved that he wanted the arrangement to be done properly. He had no involvement in the arrangements for recruiting the other consultants. He felt however that the responsibility for compliance in the arrangements made sat with IT Services. There was no expectation that he, as CMT sponsor, would be involved in those arrangements.
8.7 The E-Government and Corporate IT Manager clarified the process followed for engaging the other consultants. By email dated 20th December 2005, he had contacted five agencies regarding the role of Service Adaptation Manager. The agencies supplied a total of ten CVs and fee rates. Four of these were eliminated, and six were interviewed. The interviews were conducted by the E-Government and Corporate IT Manager and Consultant A . On the basis of the interviews the two strongest candidates were identified, and references were taken up (two each). A decision was made to engage Consultant B (the second candidate was later retained as Consultant D).
8.8 Consultant B's contract was for the period 1st February to 8th August 2006 as "BPR Manager". The value of this contract was £81,875. The contract was extended from 9th August 2006 for 140 working days. The value of the extension to the contract was £85,120. Contrary to what had been said in the E-Government and Corporate IT Manager's email to the Board Chairman of 27th February 2006, no more formalised process was followed for extending Consultant B's engagement in August 2006. Consultant B's contract expired in March 2007. The total value of the contract for the period 1st February 2006 to 31st March 2007 was £166,995.
8.9 The requirements of the Service Adaptation Manager role are set out in a role profile. This has been evaluated to Grade 14. The top end of the salary range that would apply to a post at that level would be £50,538. With 20% on-costs, the annual cost of such a post to the Council would be £60,645.
8.10 Consultant C was engaged as Transition and Operational Readiness Manager on 1st May 2006, at a rate of £530 per day, for a period of six months. No competitive selection process was undertaken in connection with this appointment. The total value of payments made further to this contract was £81,090. Consultant C was then re-engaged (again, without any competitive selection process being followed) as a Project Manager on 1st December 2006, at a rate of £547.24 per day, for thirteen months. The total value of the extended contract is £148,849. The total value of contracts awarded for the services of Consultant C is £229,939.
8.11 The role profile for the role carried out by Consultant C has been evaluated to Grade 14. The top end of the salary range that would apply to a post at that level would be £50,538. With 20% on-costs, the annual cost of such a post to the Council would be £60,645.
8.12 Consultant D was engaged as BPR Manager on 28th August 2006 for 12 months, at a rate of £635 per day for the first six months, and £620 per day for the second six months. The total value of this contract is £138,050. The role profile for this post has been evaluated to Grade 12. The top end of the salary range that would apply to a post at that level would be £38,505. With 20% on-costs, the annual cost of such a post to the Council would be £46,206.
8.13 Consultant D had been identified as suitable for engagement in the earlier process that led to the appointment of Consultant B. This was on the basis that the skills and experience required for both posts were similar. It should be noted however that the role to which Consultant D was assigned (Business Transition Manager and Service Lead for Children's Services) was different from that for which the earlier selection process had been conducted (Service Adaptation Manager). There was no further selection process carried out on the basis of the actual role profile to which Consultant D was assigned. Further, the two posts have been evaluated to different grades.
8.14 At least three agencies were approached to provide CVs for the role to which Consultant E was appointed (Lagan Configuration Analyst). Five candidates were interviewed by the Programme Manager and HR Adviser. There is evidence that candidates were measured against the requirements of the person specification in the role profile.
8.15 Consultant E was engaged as Lagan Configuration Manager at the end of January 2007 at a rate of £480 per day. This was extended at the end of May 2007 for a further 120 days, via the Manpower contract. The total value of the contract for the services of Consultant E is £96,000. Information regarding the evaluation and grading of this role has been requested but has not been forwarded.
8.16 Getting clarity on the selection process leading to the appointment of Consultant F during the Feasibility Study has proved difficult, partly due to the passage of time and as the person involved at the time is no longer with IT Services. However, there was a Business Analyst specification, and details of several candidates from agencies were considered before arranging an interview. References were obtained. Consultant F's initial contract as Interim Management Consultant/Business Analyst ran from 16th August 2004 to 16th November 2004, at a daily charge rate of £588 per day (approx £35,280). A further contract was placed from 17th November 2004 to 17th March 2005, at the same charge rate (approx £47,040). The total value of contracts for the services of Consultant F is £82,320. There is no role profile identified for the role Consultant F was assigned to.
8.17 With regard to Consultant G, three agencies were approached with a brief role specification - Commerce Partners, Sand-UK and Computer People. This was for consultancy on the EDRM programme to finalise the strategy, develop the business case, and propose an implementation approach. 15 CVs were supplied, and 8 candidates were invited in for interview. Consultant G was selected as the preferred candidate, references were obtained, and the appointment then made. The initial appointment was for 6 weeks, commencing 3rd October 2006 at a rate of £680 per day. Several further short term contracts were placed with the final contract running through to 16th March 2007. The total value was approx £74,800. There is no role profile identified for the role Consultant G was assigned to.
8.18 We discussed with the E-Government and Corporate IT Manager the reasons for the practice of engaging consultants on successive short term contracts, as had been the case with Consultants A, B, C, F and G. He explained that it was difficult to plan the whole programme from the outset. There would be a specific exercise to be done in a specific service area. At the end of that period there would be a review point as to whether there was a new task for the person to do, at which stage performance would be taken into account. The intention was that, in a programme of this scale and complexity, tasks would be identified for undertaking in specific periods of time.
8.19 We asked the Head of IT Services for his view on the acceptability of this approach to procuring external services. He felt that a succession of short term contracts did not mean contracts had been deliberately broken down into chunks to get round procurement rules. He felt that they had been broken down to get the space to establish what was required at the next stage in the project and to check on contractors' performance. There were milestone points in the Programme that justified this approach. However, he would expect there to be a role profile for each consultant post, with clear deliverables, the process of acquisition recorded, evidence that good value was being secured by the fee rates, and clarity as to exit strategy. Where a decision was made to extend the consultant's appointment, there should be a clear record of the criteria for extension and he would expect all of this to be in place.
8.20 We discussed with the E-Government and Corporate IT Manager the fact that all of the consultants had been engaged through the one agency, Commerce Partners. He explained that the decision to make an appointment in each case had been his. The Programme Manager had been present at the interviews as he wanted him to be comfortable with the appointment that was being made. The E-Government and Corporate IT Manager believed he would be able to evidence through notes taken at the interviews that candidates were evaluated against relevant criteria.
8.21 We have seen such records in relation to the process leading to appointment of Consultants A, B and E. However, the process followed in these cases was that which would usually apply to appointment to an internal post, rather than the engagement of an external contractor. Candidates' performance at interview was scored against the requirements of a person specification in the relevant role profile, and these scores totalled to give an overall figure, from which the preferred candidate was identified. In an employment situation, that candidate would then normally be offered the role on the evaluated grade for that role. However, as these were external contractors, the rate of remuneration would be at a level offered by the candidate, and all candidates offered different rates. This means it is unclear whether or how expense was factored into the overall identification of the preferred candidate.
8.22 The E-Government and Corporate IT Manager believed that candidates had been selected on the basis of value for money. It was simply by default that they had all come from the same agency. He was not aware of any relationship between the Programme Manager and Commerce Partners whereby the Programme Manager would benefit in any way from placing another contract with Commerce Partners. The interview records for the process of appointment of Consultants A, B, and E do show that candidates from at least three agencies were interviewed on each occasion, and that identification of preferred candidate was by reference to objective factors relevant to the role. On the basis that, after making reasonable enquiry, no evidence has been found that the Programme Manager benefited in any personal capacity from the engagement of further consultants via Commerce Partners, this line of enquiry has not been pursued further.
8.23 There were no reports to the Contact Centre Board on the arrangements for engaging consultants, and no reference was made to this in the risk reports received by the Board. However, the Board was aware that external consultants were being engaged.
8.24 The E-Government and Corporate IT Manager felt that he had acted throughout in the best interests of the County Council, although he admitted he may have made some mistakes in communications.