Archived decisions

9 Commentary on Process for Engaging Programme Manager

9.1 Between 13^th June 2005 and 3^rd April 2006, Consultant A was retained on seven successive short term contracts for periods of between 10 and 30 working days, as follows:

9.2 Other than the variation in day rates and duration, the terms of each short term contract were the same. Although the E-Government and Corporate IT Manager has produced a note of the specific tasks or "deliverables" that were to be performed within the period of each short term contract, these were all tasks broadly connected with the preparation of the business case for the project and, once Cabinet approval to the business case was received, the preparations for implementation. These tasks were all capable of being performed satisfactorily by one consultant with the relevant skills and experience, and leant themselves to packaging as the one contract. Had the need for external consultancy support with these tasks been more thoroughly assessed at an earlier stage, the true value of the work that needed to be procured from a suitably experienced consultant, to cover this stage of the project, would have been established.

9.3 We have considered whether the nature of the work justified the approach of awarding a succession of short term contracts. It has been said that this approach enabled specific tasks to be identified and allocated to the consultant, as the project developed, and that the end dates of the contracts provided points at which performance could be reviewed. However, it would have been possible to let one contract for the period up to (and, subject to the business case being approved, immediately after) the Cabinet's decision, that allowed flexibility in the allocation of tasks as they arose. Further, such a contract could have included suitable provisions to manage contractor performance. It should also be noted that Standing Orders specifically state that purchases must be aggregated whenever possible (see para 6.3 above).

9.4 A contract for services to the value of £107,025 would not have been subject to the EU Procurement Regulations. However, as it was in excess of £75,000, a full tendering procedure would have been required under Standing Orders. The much more limited selection process adopted prior to engagement of Consultant A in June 2005 did not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. Consequently, the degree of evidence that would normally have been available from such a tender process, to demonstrate fairness and best value in the award of work to an external contractor of a total value beyond £75,000, is not available.

9.5 Although it was intended that Consultant A be engaged on preliminary tasks, rather than in a programme manager role, all seven short term contracts referred to his engagement as "Contact Centre Programme Manager". The second and third contracts, which commenced on 24^th August and 15^th November 2005, were not signed by the E-Government and Corporate IT Manager until 21^st December 2005. This meant that for a period of almost four months from 24^th August to 21^st December 2005, there was no signed contract in place governing the terms of the engagement.

9.6 The value of the long term contract for the Programme Manager, commencing 3^rd April 2006 for 385 working days, is £308,914. This is beyond the threshold in the EU Procurement Regulations, and subject to the Standing Orders requirement that a full tender process be conducted. These requirements would have been complied with if the contract had been entered into in accordance with the recommendation in the report of 16^th January 2006, which was approved by the Board Chairman on the basis that the Head of Corporate and Legal Services had advised that there would be no problem with this approach. This is because the recommendation was to engage the Programme Manager via the Manpower framework contract, which had been entered into following a process compliant with the EU Procurement Regulations and Standing Orders. The fact that the engagement was not, in the end, made via the Manpower contract meant that neither the EU Procurement Regulations or Standing Orders were complied with. This was due to a number of failures of communication between those involved, as follows:

9.6.1 The 16^th January 2006 report indicated that the initial engagement of Consultant A in June 2005 followed three agencies being approached with a role specification. The report failed to make clear that the role profile that was attached to the report (for the role of Programme Manager) had only been agreed after the agencies had been approached, and indeed after the initial appointment made. The impression was given that the identification of Consultant A as suitable for the role of Programme Manager followed a form of competitive process having been undertaken based on the profile for that role, when this was not the case.

9.6.2 When relaying the proposal by Commerce Partners that Consultant A should in fact be engaged directly, and not through the Manpower contract, County Supplies did not record the advice that what was being proposed was not compliant with Standing Orders. While it is said that this advice was given orally, it was the advice in the email which was subsequently reported on to the Board Chairman.

9.6.3 When County Supplies' advice was being relayed to the Board Chairman by email dated 16^th February 2006, the E-Government and Corporate IT Manager failed to make it clear that what was now being proposed was different from the recommendation in the 16^th January report. This was a significant difference as the Board Chairman's approval of the recommendation was contingent on the advice he had received from the Head of Corporate and Legal Services, that the proposals were sound as these involved engagement via the Manpower contract. Although the E-Government and Corporate IT Manager states that he reported this to the Board Chairman in a telephone conversation at the time, the Board Chairman has no recollection of that. However, the development was significant and should have been referred to specifically in the email communication at the time and therefore placed on record.

9.6.4 As a result of the above, when the Board Chairman gave final approval to proceed in an email of 4^th April 2006, he was approving the entering into of an arrangement to engage Consultant A via the Manpower contract, as set out in the recommendation of the report of 16^th January 2006, and on which legal advice had been obtained. The contract in fact entered into was a direct one between the Council and Commerce Partners, signed by the E-Government and Corporate IT Manager on behalf of the Council on 19^th April 2006. This was in itself non-compliant with Standing Orders, in that a contract of this value should have been referred to the Head of Corporate and Legal Services for signature.