Contact: Trevor Wallis, tel 023 9244 6510 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The following decision is sought:

That the Executive Member for Environment approves recommendations agreed by the Joint Task Force in support of the Private Finance Initiative procurement of street lighting:

(i) to agree the principles of the Joint Working Agreement including mechanisms to resolve disputes and provisions in the event of one party withdrawing or terminating the procurement, as stated in paragraph 3.6 of the report;

(ii) to pursue near identical, but separate, contracts; and

(iii) to agree the basis of evaluating Invitation to Submit Detailed Solution tenders, including a 70:30 quality:affordability weighting.

2. Reason

2.1 On 27 November 2006 the Cabinet resolved that:

(i) the Executive Members for Policy and Resources and Environment be nominated to represent the County Council on the informal Joint Working Group (known as the Joint Task Force) with Southampton City Council and West Sussex County Council; and

(ii) the Executive Member for Policy and Resources and/or the Executive Member for Environment, in consultation with each other, be authorised to take such decisions as may be required to develop the Outline Business Case and matters leading up to a decision on the Private Finance Initiative Contract.

2.2 This report is to record and confirm a number of matters agreed by the Task Force.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 Not to confirm the approach agreed by the Task Force. Private Finance Initiative (PFI) credits for the combined project are only available up to February 2010 so it is crucial that the mattes agreed by the Task Force are confirmed promptly by each Council if required in accordance with their own internal procedures. On any Council withdrawing from the procurement, the Joint Task Force considered higher and lower compensation levels. In deciding the basis for evaluation of contractors at Invitation to Submit Detailed Solution (ISDS) stage, an evaluation process which rated quality/price on a 4:1 ratio was considered, but greater weight on affordability was considered preferable. The partner Councils considered the option of a single contract, but considered this was not justified on the basis of likely financial gain, given the increased level of risk and complexity.

4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or Other Executive Member Consulted - None.

5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - None.

6. Reason(s) for the Matter being dealt with if Urgent - None.

Approved by: Date:

Councillor M J Kendal

Executive Member for Environment

1633Decn/TW