Archived decisions

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Record of Executive Decision:

1) Summary:

The following decisions were made:

1.1. Executive Member approves the approach to decision making for the new Hampshire Public Services Network (HPSN2) contract.

1.2. Executive Member agrees to the County Council acting as lead authority for the HPSN2.

2) Reasons for the decision:

These are the reasons for this decision being made, including any links to the corporate strategy:

2.1. The HPSN2 is seeking to deliver the best value for money for the County Council and its Hampshire and Isle of Wight Partners by jointly procuring telecommunications services. Part of this is achieved through sharing equipment and services. Key to long term success is ensuring that the joint management of these services is based on a sound approach to governance and decision making.

2.2. If the HPSN2 is successful it will provide the platform for collaboration on other IT projects that support joint working.

2.3. The recommended approach to the governance of the HPSN2 contract is aimed at reaching a consensus in all matters and mitigating the risk of dispute through sound planning and financial management. If it is not possible to reach a consensus then a decision will be reached on weighted voting based on a Partner's financial commitment to the contract. However a proposal may be rejected if 75% of Partners vote against it. This recognises the substantial commitment that the County Council will be making to the cost and provides a level of protection for other Partners.

3) Other options considered and rejected:

Governance and financial risk are directly related to the form of contract used to procure the telecommunications services that the County Council requires to meet its own requirements and the shared services agenda. Several contracting options have been considered

3.1. Option 1: Continuing with the current HPSN approach with Hampshire County Council letting a contract and acting as a supplier of services to partners.

Risk Assessment: This approach has acted as a barrier to greater growth of the HPSN. It introduced service management overheads that added no value and introduced delays.

3.2. Option 2: Letting a contract (or contracts) solely for the purpose of Hampshire County Council.

Risk Assessment: This approach would not meet the objective of providing a shared services platform. There is no financial benefit in this approach. Such an approach was rejected by our Partners.

3.3. Option 3: Hampshire County Council to take on the role of a telecommunications service provider delivering the needs of the County Council and selling services to other organisations.

Risk Assessment: This approach has the same risks as option 2.

3.4. Option 4: Setting up a Joint Venture Company (JVC) or Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) with partners as shareholders to procure and manage telecommunications services.

Risk Assessment: There was a significant risk that this form of company could not be established within the timescales demanded by the end date of the existing Unisys contract.

3.5. Option 5: Await the outcome of the Central Government Public Sector Network Programme (led by the Cabinet Office).

Risk Assessment: This would not be in place within the timescales demanded by the end date of the existing Unisys contract.

4) Conflicts of Interest:

4.1. Conflicts of interest declared by the Decision-Maker:

a) None

4.2. Conflicts of interest declared by other Executive members consulted:

a) None

5) Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee:

None

6) Any reasons for the matter being dealt with urgently:

None

7) Statement from the Decision Maker:

.