Agenda and minutes

Please note: This meeting may be filmed for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council's internet site - at the start of the meeting the Chair will confirm if all or part of the meeting is being filmed. The images and sound recording may be used for training purposes within the Council.

Generally the public seating areas are not filmed. However, by entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings for webcasting and/or training purposes.

If you have any queries regarding this, please contact the Committee Clerk

at the meeting.

The meeting was recorded for future broadcasting on the Council’s website.

Apologies for absence were received from: Councillors Alexander (substituted by Cllr Butcher), Christophides (substituted by Cllr Meehan) and Engert (substituted by Cllr Scott).  Cllr Rice substituted as a member of the Committee for Cllr Diakides who attended the meeting as an observer.

Apologies for absence were also received from co-opted members Sandra Young and Helena Kania.

It being a special meeting; no urgent items are permitted.

No urgent items were permitted.

A member with a personal interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered must disclose to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest at the commencement of that consideration, or when the interest becomes apparent.

A member with a personal interest in a matter also has a prejudicial interest in that matter if the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the member's judgment of the public interest and if this interest affects their financial position or the financial position of a person or body as described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct and/or if it relates to the determining of any approval, consent, licence, permission or registration in relation to them or any person or body described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct.

The Cabinet Member, Councillor Goldberg, declared a prejudicial interest in the call-in of PROC12 as he was the chair of the Cabinet Procurement Committee, that had taken the original decision.

To consider any requests received in accordance with Part 4, Section B, paragraph 29 of the Council’s constitution.

There were no such items.

i)                          Report of the Monitoring Officer (Attached – Pages 1 - 4)

ii)                        Report of the Director of Corporate Resources (TO FOLLOW)

iii)                      Appendix (For information only):

a)     Copy of the ‘call in’ (Attached – Pages 5 - 6)

b)     Draft minute extract of the Cabinet Procurement Committee meeting held on 28^th July 2011 (subject to confirmation by the Cabinet) (Attached – Pages 7 - 8)

c)      28^th July 2011 Cabinet Procurement Committee Report – Contract for the supply of desktop and laptop hardware and associated professional services. (Attached – Pages 9 - 18)

A decision on the above item was taken by the Cabinet Procurement Committee on 28^th July 2011. The decision has been called in, in accordance with the provisions set out in the Council’s Constitution, by Councillors Strang, Jenks, Wilson, Whyte, Hare.

The Committee received the agenda pack and second dispatch (containing the service’s response) for the call-in of the decision taken by the Cabinet Procurement Committee – PROC12 – Contract for the supply of desktop and laptop hardware and associated professional services and the exempt appendix to the report, which would be considered during a private session.

1.         Introduction to the Call-in

Cllr Paul Strang introduced the reasons for the call-in, and was questioned by the Committee, and the following was noted: 

• Concerns that the tendering process for the IT contract failed by not securing valid bids on two occasions from more than one supplier.  Therefore there was not a range of competitive choices and the contract will not result in value for money. 
• Implementation of the IT contract should be delayed by 6 months so that a review of the tendering process could take place to obtain a better understanding of the market, an improved price and lessons learnt. 
• It was particularly important that the Council established why 10 of the suppliers invited to quote had not submitted bids; whether demand was out-stripping supply in market, was the Council’s framework flawed (and had other options been considered) or did suppliers find Haringey’s requirements unworkable or too risky, particularly because the Council could not guarantee purchasing a minimum number of units within the contract?
• The matter should be referred back to the decision maker for reconsideration.

2.         Cabinet Member and Service Responses to the Call-in

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Carbon Reduction, Cllr Joe Goldberg, responded to the points raised, including:

• The procurement process had not failed but the Cabinet Member recognised that there were risks in the market; therefore less competition.  The process had been compliant with legislation, the framework and had achieved a successful outcome.
• There was no evidence that re-tendering would result in a different outcome and delaying implementation of the contract would mean the Council risked losing the contract which was the only option available and, if delayed for re-tendering, inflation could mean a more expensive contract and less value for money.
• The Cabinet Member highlighted that he would have preferred to have had more tenders submitted during the procurement process.  He still believed that the Council had achieved value for money because comparisons were able to be made between Bidder A and Bidder B (whose tender could not be finalised) and a reasonable price per unit and flexible contract had been achieved. The contract included hardware installation and network updates.
• The IT contract would be paid for out of capital funds (ring-fenced for capital projects) and this spend would be separate to budgets which paid for frontline services.
• While Cabinet Procurement Committees were public meetings there had been no challenges during this decision making process which began at a Cabinet meeting in July 2010 and included the item being considered at a further Cabinet meeting in September 2011 with a final decision being made in July 2011.
• The Council was clear in its invitation to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

RESOLVED that the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of Appendix A as it contained exempt information as defined in Section 100a of the Local Government Act 1972; Paragraph 3 - namely information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular  person (including the authority holding that information). 

A discussion followed in private session.

The meeting ended at 21:55hrs.