Agenda item

The Leader invited the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny to address the Cabinet and to report on the outcome of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s consideration of the Cabinet’s decision on the Award of Contract for the Provision of SEND Transport Transformation Consultancy Services on 12^th November 2019.

 

The Cabinet noted that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had considered each of the items raised in the call in form and heard evidence from officers, the Cabinet Member for Children and Families, parents of children with special educational needs as well as a head teacher of Lancastrian School. The Committee had further considered the officer response to each of the issues raised in the call in form and had discussion in the exempt part of the meeting. It was clear that the SEND service provision required attention and that there was a desire from families to participate in the decision making and involvement in co – production to improve the service.

 

The Overview and Scrutiny Committee did not find the decision to be outside the budgetary framework nor the policy framework and continued to refer the decision back to Cabinet for reconsideration along with some clear recommendations on how the work should take place with parents, carers and families.

 

The Cabinet considered the following Overview and Scrutiny recommendations and the Cabinet Member provided a response to each of the recommendations, which were all accepted and agreed.

 

Response to the recommendations made by the Overview & Scrutiny Committee

 

Recommendation 1: That Cabinet strengthens co-production in the

SEND transport transformation process prior to phase 1 of the contract

 

Agreed. It was further proposed that Cabinet receives assurance from the Lead Member and the Director of Children’s Services that co-production is, and will continue to be, an essential element of decision making in regard to the identification and implementation of SEND Transport transformation Priorities.

 

Recommendation 2: That Cabinet follow best practice in good

Governance in formulating the Steering Group referred to during the

Meeting, and in doing so that it refer to parent and carer advocates and

Respected co-production organisations.

 

Agreed. It was proposed Cabinet further receives assurance from the Lead Member and the Director of Children’s Services that best practice in good governance has been and will continue to be followed in formulating the Steering Group. This was referred to during the meeting, along with its membership and leadership, which also refers to parent and carer advocates and respected co-production organisations. An Action going forward would be establishing the Reference group with access to respected coproduction organisations. The group will include parents, carer advocates. It was proposed Cabinet receive an assurance report at least annually from this group.

 

Recommendation 3: That Cabinet co-produce the terms of reference for

The Steering Group and that the membership of the group follows best

Practice examples.

 

This was agreed and the service would further support implementation, and further strengthen the recommendation by adding the co-produced expected ethos and behaviours of the group. It was further added that Cabinet receives assurance from the Lead Member and the Director of Children’s Services that the terms of reference for the Steering Group will be co-produced with families and all relevant stakeholders. The service had started on this journey and the Cabinet Member thanked Mrs Leveson who has produced a good document to review at this first meeting of the steering group. The membership of the group would be inclusive and follow best practice examples. The Lead member would also be a member of the co-production group to consider, first-hand, the information at this meeting from parents and carers.

 

Recommendation 4: That Cabinet asks its chosen partner to sign up to

An agreement or charter which clearly sets out the participation and role

Of parents and carer representatives within the transformation process.

 

This was Agreed and proposed that the Cabinet receives assurance from the Lead Member and the Director of Children’s Services that the chosen partner has signed up to an agreement or charter which clearly sets out the participation and role of parents and carer representatives and relevant partners within the transformation process.

 

Recommendation 5: That Cabinet acknowledge and understand that

Parents should be seen as equals and given confidence that they will be

Listened to.

 

This was further agreed and Cabinet will further acknowledge and understand that parents and carers should be seen as equals at all times and given confidence that they will be listened to.

 

Recommendation 6: That any decision on phase 2 of this contract

Should fully involve parents, carers, and service users on the same basis as within the formulation of the Steering Group.

 

This was agreed. As detailed within the Cabinet report of 12^th November 2019, it was

Recommended that such a phase should be picked up only at the point where

The Council are satisfied that our management and delivery of the SEND Transport Service is able to operate at the very highest level. However, this phase is not within the scope of the contract that providers were invited to tender for.

 

Assurance was further provided that these recommendations would be taken seriously and hoped that the response provided confidence that co – production activities would be taken forward with families and carers.

 

Before moving later to reconsideration of key decision 75 and 93, the Leader notified the meeting that he had been advised by Cabinet colleagues, prior to the meeting, of the need to reconsider the exempt information on these key decisions, included at item 29 on the agenda.

 

The Cabinet proceeded to agree considering exempt information at item 29, before making its final decision on the Award of Contract for the Provision of SEND Transport Transformation Consultancy Services. Cabinet further agreed to reconvene the meeting in public to advise its decision

 

The Deputy Monitoring officer further advised Cabinet Members that questions related to the exempt information on the contract or contractor should be taken forward in the exempt part of the meeting.

 

Questions on the public Cabinet report on the Award of Contract for the Provision of SEND Transport Transformation Consultancy Services, the Overview and Scrutiny report and Cabinet Member response to the OSC recommendations were put forward by Councillors: Amin, Ibrahim, Chandwani, Dennison, Stone and Tucker and the following information provided:

 

 

• When considering the issues raised in the call in, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had taken forward a broader exploration of the decision making process for this proposed contract award for transforming SEND transport services. There was a clear sense provided that the relationship between the SEND service and parents was not where it should be and this issue was acknowledged in the report, stating that they should be more clearly included.

 

• Co – production was highlighted as a key area for improvement in the Overview and Scrutiny meeting and parents, carers had articulated that they had not been involved in this procurement decision. The Overview and Scrutiny Report also aimed to reflect that involvement and participation was important to communities in the borough as an overall principle of decision making for Cabinet.

 

 

• The Chair of Overview and Scrutiny outlined that each of the issues raised in the call in form were individually referred to as well as the officer response to these issues. Where the issues raised in the call in form were of an exempt nature, these were also fully discussed in the exempt part of the meeting. It was noted that the specific Overview and Scrutiny recommendations did not relate to only the call in issues. The Committee considered all the call in issues and did not have any recommendations arising from them.

 

• It was confirmed that Overview and Scrutiny Committee had considered and agreed that the decision was within the budget and policy framework. There was a strong feeling that families had not felt engaged with in the SEND service and consulted with on the changes to the SEND transport service and this aspect of the decision making should be strengthened. It was found that there needed to be co – production at all levels.

 

• Both the Deputy Monitoring Officers further responded to a governance question indicating there was a free standing right for Overview and Scrutiny to refer a decision, which was found to be within the budget and policy framework, back to Cabinet or Council for reconsideration with additional recommendations.

 

• This was an invest to save budget proposal being taken forward by the Council and this project had been assessed as contributing to a reduction in the annual budget overspend without having an adverse impact on families because of changes to technology, travel routing along with the practical and organisational benefits it could provide. This was not a privatisation as there was no TUPE of staff but an external team with expertise commissioned to help coach and mentor existing staff to change the way the SEND transport services was run and provided. This was change-management and a process used many times in local government. The procurement process was within the legal framework for transport provision for SEND children. The scoping review was a separate contract and had no relation to the procurement exercise.

 

• The details concerning how the scoping review had been taken forward as well as the procurement contract award were set out in the Cabinet report for the 12^th of November meeting attached. The Council had followed due diligence and conformed to every legal framework when taking forward both contract procedures. This was set out in the attached Cabinet report at section 5.1 and 5.2 which outlined that the tender was conducted via the Crown Commercial Services (CCS) Management Consultancy Framework 2, lot 1, which contained 275 suppliers. A shortlisting exercise was carried out, based on the Council’s minimum requirements for the service, which narrowed the suppliers down to 57. All 57 suppliers were contacted with an invitation to submit an Expression of Interest, of which 11 suppliers expressed interest in bidding for the service. The competition was in accordance with the framework conditions and following the receipt of 11 Expressions of Interest, a single bid was received that was independently evaluated by three Council officers in accordance with the pre-determined evaluation criteria and subsequently moderated with procurement colleagues. The contractor did not know that they were the only bidder as a competitive process. There had also been a vetting of the crown service contract commercial providers before the procurement process had been undertaken. When considering the market day rates for this contract provision, these were higher than those put forward by the contractor so officers were assured they had sourced value for money.

 

• In response to the issue of the gainshare reward, this was made active if savings have been made above the threshold agreed and there was a cap for when the gainshare was applicable. The Children’s Service would also further assess how the SEND transport service had been transformed after two years. This was an incentive for the preferred provider to make the improvements continually, over two years, and the gainshare was also a one-off fee and no agreement to make these payments in perpetuity.

 

• With regards to any financial consequences to rejecting the service changes proposed by the company, the changes and transformation required to the SEND service were set out in full in the scoping review.

 

• If the Council chose not to award the contract to the recommended transformation partner and also not to otherwise proceed with the tender, then there were no financial consequences to the Council. However, it should be noted that the Council could not then go back out into the marketplace to tender for the same scope of activity. If the Council were to do so with the same, or largely similar specification, then the recommended transformation partner could seek compensation in regard to their costs in submitting the bid, and a sum reflecting the amount by which the transformation partner would be worse off.

 

• The contract will be awarded under the CCS framework RM6008 MCF2 Call Off terms and conditions. There are two circumstances whereby the Council could terminate a contract with a provider earlier than stipulated:

 

Failure to Perform - In instances such as material default, financial standing as defined in the terms the onus would be upon the Council to prove that the provider has not delivered outcomes in accordance with the agreed contract. In such instance, the Council would not be liable for compensation to be paid to the provider and if proven the Council may be able to recover costs for placing the contract and expenditure for the alternate arrangement during the period of the contract.

 

 

The Council would have to have some specific justification under a contract provision to terminate the contract without risk of being in breach of contract.

 

• In response to a suggestion to publish a consultation report setting out the engagement with parents/carers, the Cabinet Member was clear that the scoping review for the SEND had engaged with 50 parents and the service had heard evidence from parents participating in the Scrutiny Review of SEND and fully comprehended the urgent improvements required to the SEND transport service. There were also many different ways of engagement that could be taken forward.

 

• The Cabinet Member further highlighted that there were many issues experienced by parents in accessing the service in September 2019 and complaints put forward to the Director and Cabinet Member. They had listened to parents and fully understood the current situation with transport services for SEND children and had felt they needed to respond effectively with a change management programme. This would be led with the parents and the implementation of this would be critical to this programme.

 

• The Cabinet Member continued to respond to the issue of consultation with parents on the proposed scoping review which included 50 parents and she apologised that the chair of SendPACT for not personally being consulted. Consideration was given to the evidence provided at scrutiny meetings considering the SEND review and a clear commitment was provided to working with parents throughout the process. There was a statutory legal framework that the preferred provider and Council would need to work within for the provision of SEND transport and these rights could not be transgressed. This contract award was about making operational improvements to help the service, included routing and organisation of the staffing, commissioning of the buses and training of staff.

 

• Officers further responded on comments made in relation to gainshare, noting that the current SEND transport service was costing £4.8m and the baseline savings was £635k. This was a 13% saving and not 20% as stated in the question and deputation. The recommended provider would need to progress through several levels of assurance and they did not have impunity from challenge. It was stressed that the required improvements, which was wanted by both parents and the Children’s service, would have to be made in order to access this payment. The preferred provider had worked with 20 local authorities and information had been shared with Cabinet on the effectiveness of these working relationships.

 

• The contract prescribed the depth of experience required to undertake these transformation activities given the need for high performing travel operation for Haringey which is fit for purpose to meet SEND children’s needs.

 

The Chair of Overview and Scrutiny closed this section of the meeting by recommending that the Cabinet kept in mind the community voice in their decision making.

 

Further to considering the exempt information at item 29, the Leader re – opened the meeting in public at 21.56.

 

The Leader firstly asked Cabinet to agree to the use of Council Standing Order 63 to suspend Council Standing Order 18 and allow the meeting to continue after 10pm.

 

This was unanimously agreed.

 

The Leader advised the meeting that following consideration of the report and recommendations from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, representations from the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny, Councillors, the deputation from Mrs Marta Garcia de la Vega and the responses by Officers and the Lead Cabinet Member to the issues raised, and on review of its original decision, Cabinet,

 

RESOLVED

 

1. To defer the final decision, Cabinet resolution 75 and exempt resolution 93 as set out in the public and exempt minutes for the 12^th of November 2019.

 

2. That the taking of this decision return to Cabinet at a date during this financial year.

 

3. That Officers make further due diligence enquiries in regard to the expected service improvements by the proposed transformation partner.

 

4. That officers use that time to fully explore all options for the service transformation.

 

The above resolutions were subject to a vote with 6 in favour and 2 against.