Agenda item

Report of the Director of Environment and Resident Experience. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Resident Services &Tackling Inequality.

The contract extension and variation of the Nuisance Vehicle contract with NSL Limited.

The Cabinet Member for Cabinet Member for Resident Services & Tackling Inequality introduced the report which sought approval to extend and vary the Council’s existing Nuisance Vehicle Contract with Marston (Holdings) Limited (MHL). This was allowed under the contract and in accordance with the Council's Contract Standing Order (CSO) 10.02.1(b), which permits variations and extensions for contracts with a value of £500,000 and above. The proposed extension would last for two years until 30 November 2025 and be for a further value of £2,264,399.56.

The Cabinet Member outlined that there was a critical need to provide this service on safety grounds to enable the removal of vehicles that were abandoned, inappropriately parked or causing problems on the public highway or in housing estates. It was noted that the borough did not currently have a site to provide a car pound and the market for this provision was not wide enough to allow a full tender process to be completed. The proposed provider had a historically consistent delivery of quality service, which aligned with the Council's expectations.

In response to questions from Cllr Cawley- Harrison, the following information was noted:

-       The options of building car pound and having a full tender process were considered and these options were significantly more costly at this stage. This view had also been reached from considering how other Councils had taken similar decisions forward and the costs involved.

-       With regards to service key performance indicators for this provision and how this would be managed, this was commercially sensitive information and was included in the exempt report.

-       It was clarified that the value of the contract should read £2,264,399.56 and too many commas had been included in the main report.

Further to considering the exempt information at item 23,

RESOLVED

1. To approve the extension of the existing Nuisance Vehicle Contract with Marston (Holdings) Limited, in accordance with the Council's Contract Standing Order 10.02.1(b) (which allows for an extension of a contract with a value of £500,000 and above), for two years;

2. To approve the upward variation in the annual contract value for each extension year from the £1,091,390.21 provided for in the original contract to an annual extension year value of £1,132,199.78 resulting in a total contract value of £2,264,399.56 over the proposed two-year extension period; and, 

3. To approve the variations to the terms of the contract specification, particularly the performance indicators, as referred to in the exempt Part B of this report to provide for more robust performance indicators to improve the contract's operational efficiency.

Reasons for decision

The proposals are being made to maintain service continuity concerning a critical component of the Council's parking enforcement operations. The proposals will also ensure strategic alignment with the Council's transport policies and government guidance. Consistent parking enforcement operations ensure public safety, control the demand for parking, promote more sustainable methods of travel and meet residents' and business aspirations for ease of parking.

Additionally, this contract is critical to ensuring the delivery of the Council’s statutory duties, including the safety requirements in and around Spurs Football Ground, where the surrounding streets comprising the emergency evacuation routes and safety corridors must be kept clear.

The decision to support this extension and variation proposal is also based on the provider's historically consistent delivery of quality service, which aligns with the Council's expectations.

The Council plans to utilise this chance to adjust the service specifications for the vehicle removal contract by considering performance insights from past years. The aim is to improve operational efficiency by simplifying procedures and enhancing service quality through refining key performance indicators (KPIs).

Alternative options considered

Do nothing - Continuing the Nuisance Vehicle Removal Service is essential. With this service, the Council would avoid several significant drawbacks upon the current contract's expiration. These include:

a)    Inability to promptly remove abandoned vehicles: Without a contract in place, the Council may struggle to address the issue of abandoned vehicles, which can cause public nuisance, obstruct traffic flow and pose safety hazards.

b)    Difficulty in dealing with unregistered vehicles: A lack of a removal contract could make it challenging for the Council to handle the large number of unregistered vehicles identified during parking enforcement operations. These vehicles may accumulate outstanding penalties and contribute to ongoing traffic violations.

c)    Ineffective enforcement against persistent evaders: Without a removal contract, the Council may be unable to deal with persistent evader vehicles effectively. This could result in losing opportunities to recover outstanding debts associated with these vehicles.

d)    Inability to meet commitments and obligations: If the Council has specific commitments or obligations outlined in local management plans, such as providing removal services during special events or designated areas, not having a vehicle removal contract could prevent the Council from fulfilling these responsibilities.

In-House Solution

a)    An in-house removal service was considered, contingent upon the Council's ability to locate a suitable pound site within or close to the borough's boundaries. A thorough and extensive market search involved active engagement with the Council's Corporate Landlord. Despite these efforts, only one suitable site could be found. The infrastructure set-up costs for this site would be substantial. Additionally, the time required to make the pound fully operational would not be sufficient to have the site ready for start-up by the time of the expiry of the current contract term.

b)    The only appropriate site identified is currently utilised by the Council's existing provider, MHL, as a shared pound in conjunction with Islington and Waltham Forest Councils. Due to the unavailability of a pound site, implementing an in-house removal service was deemed neither realistic nor feasible.

Although there was a wish to provide services internally, it must be stressed that it is not financially viable for this particular service. Consequently, it is necessary to continue outsourcing the contract in the short to medium term.

Full procurement

In 2019, a procurement exercise was conducted for this service. MHL was identified as the ‘preferred provider’. Following our assessment of the market, it's evident that there has been no substantial change in the market landscape regarding the availability of suitable suppliers who can meet the Council's specific requirements, especially regarding providing a pound site within the borough.

If the Council was to explore procurement options for this service, it would need to take into account the current economic climate and the fact there is a limited number of suppliers available in the market who can provide a pound site in the borough. In light of these factors, it is conceivable that the Council might encounter challenges in securing competitive tenders, potentially resulting in increased contract costs. Furthermore, it is important to note that engaging in a full procurement process would also entail associated costs.

Given the reasons above, it would not be prudent for the Council to undertake a complete procurement at this point, considering the potential outcomes and financial implications.

Extend the existing contract as-is for 2 years

Extending the MHL contract for 2 years as-is without making any changes to the contract key performance indicators (KPIs) and service specification would not align with the Council's objective of improving the service's efficiency. It would be an oversight for the Council to refrain from seizing this opportunity to introduce permissible changes to enhance the contract, based on the lessons learned from previous years.