Agenda item

Report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Resident Experience. To be presented by the Cabinet Member for Climate Action, Environment & Transport

The Cabinet Member for Climate Action, Environment and Transport introduced the report. It was explained that the solar PV maintenance contract sat at the heart of the borough-wide push for climate resilience and renewable energy and that, from the initial 37 systems installed to the 46 more recent systems in housing developments, the Council had built an impressive network capable of generating clean electricity across its estates. It was highlighted that the borough’s council house building programme was about delivering high-quality, comfortable homes, designed to reduce carbon emissions and household bills and that on-site renewables, like solar panels, came as standard.

It was explained that the proposed contract marked a critical turning point in the Council’s approach and that these systems generated maximum renewable energy, directly reducing the borough’s carbon footprint; provided crucial data for the Annual Carbon Report; extended their operational life well beyond the expected 25 years; and, reduced energy costs for residents, schools, and services.

It was explained that the proposed flexible contract structure meant the Council was prepared for growth and that the core systems received immediate attention while the framework allowed schools, housing developments, and community buildings to join when ready. It was stressed that the journey toward carbon neutrality required investment and careful stewardship of existing assets and that the proposed contract delivered the latter, looking to transform how the Council protected and optimised the renewable infrastructure already built across Haringey.

It was explained that the proposed maintenance programme showed recognition that caring for existing assets formed an essential part of responsible climate leadership. The existing solar network had to work at peak performance if the Council was serious about delivering its zero-carbon commitments to Haringey residents.

In response to comments and questions from Cllr Emery, the following information was shared:

• It was explained by officers that the development, design and procurement of new PV systems would take significant amounts of time, so any additional funding from central government would be unlikely to be needed through this contract. It was stressed that the contract did have the flexibility to be able to add new systems as needed.
  
  

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet:

1. Pursuant to the Council’s Contract Standing Order (CSO) 8.01 (use of Council Dynamic Purchasing System) and CSO 2.01.1C (Cabinet approval required for contracts valued at £500,000 or more), approved the award of a Solar Photovoltaic (PV) maintenance, metering, and monitoring contract to Contractor A (identified in Part B exempt section of the report). The contract was for an initial period of two years from 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2027, with an option to extend by one year to 30 June 2028 and a further option to 30 June 2029, with the total contract value identified in the Part B exempt report.

Reasons for Decision

The Council had its own established DPS, the LCP DPS, which was the preferred DPS for works. The tender was run as a mini competition via the DPS and was open from 17 March to 10 April 2025.

Contractor A provided the most economically advantageous tender, i.e. a mixture of price and quality. They scored a total of 92.2%. In the price score, they received 40% as they submitted the lowest price. In the quality section, they scored 52.2% out of 60%.

The bids were scored on a 60:40 quality-to-price basis.

The quality section covered five areas: a) Experience in delivering similar work;
b) Resources available to deliver the contract;
c) Health and safety;
d) Service delivery procedures; and
e) Data management and reporting.

Pricing was scored across two elements—‘fixed’ and ‘variable’ costs. The ‘fixed’ costs included tasks that were definitely required and/or required on a regular, defined basis (e.g. annual maintenance checks and weekly remote monitoring). The ‘variable’ costs included those that varied site by site and year by year (e.g. repairs, cleaning, and scaffolding).

Seven of the Council’s sites were selected as sample sites for scoring purposes. The list of items in the statement of rates was spread among these sites to capture the uncertainty in the types of repairs that would be required during the contract. The sites chosen were a mixture of different sizes and locations to reflect the variation across the Council’s solar PV installations.

Table 1: Bidder Scores Using the Costing Model

Table 2 in the exempt report set out the scores of all bidders using the full contract value they provided.

Alternative Options Considered

Do the work in-house: Solar PV systems generated electrical energy in the form of direct current (DC). As most of the Council’s electricians worked only with alternating current (AC) systems, they did not have the necessary knowledge or experience to work with DC installations. A specialist contractor was therefore required to avoid health and safety risks, so this option was rejected.

Do nothing: Solar PV systems were electrical systems that had to be maintained for health and safety reasons. Without regular maintenance, the risks included fire and electrocution, particularly as systems degraded over time. Many of the systems were between nine to fourteen years old, so regular maintenance was essential. This option was therefore rejected.