Agenda item

Mr Hannon, Environmental Strategy and Governance Manager  advised the Committee on progress made in the re-commissioning of the future service provision on the Environmental Services Contract. The Committee were reminded that the Council was responsible for waste collection, waste management, waste treatment, public realm (street cleaning and green estate), highways reactive works, highways and transport capital works and professional services. Delivery of these services were currently delivered by Amey, the contract for which expired in November 2017.

The waste management, street cleaning, green estate, highways and transport Heads of Services went through a dedicated commissioning process whereby the preferred contract delivery vehicle was appraised and assessed against critical criteria. This included feedback from the market through a soft market testing day.

Members were informed that  a Public Realm, Environment, Transport and Highways (PREATH) sub-commissioning group was formed in June and met to discuss and create scopes for the respective services. This meant that some services were moved from one area to another to create improved synergies between service delivery and resolve issues that had been long standing within respective service areas.

The PRETH group reported to the Contract Re-provision Board in October that it did not recommend bringing the service in-house. However, it did state the second generation outsource would ensure that the client and contract management teams integrate to ensure succession planning in filling the gaps identified. This is to ensure that an ‘in-house bid’ has greater potential after the conclusion of the second generation outsource term.

The Options Appraisal presented to the Contract Re-provision Board in February discussed the appraisal of two options for the delivery of all of the services represented by the PRETH commissioning group. These two options were either a strategic partner contract or a series of separate contracts refined by service area and their associated scopes. The options were aggregated across several key areas including risk, ability to deliver against finance (cost savings), risk, IT, data and information availability, collection monitoring and management, Innovation, complexity of the procurement process, market appetite, procurement route, social value and timetable.

The PRETH group recommended that separate contracts for the services be procured. The Environmental Services Contract would comprise of waste collection, waste management and the public realm services with the potential option to include the waste treatment services. The Infrastructure contract would comprise highways reactive engineering works and highways and transport capital works. The professional services contract would potentially be a framework for the provision of professional services for Highways and Transport.

Following a soft market testing exercise, Members were informed that the market clearly indicated that the collation of all of the aforementioned services into one contract would impede competitiveness, innovation and would minimise flexibility, service enhancement and potential to deliver efficiencies and cost savings.

The Environmental Services contract would be a services based contract that would deliver all of the public realm activities for the borough across all land owned by the Council including highways land, leisure land and Housing land (with some minor exceptions). The Public Realm approach encompasses a ‘one town, one place’ ideology which is a holistic approach to the management and maintenance of public spaces through (grey, green and blue) infrastructure throughout the borough managed through a single client.

Members were informed Cabinet were due to consider approval for the procurement of these contracts in March 2016. An Environmental Services Board has been set up that would deliver the procurement of the contracts identified.

A number of questions were asked and replies received including:

·  Clarification relating to the process by which services required were identified and whether the Council could afford them. It was explained that the contract would be formulated based on the Council’s priorities and be outcome based. Contractors would be set targets and it would be for them how their work would be scheduled to meet the targets set.

·  Oversee the contract works/management/performance of the contract. Members were informed that a Partnership Development and Client Manager would be appointed and that the post holder would hold overall responsibility in overseeing the contract. Performance Indicators within the contract would be used to measure performance, with the possibility of funds being withheld for poor performance factored within the contract. 

·  Local Employment/Apprenticeship Schemes. It was confirmed that future contracts could stipulate the use of apprenticeships and that at the soft market testing exercise potential bidders had indicated that they would welcome the opportunity to implement such a scheme. 

·  Member Engagement.  A briefing for all Members was held and a series of workshops would be scheduled to provide Members with an opportunity to raise any issues. The Strategic Director for Customer and Community Services assured Members that the relevant Scrutiny Panel would also be given an opportunity to scrutinise the contracts prior to completion. 

(Councillor Malik left the meeting)

·  ‘Cash In’ on Waste. A Member raised the possibility of the inclusion of a clause within the contract to include the option of ‘cashing in’ on waste. Mr Hannon confirmed that this could be explored as part of the negotiations to be held at the next stage of the process.

·  Possibility of frontline staff to be rewarded when Key Performance Indicators had been met to be included within the contract.  It was noted that performance related pay could be raised with potential bidders for the contract.

·  Consultation with residents. Members were informed that a Waste Consultation exercise was carried out in 2013. The option of establishing Focus Groups/Working Groups would be investigated as part of the overall procurement.

·  Anticipated Financial Savings. All potential contractors had indicated that financial savings would be possible and a range of different opportunities were presented including revenue and digital transformation, bulk purchase of goods, control of overtime amongst staff base, shared risk in terms of commodities and waste composition for materials, self reporting functions and improvements in asset management process/systems.

·  Information Exchange between contract providers. It was envisaged that a universal system would be implemented which linked all three contracts. The system would also allow residents to report and track progress on implementation of issues.  

·  Anticipated Capital Spend on the contract. It was anticipated vehicles may be purchased and investment into the transfer station was being considered. Any capital spend would be reported via the Capital Strategy.

Resolved –  That the proposed and preferred contract vehicles and services scopes be noted.