1

Cabinet Member delegated decision

Decision Due: 24 December 2015

South Area Repairs & Maintenance Contract – Award Recommendation

Wards: Thurlow Park, Streatham Wells, Streatham South, Knights Hill, Gipsy Hill

Report Authorised by: Sue Foster, Strategic Director Neighbourhoods and Growth

Portfolio: Councillor Matthew Bennett, Cabinet Member for Housing

Contact for enquiries:

Su Gomer, Lead Commissioner, 0207 926 4208, sgomer@lambeth.gov.uk

Report summary

Following a procurement exercise it is recommended that the contract for the South Area

Repairs and Maintenance is awarded to Mears Ltd, for 20 months commencing on 1 February

2016 up to 10 October 2017, with the option to extend for any number of periods up to a

maximum of three further years.

The Repairs and Maintenance had to be re-procured in June 2014 following the early exit of the

primary contractor. The Council had to serve a Voluntary Ex-Ante Transparency (VEAT) Notice

for a set period of eighteen months in order to comply with procurement regulations. The current

undertaking is due to expire on 31 January 2016. This VEAT notice enabled another Lambeth

Property Contracts (LPC) contractor, Mears Ltd, to undertake the contract without a

procurement procedure, therefore providing continuity of service delivery of repairs and

maintenance in the South Area as an interim arrangement.

The Procurement Strategy recommended an OJEU Restricted Route procedure via a Long

Term Agreement to commence delivery on 1 February 2016 and end in October 2017, with the

option to extend for any number of periods up to a maximum of three further years. This report

details the various stages of the selection process to date, records the scores of the quality

proposals, and, most importantly, makes a recommendation based upon the evaluation.

The temporary transfer of services to another contractor did not allow the Council to maximise

leasehold income. Re-procurement has addressed this position.

Details of the commercial information of bidders are contained in the exempt, Part 2 report.

2

Finance summary

The 2015/16 budget for responsive repairs is £4.6m and for short cycle voids is £1.1m. These are revenue budgets and form part of the HRA. The long cycle voids budget is part of the capital programme and is £1m per area. South Area Budgets 2015/16 responsive repairs budget £4.6m short cycle voids budget £1.1m long cycle voids budget £1.0m Total budgets £6.7m There is therefore adequate provision within the revenue budgets to support this contract.

Based on the evaluation criteria, the winning tender from Mears Ltd is the most economically

advantageous tender. The figures in the commercial submission are only an estimate based on

the assumptions set out in the invitation to tender.

Essential Expenditure

Re-procurement of the South Area Repairs and Maintenance contract is essential as the VEAT

Notice issued in June 2014 expires in January 2016. The council must complete the tender

process and mobilisation by that end date. Through this re-tendering, further loss of income

from recovery from leaseholders of their share of the costs for services and works undertaken

within communal areas is minimised.

The competitive process enabled the Council to test the market, which undoubtedly offers better

schedules of rates and, therefore, value for money. The South Area tender process also

presented an opportunity for the council to procure a sustainable replacement contractor in

partnership with southern resident representatives.

Additionally, the project is essential expenditure as it acts as an important precursor for other

LPC contracts which are due to expire in October 2017. It is hoped that the newly tendered

rates will act as a ‘benchmark.’.

3

Recommendations

(1) To approve the award of this contract to Mears subject to expiry of the standstill

period without challenge and the outcome of consultation with Leaseholders. This is

in order to meet the requirements of the Leaseholder Consultation Regulations 2003.

(2) Subject to the outcome of the above processes a contract would be entered into with

Mears Ltd for a term of 20 months commencing on 1 February 2016 to 10 October

2017, with an option to extend, for any number of annual periods, up to a maximum

of three further years. Works would be issued via the NEC measured Term Contract

to an approximate value of £8 million for the initial 20 months, totalling £30 million

inclusive of the 3 years extension if these options were taken up

Reason for Exemption from Disclosure

The accompanying, part II report is exempt from disclosure by virtue of the following

paragraph of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972:

‘Information relating to the financial or business affairs of a particular person including the

authority holding that information.’

1. Context

1.1 The exit of one LPC contractor in the South Area in June 2014 and the resulting urgent

requirement for step-in by another contractor necessitated an OJEU VEAT Notice

disclosing that Mears Ltd were to assume the Repairs and Maintenance contract in the

South Area for eighteen months only, concluding in January 2016. The Council took this

action in order to ensure continuity of service for southern residents. Although the

interim arrangement has been maintained, it has not been possible to maximise

leasehold income which has meant that re-procurement was essential.

1.2 The re-tendered contract for the South Area covered the work streams of repairs, voids,

planned and cyclical works. Noting the VEAT Notice already in place, the primary

objective of the procurement was to undertake a re-tender in accordance with

Lambeth’s procurement policies and EU rules as well as other national policy in relation

to fair, transparent and competitive tendering.

1.3 A co-operative commissioning approach was at the heart of this tender exercise and the

project was led by council officers from Housing Commissioning Services, Procurement,

Repairs, I.T and Finance as well as south area resident representatives (made up of

tenants and leaseholders). The procurement itself was delivered with external project

management (Echelon Consultancy) and legal support (Sharpe Pritchard).

1.4 Endorsing the co-operative commissioning ethos, an Echelon led ‘Hearts & Minds’

South Area resident workshop was held in May 2015. This created momentum and

interest from the residents. A number of residents attended, representing the diverse

4

mix of the residents in the borough, and it enabled residents to set out their ‘visionary’

repairs and maintenance service. This document was a key part of the full tender

requirements and is available, if requested.

1.5 An OJEU Notice was published on 19 June 2015 notifying the market of the Council’s

intention to tender using the Restricted Procedure method. There were over 20

expressions of interest from providers in the market. A total of 13 completed Pre-

Qualification Questionnaires (PQQs) were received from a number of operators

intending to participate in this tender on 20 July 2015. Of these, five bidders failed to

meet the minimum turnover threshold and so, they were disqualified.

1.6 The PQQ’s were evaluated and scored in accordance with the pre-defined criteria. Five

bidders were shortlisted for the Invitation to Tender (ITT) stage of the procurement and

were invited to submit tenders in August 2015. Two of these shortlisted tenderers did not

submit a bid. Clarifications were raised through the EU Supply site and the Council

responded to them.

2. Proposal and Reasons

Recommendation for the award proposal

2.1 This report recommends that the South Area Repairs and Maintenance Contract should

be awarded to Mears Ltd as the bidder with the most economically advantageous tender.

This is justified on the basis of the submitted information from the tenderer, scoring of the

evaluation criteria and the conduct of an open, fair competitive process which was

undertaken in line with OJEU procedures prescribed by the Public Contracts Regulations

2015. This process has been rigorous throughout and has involved Business

Questionnaires, stringent checks on company authenticity and financial soundness and a

thorough tender evaluation process by dedicated Evaluation Panel members.

Pre-Qualification Questionnaire/Business Questionnaire Evaluation Process

2.2 Three technical questions, each worth five marks, were asked to the Bidders. In addition,

bidders had to submit information on the following:

Organisational details

Exclusions

Insurance

Economic and Financial Standing

Turnover (in millions)

Independent assessments by Dunn & Bradstreet on Business Risk

2.3 The above criteria were evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis. Out of 13 completed PQQs, five

bidders failed to meet the minimum turnover threshold that were detailedin the ITT

documentation . The process followed a methodical and transparent approach and, as a

result, five bidders were shortlisted and invited to tender, their bids to be evaluated on

the cost/quality ratio of 60/40.

5

ITT Quantitative Evaluation – Price

2.4 Quantitative Evaluation (price) was undertaken by Echelon and was based on the

evaluation of the Tender Total within Appendix 5, Volume 2B of the Pricing Schedule.

The lowest Bidder was scored full marks with the other bidders’ scores being calculated

relative to the lowest bidder as follows:

Lowest Price

Bidder Price×60

2.5 This evaluation methodology was clearly detailed in the ITT. After the use of the Tender

Evaluation Criteria, the scores were ranked accordingly. A full arithmetical check was

carried out on all 3 submissions and no issues were found. A detailed review of the

financial submissions was carried out by Echelon’s cost consultants and no qualifications

or areas of clarification were found.

ITT Qualitative Evaluation - Quality

2.6 Tender analysis of submissions was undertaken by Evaluation Panels who scored

Method Statements which detailed suppliers’ service offer. Residents formed part of key

panels and had open invites to specialist areas (ICT, Voids and Programme Delivery).

The Quality Evaluation Panel, comprising of senior officers, members of the south area

project group and up to five resident representatives, undertook quality analysis as per

the agreed matrix.

2.7 All scores were moderated by Corporate Procurement to double-check on overall

fairness and consistency.

2.8 Bidders were required to respond to a total of six quality questions. Of these, residents

were required to score two of the responses (as shown below), containing 18% of the

total 40% quality scores. The evaluation of tenders was undertaken on a 60/40

cost/quality ratio.

Number Method Statement % overall

weighting

Residents

1 Engaging residents (including tenants

and leaseholders) 10

Programme Delivery

2 Programme Delivery 8

3 Repairs 4

4 Voids Delivery 4

5 ICT Delivery 6

6

Social Value

6 Social Value and Community Benefits 8

TOTAL 40

2.9 Residents specifically scored ‘engaging residents and social value’ (entails community

benefits), which were of genuine interest to them. The residents’ ‘Hearts and Minds’

workshop had formed a key part of shaping these Method Statements with its strong

focus on delivery of a wider social value.

2.10 Each proposal was evaluated by each member using a 0-5 scoring criteria, also placing

comments against sections scores, particularly wjere a poor score (below 3) had been

recorded.

2.11 The Evaluation Panels were moderated by Echelon and a consensus score for each

proposal was agreed.

2.12 The Key Performance Indicators of the contract (as per the KPI Handbook) are:

i) Resident satisfaction – translates to percentage of residents who are satisfied with

the repairs work completed as measured by (telephone and postal), resident’s post-

completion satisfaction surveys.

ii) Quality – percentage of work which has been completed and has been offered for

handover and which has no defects.

iii) Time – percentage of work that has been completed within the agreed timescale.

iv) Cost/Budget – percentage of work that has been completed where the final cost

does not exceed the pre-agreed cost.

v) Sustainability – percentage of recyclable waste as a percentage of total waste by

weight, as measured by waste transfer.

vi) Percentage of the workforce that are apprentices .

2.13 The contract will be based on the NEC3 Form of Contract. Therefore, agreed Key

Performance Indicators (as above) will form the basis upon which any performance

profit is released to the contractor. On an annual basis, Key Performance Indicators

(KPIs) must be reviewed by the Contract Manager/Authorised Officer to determine what

proportion, if any, should be released. The Performance Profit mechanism should

incentivise the contractor to achieve KPIs.

Value for Money

2.14 Value for money has been obtained through a number of ways.

a) In the first instance, LPC contracts were tendered back in 2010. The advantage

of having re-tendered now is that the market has been tested and competitive

7

rates have been offered. The current market is considered buoyant and, in the

circumstances, the price secured from the winning bidder is considered to

represent good value as well as locking in prices in at a discount to prevailing

market prices thus favouring the council and its residents.

b) Secondly, a freshly tendered contract via a Long Term Agreement (LTA) means

that the council will now be in a position to fully recover leaseholder contributions

for communal repairs in the south area. The LTA arrangement further minimises

risks of financial and legal challenges.

c) Thirdly, the Evaluation Criteria based on a cost/quality split of 60/40 means that

obtaining the most competitive price is heavily weighted and ultimately favours

residents in the amounts being re-charged back to them whilst at the same time

maintaining agreed quality thresholds.

d) The tendered prices are very competitive and a review of the rates as compared

with those rates tendered with Mears on an emergency basis, in the current

contract,indicates that average rates are 8% cheaper across all the work streams

(Repairs and Maintenance, Voids, Planned and Cyclical Works). Based on

predicted levels of spend savings in the region of £600k per annum could be

realised. Realisation of the these savings is dependant on;

Improving Supplier Relationship Management

Standardising the way work is ordered

Improving Call Centre/Client/Contractor liason in the works ordering process

An action plan is being put in place to deliver these service improvements.

2.15 Value for money is offered in relation to the profile (type of works) and volume of

works orders, so supporting the 60% weighting. 2.16 The qualitive weighting (also being evaluated) ensures that the tenders are more

rounded and not just based on the cheapest price but also on quality. This boosts the

various added value benefits through the overall tender process, such as social value

and community benefits.

2.17 The Performance Profit mechanism is endorsed in this form of contract and is

inextricably linked with KPIs, promoting a win-win result for the Council and its residents

as well as acting as an incentive to exceed KPIs from the contractor. The contract

management allows for an open book approach with the contractor sharing savings with

the council. Therefore any efficiencies resulting from the effective delivery of the repairs

contract will benefit Lambeth also.

Options Appraisal

2.18 The options appraisal process was two-fold. Before reaching the decision to re-procure

the South Area separately, a full options appraisal was conducted within the Service

Delivery Options Group, over a period of months in 2014. The interim arrangement

8

which was in place for 18 months only, meant that a full competitive process was

inevitable for the south.

Cashable & Non-cashable savings

Cashable Savings

2.19 The most economically advantageous tender was received from Mears Ltd. The

schedule of rates is based on the National Housing Federation’s (NHF) version 6.2

which is the most up-to-date one. The competitive process ensured the council obtained

the best tender based on the requirements set out in the tender documents.

Non-cashable Savings

2.21 A number of non-cashable savings are being proposed by the winning tenderer, which

forms a key part of their contractual commitments:

1. Wider community benefits have been generated involving the creation of one

apprentice place for each £1m expenditure per annum with Mears Ltd.

2. Strong commitment to creating sustainable employment opportunities from

apprenticeship and training schemes.

3. Mears’ subcontractors and supply chain are involved in providing apprenticeship

opportunities in order to ensure a continuation of skills development.

4. Continuation of their support of Build It and the Lambeth Skills Academy.

5. Local recruitment and inclusion of local supply partners – will ensure that vacancy

opportunities with Mears always prioritise local postcodes for interviews and will

ensure that Supply Chain partners also do the same.

6. Hold ‘Meet the Buyer Events’ for this Lambeth South Contract, discussing

opportunities for local suppliers to achieve approved status as a Mears supplier.

7. Fair Payment Policy and Payment on time to SMEs, via the Mears Payable

Scheme – guarantees that supply partners can draw on funds within 10days of

invoice date.

8. Commitment to pay workers London Living Wage.

9. Promote the Local Employment Advisory Forum (LEAF) to the Lambeth South

contract in particular to tackle worklessness at grassroots level (via CV/interview

training), by bringing together various organisations both local and national.

10. Local recruitment and incusion of local supply partners

11. Organise targeted recruitment events – for female applicants and Black and Ethnic

Minority groups.

12. Work placements for 16years and over, including refresher training and taster

events.

2.22 All of the wider non-financial impacts of the contract will be monitored using the HACT

tool for calculating social return on investment to this contract. The HACT is widely

recognised as an effective social value measurement tool and quarterly reviews of the

impact and evidence of achievements will be led by Lambeth and supported by an

independent consultant.

9

2.22 The savings realised are summarised in the table below.

Non Cashable Savings

Apprenticeships

Training Opportunities

Wider social value

Volume Reduction

2.23 Although there is no guarantee of work volumes within the contract (as it is responsive),

there is a contractual requirement to raise repairs orders to this contractor.

3. Finance

3.1 The revenue repairs and maintenance budgets form part of the overall HRA and are

managed through external contracts. The 2015/16 budget for responsive repairs in the

South Area is £4.6m and for short cycle voids is £1.1m which means that there is

adequate provision within the revenue budgets to support this contract. The long cycle

voids budget is part of the capital programme and is £1m per area.

4 Legal and Democracy

4.1 The delegated authority to award this contract is vested in the Cabinet Member for

Housing who should exercise his discretion in consultation with the Leader and on the

recommendation by the Procurement Board.

4.2 The Council’s contract standing orders require that contracts with a value exceeding

£100,000 should be formally tendered online and evaluated according to transparent

and pre-notified criteria.

4.3 In addition, the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 apply to the proposed tender and the

Council is obliged to publish a contract notice in the Official Journal of the European

Union because the value of the proposed contract exceeds £4,322,012 above which

contracts for works must be procured in accordance with one of the procurement routes

prescribed in Part 2, Chapter 2 of the Regulations.

4.4 The Council used the Restricted Procedure route permitted by Regulation 28. The

tenders were evaluated by an appropriately constituted panel using published evaluation

criteria and the proposed award is to be made to the bidder which submitted the most

economically advantageous tender using a 40/60 quality/price ratio. In view of the

tendering process detailed in this report, the procurement in respect of which this

proposed award is to be made complies with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015.

4.5 The Council must also comply with the detailed contract award notification requirements

prescribed by Regulation 85 and observe the requirements of Regulation 86 before

awarding the contract in case there is a challenge from an unsuccessful bidder or

10

candidate. The Council must also comply with reporting requirements prescribed in

Regulation 50. The contract award notice must cover the estimated value of the contract

if the option to extend is taken up.

4.6 The proposed contract is a qualifying longterm agreement within the meaning of the

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Accordingly, the procuring local housing authority is

required to consult leaseholders before tendering for and awarding the contract in

accordance with the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England)

Regulations 2003. The duty of consultation extends to notifying leaseholders of the

names of the parties to the proposed agreement/contract.

4.7 NEC3 contracts are widely used construction contracts which are designed to be less

adversarial and more partnering-oriented than other construction contracts.

4.8 This proposed key decision was entered in the Forward Plan on 22 May 2015 and the

necessary 28 clear days’ notice has been given. In addition, the Council’s Constitution

requires the report to be published on the website for five clear days before the proposed

decision is approved by the Cabinet Member. Any representations received during this

period must be considered by the decision-maker before the decision is taken. A further

period of five clear days - the call-in period – must then elapse before the decision is

enacted. If the decision is called-in during this period, it cannot be enacted until the call-

in has been considered and resolved.

5. Consultation and co-production

5.1 The Cabinet Member for Housing was consulted as part of the procurement process.

5..2 Following approval of the Gateway 2 procurement strategy the Council commenced

early engagement with south area stakeholders/residents, to particularly ensure that

their views and recommendations would shape the tender requirements. The

procurement group organised a targeted workshop in the south, Hearts & Minds. This

was supported and facilitated by Echelon. Echelon’s lead meant that residents’

experiences of repairs and maintenance services to date was captured in an open and

informative way. The Hearts & Minds Workshop Report formed part of the tender

documents and enabled Bidders to respond on residents’ aspirations in their Method

Statements.

5.3 Residents have formed a major component of the South Area Project Group with up to

five representatives attending monthly Board meetings. Full transparency, with all

members of the project grou,p has steered the procurement process. Residents were

further supported through training of the evaluation and scoring process.

5.4 Statutory and legal consultation of leaseholders have been satisfactorily met with

observations responded to within the specified 30 day period.

5.5 This procurement led to a strengthening of internal communications between officers.

The South Area project group was a collaboration of teams, including Home Ownership

Services, Repairs, Technical Services, I.T, Finance, Corporate Procurement,

Commissioning, South area delivery teams and Legal Services. The external resourcing

of Echelon added value of focus.

11

5.6 This re-procurement process will inform the re-procurement of all 12 LPC lots which is

scheduled for 2017, and was noted as a task in the Major Works Action Plan (previously

the Leasehold Action Plan ) which was agreed by Cabinet in July 2014, where Tenants

and Leaseholders sought ongoing value for money )

Leasehold Consultation and Implications

5.7 A key driver for this re-procurement was to satisfy the terms and conditions of Qualifying

Long Term Agreements (LTA’s), in order to ensure full leaseholder engagement and

maximisation of leaseholder contribution. An initial Stage 1 (Notice of Intention) to

commence procurement was served in May 2015. The Notice, which expired on 1 June

2015, generated 5 observations in total. All observations were given due consideration

and responded to and none were deemed to affect the procurement process.

Analysis of the leaseholders’ observations can be grouped under the thematic headings

of: scope of works proposed, clarity of LTA, cost implications to leaseholders and value

for money.

5.8 Scope of works proposed

In almost all of the observations, leaseholders requested more information and detail

around the type of works proposed. In one, the leaseholder enquired about whether

roofing and guttering as well as general maintenance were part of this contract.

Additional information was provided, clarifying the full scope of works being proposed.

5.9 Clarity of LTAs

The observations were about additional information on LTA’s and what it means. This

was adequately responded to and the rationale for opting for the LTA route was set out.

Primarily the LTA ensures thorough leaseholder engagement in the tender processes

and in the delivery of projects. Value for money is optimised when bulking large works

orders rather than in undertaking individual procurement activities, which could have

added cost implications to leaseholders.

5.10 Cost implications

This was raised in relation to whether the proposed works would result in a large rise in

leaseholder service charges. It was explained that the process of testing the market

should obtain better rates which will ultimately translate to value-for- money service

charges in the interests of leaseholders.

5.11 Value for money (VFM)

This was a specific observation where one leaseholder enquired on how the

procurement process would ensure VFM on this contract. It was explained that VFM

could be achieved through the profile and volume of works to be raised through this

contract. tThe fact of re-tendering should also generate added- value rates, learning from

past lessons andalso promote better VFM in obtaining zero defects and stringent KPI

monitoring.

12

Stage 2 Consultation

5.12 The Stage 2 Leasehold Consultation will commence once the report has been agreed

5.13 Furthermore, the South Area Project Group has leasehold representation, who have

played an instrumental role, not only in shaping the procurement, but also in the

Qualitative Evaluation of bidders’ Method Statements.

5.14 A wider pool of leasehold representation also formed part of the Hearts and Minds

workshop at the pre-tender resident engagement workshop.

6. Risk management

6.1 The risks related to this procurement are detailed below.

Risks Likelihood Impact Mitigating

circumstances

1. Current interim

arrangement must

expire in January

2016, as per the

VEAT Notice

issued last June.

This poses risks to

project

implementation and

mobilisation if that

date is delayed in

any way.

High This has the

potential to place

LBL at a great risk

of breach since the

OJEU VEAT

expires by the

deadline. If there

are any delays

beyond that date, it

would mean that

LBL will have no

formal contractual

delivery vehicle to

support the South

Area if this

procurement project

is not implemented

by 1 February

2016.

Project timetable shows

that whilst this is

approaching, the team is

confident that due

processes of approval,

call-in and the Alcatel

standstill period can be

met and the contract

mobilised by February

2016.

2. Contract term of

four and a half

years could be risky

– uncertainty of the

longer-term view of

the south area.

Medium Tender documents

have specified an

initial term of 21

months with an

option to extend by

up to 3 years. This

will ensure

alignment with

other LPC Lots.

Decision on the longer

term view of LPC would

be known before the

Council needs to

exercise the option to

extend. The LPC

assessment will inform

the overall south

contract period.

13

3. The fact that

South area contract

period is

inextricably linked

to wider LPC Lots

Medium Timeline for

decision on longer-

term arrangement

of other LPC Lots-

whether to re-

procure-needs to

be agreed.

The contract period of

an initial 21 month term

plus option to extend

offers flexibility for the

south and yet, at the

same time, has obtained

VFM in current market

rates which could be

used as a benchmarker

for the wider LPC

consideration. South

Area is therefore unique

in this sense.

4.Contract award to

Mears does pose a

risk of having no

other reserve

contractor and

Mears are

effectively serving

R&M across all of

Lambeth. There is

no reserve/back up

contractor, should

there be a dip in

performance.

High Should there be

any slippage on

performance in one

part of the borough,

there could be a

‘dominoe’ effect on

other parts as well.

The re-procurement

process has re-

invigorated through the

contractual arrangement

with Mears, with a

renewed focus on

performance monitoring,

social value and resident

engagement at the heart

of the contract.

Heavy reliance on

Mears for all housing

repairs and

maintenance across

the Borough

High If due diligence

checks are not

properly carried out

and Mears’

contractual standing

is called into

question, the impact

would be severely felt

across the borough.

Due diligence checks will

be undertaken before the

contract commences,

enhancing the Dunn &

Bradstreet checks already

undertaken very recently.

Pre-contract Conditions

would have to be

satisfactorily met including

and evidence of the

following:

Health & Safety

policies and

standards

Relevant

certification

relating to

company and staff

qualification

14

Insurances –

public liability

Disclosure and

Barring Service

checks (DBS) of

operational staff

Contractor

information

Subcontractor

information and

evidence of all of

the above also.

A cohesive Business

Continuity Plan should be

prepared to ensure that

services are maintained at

all times.

5.Maintaining the

existing form of

contract could

foster a ‘business

as usual approach’

Low Affects

performance,

delivery of projects

and resident morale

Using the same form of

contract minimises the

risk of multiple complex

processes and means

that emphasis is on KPIs

and contract

monitoring/management.

6.There is a risk to

the project and

fulfilling the

statutory

leaseholder

consultation period

of 30 days, if this

report is not

approved.

Medium Timetable for the

next steps is tight

and could affect

implementation,

potentially

breaching the

VEAT Notice.

South area project group

is focused on meeting

key deadlines and

additional resources

would be deployed,

where required.

7.Previous lessons

are not learned.

Medium A ‘business as

usual’ approach

would not engender

faith in the newly

procured contract.

New contract will need

to promote better record-

keeping of contractors’

performance and

monitoring throughout as

well as effective use of

NEC3 contractual

clauses and notices.

8.Issues around the

Deed of Variation

Medium DOV would have

varied the

contractual interim

DOV has been

prepared. Requires sign

15

(DOV) for the

interim south

arrangement has

still not been

signed.

undertaking of

Mears.

off.

Subsequent Delivery Risks

6.2 In terms of subsequent delivery of services, ongoing risk identification, monitoring and

management will form a key aspect of the contract. The NEC3 Task Order mechanism

understands risk management as a joint process by both council and contractor, signed

on annual basis.

7. Equalities Impact Assessment

7.1 The EIA for this procurement project was assessed as Low. The South Repairs &

Maintenance contract is inclusive to all groups in the south. There is further stipulation in

tender documents to maintain the highest standards of conduct when working in

residents homes.

8. Community safety

8.1 The South Area Repairs and Maintenance contract - which covers the key workstreams

of responsive repairs, voids, planned and cyclical maintenance - is not just about raising

the standards of the housing stock condition. The refurbishment of voids to strict

turnaround targets, for example, is linked to wider security of stock and the reassurance

of safety for residents from these improvements.

9. Organisational implications

None.

a. Environmental

The provider demonstrates due diligence and compliance with the council’s

sustainability/environmental agenda, particularly in their recommendations of source

materials to be used in residents’ homes.

b. Staffing and accommodation

N/A.

c. Procurement

An OJEU compliant Restricted Procedure competitive process has been undertaken.

16

d. Community Benefits/Social Value

Social value is embedded in this contract and featured as one of the questions that all

Bidders had to address, in line with the Council’s requirements over the contract period.

Bidders were scored accordingly on how works and services could maximise

opportunities for individuals, the community and the southern area environment. Of the

40 possible quality scores available, 8 were apportioned to Social Value, reflecting its’

importance.

The resident representatives who participated in the Qualitative Evaluation Panels were

particularly keen to score this as it captured the positive difference the new contract

could make to their lives.

These statements will be held to account during the overall management and monitoring

of the South Area Repairs and Maintenance contract.

e. Health

N/a

10. Timetable for implementation

As below.

Formal Approval 30 November 2015

Statutory Standstill Letters -Alcatel (10

days)

10 December 2015

Leaseholder Consultation – Stage 2 for

30 days (Notice of Landlords Proposals)

11 December 2015 – 11

January 2016

Formal Contract 12 January 2016

Mobilisation and Contract Start 1 February 2016

6. Contract Management and Monitoring

6.1 The Area Asset Manager will be responsible for overall, operational day-to-day

monitoring of the contract. The Strategic Contracts Management team will act as

overseers of the contract, ensuring that performance is monitored on an ongoing basis,

Task Orders are adequately raised and applications for payment are rigorously checked.

Contract meetings at operational and strategic levels should capture arising issues as

well as monitoring performance indicators. Effective contract monitoring and

management will serve as evidence for and justification of, KPIs achieved and the level

of Performance Profit to be released, if any.

17

Audit trail

Consultation

Name/Position

Lambeth

directorate/division

or partner

Date Sent Date

Received

Comments in

para:

Sue Foster Strategic Delivery

Director

08/12/15 15.12.15 All

Su Gomer Lead Commissioner 09/11/15 10/11/15 Throughout

Finance – Patrick Pedder Business Partnering:

LHMS

09/11/15 13/11/15 3

Legal Services – Legal

Services

Corporate Resources:

Corporate Affairs

09/11/15 12/11/15 4

Maria Burton, Democratic

Services

Corporate Resources:

Corporate Affairs

09/11/15 13/11/15 Throughout

Councillor Matthew Bennett Cabinet Member:

Housing

09/11/15 12/11/15

Andrew Sternberg/

Procurement Team

Procurement Manager 09/11/15 13/11/15 Throughout

Neil Wightman Delivery Director 09/11/15 1.12.15

Rachel Sharpe Commissioning

Director

1.12.15

Cedric Boston Director of Housing

Management

09/11/15 For info

Gary Mitchell Head of Repairs 09/11/15

Internal Officer Board Date of meeting

Report history

Original discussion with Cabinet Member N/A

Report deadline N/A

Date final report sent N/A

Report no. N/A

Part II Exempt from Disclosure/confidential

accompanying report?

Yes

Key decision report Yes

Date first appeared on forward plan 22 May 2015

Key decision reasons

Expenditure, income or savings in excess of

£500,000, and

Meets community impact test

Background information Community Plan 2013 -2016

Invitation to Tender

Appendices

None

18

APPROVAL BY CABINET MEMBER OR OFFICER IN ACCORDANCE WITH SCHEME OF

DELEGATION

I confirm that I have consulted Finance, Legal, Democratic Services and the Procurement

Board and taken account of their advice and comments in completing this report for

approval:

Signature ______________________________________ Date ________________

Su Gomer, Lead Commissioner

I confirm I have consulted the relevant Cabinet Members, including the Leader of the

Council and approve the above recommendations:

Signature ______________________________________ Date ______________________

Post Cllr Matthew Bennett

Cabinet Member for Housing

Any declarations of interest (or exemptions granted):

Issue Interest declared