As Members are aware contracts with a total estimated value and above must be reported to the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee.  Reports must be provided at an early stage of the process once a draft procurement strategy and specification have been developed for consideration by Members.

The report of the Director of Finance, (Document “C”) is provided to advise Members of the forthcoming procurement exercise for the supply of End User Computing equipment with a value in excess of £2 million.  Members are advised of the intention to commission those services under section 7.2.1 (Part 3G) of the Council’s standing orders prior to the commencement of the procurement process.

Recommended -

That the contents of Document “C”, including the intention to proceed to an Open Tender for the appointment of an End User Computing provider be noted, and the release of the contract for procurement under the Council’s standing orders be agreed.

(Dominic Barnes-Browne – 07812 486694)

The report of the Director of Finance, (Document “C”) was provided to advise Members of the forthcoming procurement exercise for the supply of End User Computing equipment with a value in excess of £2 million.  Members were advised of the intention to commission those services under section 7.2.1 (Part 3G) of the Council’s standing orders prior to the commencement of the procurement process.

The report revealed that the existing contract was with Bechtle Direct Ltd which would end in October 2022.

The procurement would be to appoint a suitably experienced and qualified provider to supply EUC Equipment. The contract would be for a 4-year term with 2 x 12 month extensions. That would include products such as Desktops, Workstations, Laptops, Tablets and Monitors.

The procurement process would be conducted in line with the requirements of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 via an open tender process. An open tender had been chosen to ensure the Council could appoint a provider who could meet all of its requirements.

Following presentation of Document “C” Members reported that two years previously one of the Trade Unions had reported that the Council had procured two hundred tablets which were not fit for purpose.  The Director explained that this was before he was in post but understood that those devices were to be utilised by Social Workers but were not compatible with the systems required.  Members questioned if they could be utilised by others or given to support children in the district.

In response it was reported that an exercise was being conducted to retrieve those devices which is was believed were in storage.  Following comments that the service should know where those tablets were located and suggestions that they could reduce the cost of the procurement process under discussion, it was reported that those devices would not be appropriate for that contract.  It was agreed to investigate that issue further and report back to Members on that subject.

A Member questioned what would happen with the devices when located and it was reported that they were not in Britannia House and had been delivered to Children’s Services when purchased.  It was agreed that spare equipment should not be located with a service and unused.  Discussions were being held with Children’s Services and Members would be informed of progress.

It was questioned if the costs in the contract would be fixed or liable to rise once the agreement had been made.  It was explained that the contract would include a price for devices but if there were significant market changes prices could rise. Prices would be checked across the market and if they were not consistent with the provider the contract would not be progressed.  The contract was not merely cost based and price was 65% of the evaluation.  How quickly the contractor could provide equipment was also a consideration as there were equipment component supply issues.

Members asked if the agreement reached would allow for the Council to look elsewhere if significant cost increases incurred.  In response it was explained that by having the agreement in place the supplier was aware of the purchase volume and the Council would receive a more favourable discount as a result.  It would not be in the contractor’s best interests not to deliver. They would be dealing with a whole host of providers and not restricted to £2 million. 

It was questioned if Yorkshire Purchasing Organisation could deliver the contract and it was agreed that they would enter the tender exercise if that were possible.  There were stock and price issues which may prevent them competing. 

The management costs associated with the contract were queried and it was explained that these would depend on the contract award.  Some suppliers would charge a base cost for a device and include a percentage management cost in each appliance.

The potential to make efficiency savings by buying direct from manufacturers was questioned and it was explained that the Council was not allowed to purchase from Dell or Microsoft and must use a vendor.  The Council did have a relationship with suppliers but could not purchase directly. 

It was noted that the tender submissions evaluation would be weighted as 65% Price, 25% Quality and 10% Social Value. The expectations from social value were questioned and it was explained that this could be various measures including the provision of apprenticeships or by providing equipment to schools or charity.

It was queried what would happen to equipment at the end of the contract and explained that it would have no use by the authority at the end of its life, however, the devices could either go to partner agencies; schools or charities and would have some re-usable value.   When equipment was donated the Council no longer had accountability and the equipment would cease to be its responsibility. 

In response to questions about the removal of data from devices that were donated it was explained that some charities would undertake to do that and provide evidence or the Council may choose to wipe all data itself.  The Council were looking to provide software to ensure data could be removed remotely. 

The volume of devices in the contract was questioned and it was reported that it was anticipated the volume would be 1500/1600 per annum.  Funding had been secured for four years and the strategy would then be revised.

It was confirmed that the contract was for the provision of products such as Desktops, Workstations, Laptops, Tablets and Monitors and did not include software systems.

Members looked forward to further information about the 200 laptops referred to in discussions.

Resolved –

This Committee requests that the comments and suggestions raised by members be considered during the Procurement Exercise.

                                                (Dominic Barnes-Browne – 07812 486694)