Councillor Ramsdale submits a report.
Minutes:
Councillor Ramsdale submitted a report to advise of the outcome of the tendering process for the provision of the Council’s building cleaning services and make a recommenda tion on the award of a contract for these services.
Written submissions from both Unison and the GMB were circulated to Members of the Cabinet.
Mark Challenor, Unison Convenor addressed the Cabinet and the points he raised are summarised as follows:-
- The Trade Unions had particular concerns about the process that was followed including the level of consultation and union involvement.
- The Council never intended to tender for the contract, but only did so under pressure from the unions.
- There was no continuity in staff running the tender process.
- It was felt ESPO didn’t have sufficient experience to be involved such a complex contract.
- The Trade Unions weren’t consulted on the final tender document and there were concerns that it wasn’t a sufficiently robust document.
- Concerns were expressed that so many of the initial tenderers were removed from the process.
- It was felt the main competitor for the contract didn’t take in to account Workforce Matters in their tender submission.
- It was felt the resources proposed to meet the terms of the contract by the main competitor were not sufficient and there could be future financial and industrial relations problems for the Council.
- Concerns were expressed about the track record of a company in the same group as one of the short listed bidders.
- Concerns were expressed about the statement made by the main competitor for the contract that the price could be altered if it felt the Council had provided misleading information.
Members of the Cabinet then sought clarification from Mr. Challenor on a number of matters raised in his submission. Members of the Cabinet in particular queried the particular concerns of Trade Unions in relation to TUPE and Workforce Matters. Mr Challenor stated that the main concern was the potential for the new contract holder to reorganise the working arrangements of transferred staff which could include the reduction of hours, which the new contract holder was entitled to do if it was due to economic or technical reasons.
The Chair thanked Mr. Challenor for his contribution. Mr Challenor then left the meeting.
The Service Director, Community Protection and Public Wellbeing then responded to a number of the points that were raised. He was generally concerned at the criticisms of the project team; he felt these criticisms were unjustified and misrepresented. He confirmed that the Code of Practice on Workforce Matters had been incorporated into the contract. He acknowledged that, under the legislation, changes to staff terms and conditions could be made as a result of a reorganisation undertaken for economic, organisational or technical reasons. The transfer would be on the basis that the transferred staff would transfer on their current terms and conditions.
He also presented to Cabinet a letter from the Director of ESPO, which stated that “ESPO are confident that the above tender exercise has been conducted in a professional manner and in full compliance with the OJEU Directives.”
He stated that he was concerned about suggestions that there had been poor consultation and misleading information supplied to the Trade Unions. He emphasised that whilst they had obviously not been involved in every meeting, they had been involved from the outset and at key stages of the project, though they had chosen to withdraw from the process on more than one occasion.
He confirmed that the project team had carefully considered Trade Union concerns about under-resourcing, but the team was satisfied that adequate resources had been allocated by ISS to meet the terms of the contract. He also responded to the point made by the Trade Unions about the misleading information leading to a change of costs.
Members of the Cabinet then considered all that they had heard. They were reassured by the responses they received to their queries and that the concerns raised by the Trade Unions had been fully addressed as part of the tender process.
Councillor Ramsdale then summed up by noting that there was a considerable saving to be made for the Council by awarding the contract to ISS. He commented that he was satisfied that ISS could meet the Terms and Conditions of the contract and that they could meet the requirements of protecting the Terms and Conditions of transferred Council staff. He therefore recommended the contract be awarded to ISS.
On a related matter Members of the Cabinet commented that there should be a mechanism put in place for the future so that the packaging of contracts ensured that the Council attracted a wider range of viable tenders to improve the value for money of the Council. The Town Clerk undertook to address this issue in the procurement efficiency review.
The Service Director (Community Protection and Wellbeing) was also asked to respond in writing to the written submissions provided by UNISON and the GMB.
RESOLVED:
(1)that a four-year contract be awarded for the supply of building cleaning services to ISS Facility Services; and
(2)that the Head of Legal Services be authorised to enter into a contract for the supply of those services.