The Head of Finance and Procurement introduced the report as set-out in the agenda papers.

The Chair invited Members to ask questions and points raised included:

·         Suggested that recommendation (1) was incorrect and should read “That lots 1, 3 and 5 through lot 8 are awarded as a package as being the most advantageous option.”;

·         did not understand how the quality scores had been awarded;

·         the social value score at 7% seemed quite low and wondered how that figure had been reached as it was important that local businesses were used where possible;

·         concerned that the committee were not being presented with sufficient information to make a decision;

·         the social value scoring would be as contained and approved by Members within the relevant Policy so happy to make a decision on the information provided;

·         the social value scoring should come back to this Committee for consideration;

·         was it usual for only one bid to be received?;

·         had any insurance been left off and what was the contingency plan if any bids had not been received?;

·         paragraph 3.1 on page 17 of the report needed to be amended to read “…..for an initial period of three years…”; and

·         it might be that given the subject matter of insurance there were no local companies that offered that service.

In response the Head of Finance and Procurement said that lot 8 was a package that covered lots 1, 3 and 5 so there was the option of awarding lots 1, 3, and 5 individually or as a package as set out in Lot 8.  The Director of Resources said that with regard to the social value she would need to get back to the Members about the scoring.  Bids had been received on all of the Lots, and in her experience, it was usual for only one bid to be received and it did not prevent a decision being made as the proper procurement rules had been followed. 

Councillor Angela Harrison moved the following motion:  That the Council’s Policy on Social Value calculations on Council contracts be reviewed by the Policy and Resources Committee.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Whiting.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

A Member queried whether the Policy on Social Value calculations would need to be considered by a Working Group rather than the Policy and Resources Committee.  The Director of Resources explained that it would likely need to be considered by the Constitution Working Group as the procurement process was included within the Financial Regulations of the Constitution.

Resolved:

(1)      That lots 1, 3 and 5 be awarded as a package through lot 8, being the most advantageous option.

(2)      That the appointment of Company A as provider of the Council’s insurance services for lots 2 and 8 from 31 July 2023 for an initial period of three years at a value of £907,328 be approved.

(3)      That the appointment of Company C as provider of the Council’s insurance services for lots 4, 6 and 7 from 31 July 2023 for an initial period of three years at a value of £58,913 be approved.

(4)      That the Council’s Policy on Social Value calculations on Council contracts be reviewed.