Showing posts with label rules bent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rules bent. Show all posts

6 July 2011

Procurement Code of Practice ( optional )

So whilst staggering around the Barnet Council website Mr Mustard came across the Code of Practice for Procurement which was most recently modified on 16 March 2006. This has to be read in conjunction with the Contract Procedure Rules ( April 2010 ) and A Guide for Suppliers/Contractors and Service Providers as to How to do Business with the Council.

There are some absolute gems in the Code of Practice for Procurement and Mr Mustard is sure that you will want to share in the joke. The whole 24 pages are in the list of pages to the right of the blog.

1.1 Everyone in the Council is affected by the Contract Procedure Rules and Code of Practice.
Really ?

1.2 Directors and Heads of Service are responsible for ensuring that their staff conform to the Contract Procedure Rules.
So every Director or Head of Service who used MetPro should now be on a disciplinary for failure to supervise.

1.3 All officers who commission contracts for goods, works or services are required to use the Contract Procedure Rules and Procurement Code of Practice and to adhere to the principles set out within it. This requirement also covers all persons who commission contracts on behalf of the Council, such as external consultants.
No exceptions.

4.2 There are two cases in which there may be uncertainty over where responsibility lies:

4.2.1 If the contract is a corporate contract which serves many or all Service Areas within the Council; or
4.2.2 there is involvement of another Service Area(s).
4.2.2.1 Corporate contracts: The Strategic Procurement Team is responsible for tendering and letting corporate contracts. Examples of such contracts are contracts for stationary, Corporate Clothing and Utilities. Whilst we will consult and liaise with Service Areas on such contracts, we will manage the procurement process and be responsible and accountable for the performance of the contract. I think they mean Stationery with an e, or, Security.
4.2.2.2 Contracts involving more than one Service Area: Where there are two or more Service Areas involved in the letting of a contract, there must always be a lead Service and this Service Area will have responsibility for the effective tendering, letting and monitoring of the contract. Examples of such contracts are grounds maintenance and catering, which are contracts which cut across more than one Service Area with the responsibility for the contract resting with one Service Area, in this case Environment. or Security
4.2.2.3 In the case of several Service Areas being involved in the letting of a single contract, the Strategic Procurement Team may become involved in the management of the procurement process. We would give advice about who the lead Service should be, and could project manage the process. If we were not directly involved in such a procurement process we would always be available to give advice and guidance.

So the MetPro type situation had been thought of in advance and so all that rubbish that non-stick Nick Walkley fed to the Audit committee about devolution being the problem is not the case. There were clear purchasing rules which were in place from about the time that MetPro started.

4.4 However, as part of this approach, it is important that there is a clear audit trail in place in all Service Areas. Your decisions on tendering and contract letting must be as clear and transparent as possible, and they must be clearly documented and auditable.
Except for Security

4.5 There are two elements to the audit trail:

4.5.1 a contract database which tracks all contracts over £25,000 in value. All Heads of Service are now required to keep a register of contracts in their services of £25,000 or more. The Strategic Procurement Team has developed a contract database for this purpose. The Service Area Procurement Officers (SAPOs) are responsible for maintaining and updating the contract database; and

4.5.2 a Gateway Review Process which provides additional structure to contracts over £144,371. Gateway Review Forms must be completed for all purchases over £144,371 in value and can be found at Appendices 3 - 7.
These didn't exist in the case of MetPro and how many others ?

5.5 All contractors tendering for supplies or services valued at £144,371 or more or works valued at more than £500,000 are subject to enquiries as to their financial status as detailed in section 0.
Much less work to just skip this stage.

6.44 If the cost of a contract is expected to exceed £150,000 or more for supplies or services or £500,000 for works then contractors must be subject to a financial evaluation as part of the selection process.

6.45 This evaluation should be undertaken by:

6.45.1 The contract owner if the contract is valued at less than £1 million;

6.45.2 The Chief Finance Officer if the contract is valued at £1 million or more. The Chief Finance Officer will complete this financial evaluation in a period not exceeding two weeks.

Mr Mustard feels an FOI request coming on to find out who many of these evaluations have been done recently.

There can be all the rules that you like but they are pointless if ignored.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

PAP - dessert - Barnet Mess

At last Mr Mustard has struggled through the 4 courses, and is enjoying a digestive whilst he finishes the final blog on this subject ( for now ! )

So firstly let Mr Mustard summarise the 10 point plan that Barnet Council come up with - google now think that Mr Mustard has a problem as he went to the Alcoholics Anonymous website to check out their 12 steps but they don't seem to be in use any longer. If you need them their website is here :- http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org.uk/

Mr Mustard wonders if Barnet Council will be able to stop buying things without a Contract or if they will relapse.

So, here are the 10 points that Barnet Council listed actions and tasks for. Mr Mustard has scrapped the Barnet OneSpeak and used plain English and reduced to as few words as possible what Barnet Council said their plan was.
  1. Follow the CPR ( Contract Procedure Rules )
  2. Follow the CPR
  3. Follow the CPR
  4. Follow the CPR
  5. Follow the CPR
  6. Monitor amendments 
  7. Sort out VAT problems
  8. Follow the CPR
  9. Follow the CPR
  10. Monitor the CPR
Not really a 10 point plan then ! and almost nothing new in it.

Measure of success

So Barnet Council have decided upon a measure of success for each of their 10 points ( actions and tasks ). Let us now take a look at them.

1.   Compliance with CPR's (sic) embedded in information systems and monitoring routines.

So the test will be if the Council can lick SAP into shape. Mr Mustard couldn't find a bookie to take his bet that the Council will fail.

2.   All non-staff expenditure for vendors in excess of £25k covered by formal contracts.

That is not a measure of success that Mr Mustard accepts as good enough. 
The Council have given themselves away here. Contractors like Mr Travers are evidently thought of as staff otherwise the phrase "non-staff" would not be used. Therefore Mr Traversty is really staff, ergo he should pay PAYE. There should also be a contract in place.
In addition Mr Mustard does not see why suppliers worth less than £25,000 a year should not be subject to a Contract. It could be a simpler shorter contract. If there is not a Contract how was the price agreed, the time for payment, the specification of the goods, the time for delivery etc etc. Mr Mustard has just found a standard 31 page Contract on the Barnet Council website. He wonders if Procurement know it exists.

3.   Complete documentation and records as required by CPRs and full compliance.

Mr Mustard does not think that there is a hope in hell of this being completed by the target date of 30 September 2011

4. Corporate Security Contract in place

This is now being advertised on the Council website. It is presumed that it is also in the OJEU. Mr Mustard hopes that Evolution Emergency Response do not cause any embarrassment by applying. Mr Mustard is not sure why there is such a great need for extra security guards at Council meetings as they are the tamest of affairs.

5. Compliance with vendor limits in CPRs.

So Barnet Council are expecting to check every vendor against the various spend limits ( £25,000, £156,442 and £500,000 ) by 30 September 2011 and get them all monitored in SAP. This looks overly ambitious to Mr Mustard given that there are 9,700 suppliers.

6. Validated vendor records in place

Barnet Council cannot have checked all 9,700 records by 30 June 2011. There must still be some surprises in the supplier file.

7. MetPro VAT issue resolved and compliance with VAT status requirements of HMRC.

This is scheduled for 30 June & 31 July. VAT has been around since 1973 so you would think that even an organisation as slow as Barnet Council might have read the regulations by now.

8. Nothing.

No measure of success has been listed for ensuring that contract extensions or changes are in line with CPR. Evidently this is not important.

9. Compliance with CPRs

Everyone has to follow the rules by 30 September 2011. Bloggers will check in October.

10. All contracts managed effectively.

It might work for a little while and then a wheel will fall off.

So, is there anything that didn't get a mention.

Well actually yes there is. The Council's Procurement Code of Practice says that, as a minimum requirement, the Council should be less than 25% of a supplier's turnover as "A company should not be overly dependent on the Council for business". Now Mr Mustard would like to wager that the Council was probably a greater proportion of MetPro's business than that but it's not a question that the Council can answer as they didn't have any financial information for MetPro even assuming we know which of its three incarnations we are talking about.

Here is a short list of other Companies for whom the Council is likely to be more than 25% of the turnover of the supplier.

Halliford Associates Ltd ( 100% ? ) supplier of Mr Andrew Travers
CCMPS Ltd ( 100% ? ) supplier of Mr Chris Malyon
MJW Office Moves Ltd ( 100% ? ) supplier of Mr Martin Willoughby
Advance HR Consulting Ltd ( 100% ? ) supplier of Jason Wheatley
Jacquie McGeachie HR Consulting Limited (100% ? ) supplier of Jacquie McGeachie
Renouval Ltd ( 100% ? ) supplier of Chris Palmer
Garfield Associates Ltd ( 100% ? ) supplier of David Garfield

So quite simply if the Council was following its own guidelines it would not have employed any of these people through a contractor in the way it has. Doubtless there will be some pathetic excuse as to why the rule does not apply in the cases I highlight; just to everyone else.

Mr Mustard