Agenda item

5.1

The Committee received the following questions from members of the public:-

5.2

Paul Wimpeney

5.2.1

At a previous meeting of this Committee, the Stop G4S Group made the Committee aware of concerns with regard to the Council’s interpretation of one of the Procurement Regulations, specifically regarding its powers relating to discretionary exclusion. Is the Committee aware that the legal advice offered to the Council, on this issue, and accepted by it, could mean that this permission is significantly limited in application?

5.2.2

In response, David Hollis (Assistant Director of Legal and Governance) stated that the Council had worked closely with the Stop G4S Group, and other similar groups, on this and other issues regarding the Council’s procurement regulations.  As part of this work, the Council had sought independent legal advice from a procurement specialist, and, whilst accepting the point being made, concluded that the advice clearly indicated that the Council could only look at one legal entity, i.e. the bidder, as part of its procurement process.  The test the Council had to adhere to was whether or not that individual or company had committed gross/grave professional misconduct, rather than assessing the group of companies, unless the Council could show that the bidder was complicit.

5.3

John Grayson

(a)      Following assurances from officers and elected representatives that the Council has a robust policy, which would now deter and exclude companies with questionable integrity. Does the Council therefore think that such policy should exclude companies such as G4S, Capita (enforceable tagging of asylum seekers and Go Home campaigns) and Amey (ties with US corporation GEO)?

5.3.1

In response, Filip Leonard (Head of Procurement and Supply Chain) stated that, under the procurement Regulations, the Council needed to be open, fair and transparent, and was not able to place a carte blanche ban on any one company. Every company had the opportunity of bidding for a contract and the Council would assess each individual bid. If the Council had any specific concerns with a company however, it would approach that company, and raise such concerns with them, offering them the opportunity to provide an explanation.  

(b)      In terms of the Council’s procurement policies, will the Committee itself monitor the policy in action, and assistant citizens in checking that this flagship policy lives up to its promise and, would the Committee ensure that an easily accessible and user-friendly register of companies be produced so the public could check if the Council had managed to employ only reputable firms?

5.3.2

In response, Filip Leonard (Head of Procurement and Supply Chain) stated that the Council wished to report on the performance of its procurement policy in a transparent manner.  The Council already published data on spend on a monthly basis, on data.sheffield.gov.uk, and all the awarded contracts registers on Yortender and Contracts Finder.  Unfortunately, the Service had little control over the data.sheffield.gov.uk site, to who it provided the raw data, in terms of how this was published.  This was something the service planned to review, but this could prove difficult in the light of the potential costs in purchasing and running new systems to accommodate this.