Agenda item

·        Progressive Procurement – Progress to Date:

-        Progressive Procurement mid-term update

-        Social value – how is this measured, and what has been achieved; including examples of good practice.

The Committee received a presentation on its scrutiny review into the council’s Progressive Procurement Strategy.

The following key points were raised and discussed at the meeting:

·       The committee considered whether there would be opportunities or challenges in maximising social value presented by the new Procurement Act. The Executive Member for Inclusive Economy, Culture and Jobs explained that there would be additional reporting and an increased ability for private companies to take the Council to court however the Act was intended to improve the number of contracts with small and medium-sized enterprises, an example of how this could be achieved was a new ability to break down big contracts into smaller ones. There would also be a new central register for providers and a requirement for contracts coming up for procurement to be published a year in advance.

·       A committee member asked whether there were clear examples of what the council wanted to see in terms of social value. The Executive Member for Inclusive Economy, Culture and Jobs explained that the council were good at getting the basics but there wasn’t much flexibility when the requests were more unusual.

·       A committee member asked what the council were doing to attract bids. It was explained that there would be more opportunities for pre-market engagement. There would also be a Social Value Operations Group. There could also be greater opportunity to target requests, for example by looking at demographic needs.

·       A committee member asked who would monitor how social value was implemented. It was explained a contracts register would collect data centrally and it would contain a social value element. There would also be social value assurance roles.

·       A committee member asked whether any corporate barriers were preventing maximisation of opportunities. It was explained that different departments had a different level of understanding, and there was a piece of work around making departments aware of what could be asked for.   

·       It was explained that social value was often linked to the procured service, and it was important for the council to ensure a breadth of opportunities were looked at for social value. It was explained that the Council would look at what was done elsewhere, and they were in a space where getting the best social value options was a commercial imperative.

·       A committee member asked whether the minimum askes were ambitious enough and whether the Council benchmarked against other authorities. It was explained that Islington was often achieving more from their asks than other authorities who often did not ask for enough. It was hoped that a Pan-London minimum ask could be developed.

·       A committee member asked how flexible the Procurement Act was in ensuring the Council didn’t work with unfit suppliers, for example those who had been implicated in a tragedy.  It was explained that market warming should encourage a greater choice of suppliers. There would also be publishable key performance indicators from the council and the suppliers. This would allow councillors to see what was failing or not being provided. There would also be a new procurement review unit, which would include a debarment list and would alert councils if a supplier is added to it.  

·       A committee member asked whether it would be easier to renegotiate contracts if they could have achieved more social value. It was explained that the Procurement Act would come into force in February and old contracts would remain under the previous Act. However, there would be opportunities in the commercial management approach to return to contractors to ensure best value.

·       A committee member asked whether there was learning in the top ten oldest contracts. It was explained that the new contracts register would allow the council to see when contracts were expiring and a better assessment of the value of those contracts. It was agreed that information on those contracts would be shared with the Chair.

·       The committee considered whether environmental sustainability was built into the Act and progressive procurement policy. It was explained that using local suppliers would be closer to net 0 carbon emissions and there was social value policies aimed at suppliers meeting net 0 carbon emissions. It was felt that sustainability would be a big part of a progressive procurement toolkit, but it could also factor more in the social value asks.

·       The committee considered commercial planning and possible social benefits. It was felt that section 106 agreements were critical, so social value had to be demonstrated.

The Chair requested the committee send any additional comments or questions for inclusion in the scrutiny report.