Minutes:
The following question(s) were put to the
Police and Crime Commissioner:
“Given that the
contract for support to victims and witnesses has been awarded to an
organisation with a background of supporting youth offenders, rather than
victims or witnesses and has little or no history of providing services in the
force area, could the Police and Crime Commissioner please explain:
(a)
How it was decided during
the procurement process that this body would have the ability, expertise or
experience to deliver that service;
(b)
Why you did not take the
opportunity to interview bidders; and
(c)
How you will now ensure
that it is delivered to an appropriately high standard without any reduction in
the quality or level of service?”
Reply by the Police and Crime Commissioner:
“(a) A
tender assessment score card was issued with the Invitation to Tender (ITT).
The member of the public asking this question will have seen this as they were
involved in the tender process, supporting a bid. The scorecard included
weightings which clearly outlined the areas the Office of the Police and Crime
Commissioner (OPCC) believed to be those requiring the greatest strengths. The
OPCC’s decision to score and weight these areas was based on officers’ understanding
of the requirements for the new Victim First service. As the original intention
was to build the service in- house, the OPCC had a clear understanding of the
skills, expertise and experience needed.
This was further developed
through research and analysis of existing provision, the identification of gaps
and opportunities as well as consideration from experiences of the ‘early
adopters’, namely Cambridgeshire and Avon and Somerset.
Advice was
also taken from the Leicestershire Police Procurement Team to ensure the market
opportunity was fair and equal. The tenders received (of which there were two)
were scored by a number of individuals, prior to being standardised by
moderation panels.”
(b) The
decision not to interview bidders was based on advice from the Procurement
Team. As the Victim First specification was detailed and the tender assessment
score card explicit, it was felt that interviewing bidders would not add any
value to the evaluation process. However, a series of clarification questions
were emailed to both bidders, prior to final scoring being undertaken;
(c) As
already stated, we issued a detailed specification for the Victim First
service. The contract being put in place has a performance framework that
covers a broader range of metrics, with higher quality demands, than the
previous Ministry of Justice (MoJ) contract with
Victim Support. The OPCC therefore has a greater degree of leverage and control
over underperformance than previously existed. Regular contract management
meetings will take place and reports on performance and customer satisfaction
levels will be discussed at the Victim and Witness Partnership Assurance Group
who will maintain oversight of the new Victim First service. There will also be
an independent Victim Board set up, where regular performance reports will be
presented. This Board will be made up of local experts, including academics,
criminal justice leads and victim ambassadors.”
The following supplementary question was asked in relation to the answer to
question (a):
“The answer sets out the principles of the
tender process and in some ways why the OPCC had confidence in it. For the
process to enable an organisation who are young offender focused and with no
victim support experience to be successful in the bidding process surely gives
cause for concern. To give the experience of Cambridgeshire and Avon and
Somerset is also misleading in that both did not utilise an outside agency to
deliver the victim services but kept the assessment process in house.
Is the OPCC confident that the successful organisation
Catch 22 has the ability, expertise and experience to deliver the Victim First service?”
The Commissioner responded to the effect that he was unable to provide
a response at the meeting and would endeavour to provide a written response
within five working days.
The following supplementary question was asked in relation to the
answer to question (b):
“At the bidders
conference the lead procurement officer stated that the time between the final
submission date of the tender and the decision to offer the contract was very
tight
As a series of
clarification questions were required prior to final scoring, does the OPCC now
consider that not having a face to face interview to deal with these questions
was a mistake given the importance of the contract to victims of crime in
Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland?”
The Commissioner responded to the effect that he was unable to provide
a response at the meeting and would endeavour to provide a written response
within five working days.
The following supplementary question was asked in relation to the
answer to question (c):
“This question is
about making sure a quality service is delivered by the new provider. Will the performance data be open to public
scrutiny?”
The Commissioner responded to the effect that he was unable to provide
a response at the meeting and would endeavour to provide a written response
within five working days.