Agenda item

RESOLVED:

That the Cabinet Procurement and Insourcing Committee:

Agreed to approve the award of a 4-year contract, via the Crown Commercial Services framework RM6017 for Postal Goods, Services and Solutions (Lot 7: Hybrid Mail, Digital And Transformational Communications) to ‘Supplier A’ for the estimated contract value of up to £3.5M.

REASONS FOR DECISION/OPTIONS APPRAISAL

The Council continues to have a requirement for these additional specialist print services and with the current contract having expired in March 2020, there is a need to reprocure via an appropriate framework. This contract will be a call off contract that enables a wide range of council services to use the contract when needed and when appropriate. The contract award does not commit the council to any spend for printing, notwithstanding any potential set up costs that could be charged by a new supplier as part of their commercial bid.

These specialist print services form part of our overall communications with residents In recent years alternative avenues of communicating with residents have been explored and introduced, for example we are also making use of Gov.Notify built into new digital services to send bulk emails/SMS messages and letters to residents. The proposed future approach is to continue to use an effective mix of our in-house print, the Gov.Notify service and the external variable data print contract which is detailed in this paper to meet the Council's varied written communication needs with the residents and local businesses.

This report therefore seeks authorisation to award this contract, which does not guarantee specific volumes of work to the supplier, in order to enable the Council’s services to competitively meet increases in demand for variable print services and support the communications strategies of the Council and its departments in a way that is also aligned to the Council’s sustainability values ands meet the high standards of performance required by the Council.

In arriving at this recommendation the following options were considered: (a) do nothing, (b) in-source service provision, (c) call-off services from existing framework agreements.

Do nothing: This option is not available to the Council as there is an ongoing  requirement for the service which we cannot meet in house and the existing contract has expired. Doing nothing places an ongoing risk to the Council and the areas who require this work as there is no formal contract in place.

Insourcing: Providing the Service in-House is not cost effective due to the costs of investment needed into the Print Unit for the required specialist equipment and personnel, to be able to provide the range of services needed. It is also anticipated that the need for these services will reduce over the life of the contract (as described above in a strategic context) and therefore investment in specialist equipment would bring diminishing returns.

The preferred option is to proceed via a further competition to be undertaken via the Crown Commercial services frameworks RM6017 for Postal Goods, Services and Solutions (Lot 7: Hybrid Mail, Digital And Transformational Communications).

The preferred option ensures the Council can gain best value through the competitive pricing offered via CCS as well as being in line with Council requirements, in a call off contract that enables services to use this service when needed, whilst allowing us to transform the services to residents in line with changing user needs and behaviours.

10.1  The Head of Delivery, introduced the report highlighting the following points:

·  There was one recommendation in the report:

Cabinet Procurement and Insourcing Committee (CIPC) was recommended to approve the award of a 4-year contract, via the Crown Commercial Services framework RM6017 for Postal Goods, Services and Solutions (Lot 7: Hybrid Mail, Digital And Transformational Communications) to ‘Supplier A’ for the estimated contract value of upto £3.5M;

·  The contract was for where the Council’s in-house print service did not have the specialist print equipment needed to do some work at short notice at high volume;

·  It was intended to enhance the in-house print service not replace it;

·  The incumbent supplier had won the tender so there was no change in supplier ;

·  The current supplier was based in E16, so travel time was reduced and all their vans were electric. There were  clear KPIs for reducing and recycling paper use. Also as part of their bid the current supplier had also outlined their use of green energy;

·  The current supplier had also made a commitment to all their employees being paid at least the London Living Wage and to recruit locally in London and in particular Newham where the business was located. The Council was also asking for them to make further commitments around apprenticeships in the contract implementation.

10.2  Councillor Woodley raised a question about fluctuating costs and the unpredictability of print costs increasing and if there was anything the Council could do to control paper costs.

10.3  The Head of Delivery replied that the use of the greenest paper possible was already included in the contract and the Council would be unlikely to store large amounts of paper on Council premises.

10.4   The ICT Contract Officer stated that certain Council services already bulked buy paper ahead of time and were storing some paper on site.

10.5  The Head of Delivery commented that where possible, work was being undertaken with Council Services to reduce paper use and to digitise their services. Considering the experience of local residents, the Council was seeking to reduce the spend of the contract over the four years as the Council changed the way it provides those services to residents.

10.6  The Chair raised a question about the sustainability and financial ramifications for the contract.

10.7  The Head of Delivery replied that, as part of the contract implementation, the Council wanted further commitments from the supplier regarding their use of apprenticeships. As mentioned, the provider had already begun to recruit locally as well as thinking about local training but the Council would like them to go further.

10.8  The Chair thought it would be helpful if the Committee could know what the service had asked for and what had actually been received.

10.9  Deputy Mayor Bramble raised a question about the amount of investment that the Council had put into outsourcing  and how this compared to if the service had been insourced instead.

10.10 The Head of Delivery replied that one of the steps the service was taking with the contract was to first consider if  the work could be done in-house. The Committee noted that The Head of Delivery also ran the print room and that the service was currently examining how it could be best used. The Head of Delivery wondered if new equipment could be installed with a view to the Council reducing outsourcing as much as possible by using in-house services in a better way. The Committee noted that some of the contract was for specialist printing equipment that would require heavy investment and would only be used a small amount during the year. The Head of Delivery stated that the Council would not want the equipment sitting around unused. In terms of the Council’s printing of letters and brochures, which historically were printed through use of an outsourcing contract, talks were currently underway to see if in-house services could be used instead with only an outsourcing contract being used if the print room could not meet the need.

10.11 Deputy Mayor Bramble commented that she would like to see in the contract more insourcing. Deputy Mayor Bramble noted The Head of Delivery’s point about purchasing costly equipment that might only be used once a year, however,  sometimes  the Council would have to communicate to local residents so a printing service would be needed. Over the next four years there had to be  a real commitment to insourcing print services.

10.12 The Head of Delivery agreed with Deputy Mayor Bramble, stating that greater consideration needed to be given to the impact of the service on residents. There had to be more joined-up communications and where a letter, for example, had to be printed it had to be of the highest quality and where an alternative approach was required then service should take the necessary steps.

10.13  The Chair stated that it would be useful for the Committee to be updated at an appropriate point in the future on how negotiations and discussions were going regarding the community benefits that would be delivered as part of the operation of the contract. The Chair added that this did not necessarily require a full report to the Committee.

10.14  The Head of Delivery agreed that an update would be provided to the Committee at an appropriate point in the future.

RESOLVED:

That the Cabinet Procurement and Insourcing Committee:

Agreed to approve the award of a 4-year contract, via the Crown Commercial Services framework RM6017 for Postal Goods, Services and Solutions (Lot 7: Hybrid Mail, Digital And Transformational Communications) to ‘Supplier A’ for the estimated contract value of up to £3.5M.