Decision details

Karen Paton, Procurement and Contracts Manager outlined her report explaining that the Contract Standing Orders needed to be realigned in the wake of the corporate restructure. She added that the audit of Contract Standing Orders had resulted in a substantial level of assurance and that a cross party recommendation from Members had asked for Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet Members to be present at tender openings.

Members asked why if Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet Members or their substitutes weren’t available, it was proposed to carry on with a tender opening without any Member present. Ms Paton explained that tendering often followed a tight timescale and that carrying on with an opening if the invited Members couldn’t make it was not meant as a way of excluding Members. She confirmed that she would have no issue with having a pool of substitute Members that could be contacted if either the Cabinet Member or Shadow Cabinet couldn’t attend an opening.

Ms Paton then explained that in response to suggestions from Members the Contract Procedure rules had been amended to include clauses in the first two stages that allowed, only if everything else was equal, for consideration to be given to Thanet based firms.

In response to a query from Members, Harvey Patterson, Corporate and Regulatory Services Manager explained that the Council did not operate a preferred list of suppliers; in addition he clarified that a Thanet firm would only be awarded a contract if it was the best quote.

Members also queried why the Council often said how much it had to spend on a project before tendering and that it gave firms the opportunity to artificially inflate prices to the level of funds the Council had to spend.

Mr Patterson confirmed that at no point within the tendering process would potential tenderers ever get to know how much the Council had to spend on a project.

Ms Paton then added that the Contract Procedure Rules needed to be amended allow for Officers to undertake a tender process where there was only one possible tenderer without having to apply for an exemption, which was a time consuming and unnecessary step. She added in response to a question from Members that currently exemptions from Contract Procedure Rules were reported annually to a Full Council meeting.

Councillor K Gregory proposed and Councillor Watkins seconded and Members agreed that:

The recommendation as set out at 6.1 of the report be forwarded to the Standards Committee after being amended to read:

The Constitutional Review Working Party approve and recommend to the Standards Committee and Full Council the amendments to the Contract Standing Orders and Purchasing Guide listed below and the associated amendment to the Constitution as required. 

  i).  Amendments made to bring the documents in line with the new Council structure. 

  ii).  Addition to wording of Clause 11.5 and Appendix 1 of the CSOs of ‘the appropriate Shadow Portfolio Holder or another Shadow cabinet member’ and to Clause 11.5 of ‘In circumstances where both Portfolio/Cabinet member and/or, both Shadow Portfolio/Cabinet members are unable to attend, opening of tenders can and should be undertaken in presence of officers and at least one substitute Member to ensure procurement programme is maintained’

  iii).  Addition to wording of Clause 7.4 of the CSOs of ‘Consideration to be given to suitably qualified Thanet Supplier/s, if available’

  iv).  Addition of Clause 2.3.6 ‘When, for technical or artistic reasons, or for reasons connected with the protection of exclusive rights, the goods, services or works may be provided only by a particular service provider’ to the CSOs.