It was proposed by the Chairman, seconded by the Vice-Chairman and RESOLVED:
“THAT the recommendations as set out at paragraph 6.1 of the report be adopted, namely:
‘That Full Council receive and approve adoption of the revised Contract Standing Orders and Purchasing Guide as shown at Annexes 1 and 2 to the report, to include such amendments relating to the following areas:
a) Reinforcement of conflict of interest and confidentiality undertaking protocols, including addition of ‘Conflict of Interest’ contract clause as standard for contracts valued £10K and over;
b) Inclusion of obligations and requirements of the Council in respect of Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012;
c) Realignment of headings of Standard Contract Clauses to the Council’s General Conditions of Contract;
d) Non-material amendments to Job Titles and Section headings to align with the current Council structure/establishment;
e) Authorisation to the Strategic Procurement Manager to undertake such non-material amendments as a result of restructures, as required from time to time, without the requirement to revert to the Constitutional Review Working Party, provided that a report on amendments is brought to the next available meeting of the Constitutional Review Working Party.’ ”
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.