(Just in case anyone isn't aware, "Gainshare" is a contractual mechanism by which Capita is entitled to a share in savings they make for Barnet).
The way I described it to a friend is that it was a bit like an episode of BBC Rogue Traders - you know they haven't done anything illegal but you definitely feel your granny has been right royally ripped off. The reason why this is important right now is because next week Barnet are going to be deciding which services should be brought back in house and which should be left with Capita. Procurement and the gainshare payments arising are one of those services currently identified as being left with Capita.
Over the next few days I will give you some examples of Capita invoice with which I have concerns. The first is an initiative to move people with Learning Difficulties (LD) or Mental Health (MH) issues from supported living or residential care homes to the private rented sector. Now clearly there is a drive to cut adult social care costs but these projects always give me some real concerns and I am aware that there have been some problems when this type of move has taken place. Set out below is the "Project Overview and Savings Methodology" provided by Capita.
So now here comes the rub. Capita said we have saved you £197,203 we are entitled to a gainshare of £67,138 (34%) and that is what Barnet have paid. This makes me very uncomfortable because it turns vulnerable people into a commodity on which a profit can be earned. This isn't about effective procurement, it is about cutting a service to make money. It also worries me that making inroads into the adult social care budget will be difficult if Capita are going to keep taking a massive slug of the savings on every initiative.
A second example is a procurement exercise for the Domestic Violence Unit covering:
- Independent Domestic Violence Advisors;
- Refuge Provision;
- Support Service for Perpetrators and Victims of Domestic Violence;
- Risk Assessors; and
- Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC).
Capita carried out tender exercise and compared the new prices to what Barnet previously paid. Much of the detail is redacted but critically Capita claimed a gainshare of £47,102.80. Last year the payment was disputed because it was thought that Domestic Violence was funded from grant money and Capita can't claim gainshare on grant money. However, this year it was agreed that Barnet had funded the service and as such were stuck with the bill for £47k. Again, what seems to be missing from the process is the issue of quality and user satisfaction with vulnerable people being a source of profit for Capita. What I also struggle with is whether this is the type of work we are already paying for from a procurement service included in the core contract; my view is that it is, but apparently not.
A third example today is on court costs. Capita receive a gainshare paid at 20% of court costs collected above a baseline. The baseline was set at £871,000 and last year the total court costs collected was £1,242,495. Capita therefore received a gainshare payment of (£1,242,495 less £871,000) x 20% = £74,299. The point I made is that by having a fixed sum as a baseline, as court cost rise over time or if there is a year when there is more legal action, Barnet will end up paying a fortune in gainshare, not because Capita have recovered a higher proportion of court costs but simply because the overall bill was higher.
There will be more examples to come tomorrow.