Barnet's IT infrastructure provider, 2e2, went into administration in February owing Barnet £220,000 which I blogged about here. Today the Council published a Delegated Powers Report showing that they have appointed Capita as an interim provider on the basis that they have already bid for this service as part of the NSCSO contract and so they might as well give it to them, even though the main decision is still subject to Judicial Review. I have no issue with the fact that they had to appoint someone very quickly as 2e2 were going to leave us in the lurch but did it have to go to Capita and how easily can the decision be unwound if the Judicial Review is successful?
I suppose the other question I would be asking is why did the Cabinet Resources Committee agree to reappoint 2e2 just 15 weeks before the company went bust and in so doing cost us £220,000 which we are unlikely to recover from the Administrators. Where was the oversight, where were the credit checks or was it just pushed through on the nod because everyone was focused on implementing One Barnet and forgetting about the day to day business of running the Council efficiently.
Standing up for common sense in New Barnet
Showing posts with label poor management. Show all posts
Showing posts with label poor management. Show all posts
Thursday, 7 March 2013
Monday, 23 July 2012
One Barnet Costs Out of Control
Back in August 2010 Barnet Council issued a Delegated Powers Report, 1134, for the award of the Implementation Partner Contract for the One Barnet project and was awarded to Agilisys/iMPOWER. (Mysteriously that report is now missing from the Council's website). In that report the value of the contract was estimated to be in excess of £500,000. I raised this contract award at Business Management Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 13 September 2010 and it was also picked up by Cllr Jack Cohen who asked for the report to be called in. At the meeting Cllr Cohen asked for the maximum value of the contract but because this was declared to be exempt information, the public were forced to leave the meeting.
Subsequently the Barnet Bugle submitted a Freedom of Information request to ascertain this maximum value. Following an initial refusal and a request for an internal review, the response which came back eventually stated:
The call in was reviewed by Cllr Dan Thomas who had originally signed off the DPR and he said he had decided to retain the contract without amendment - so from his point of view Cllr Thomas was happy with the contract as it stood.
Now just two years on, the bill for Agilisys at at 31 May 2012 is a shade under £3 million (£2,972,667.37) £1 million more than forecast and there is still a year to run on the contract.
I don't know who is keeping tabs on this spending (other than me) but if I had signed off a contract that was running 50% over total budget with a third of the contract term still to run, I would be kicking up merry hell asking what on earth was going on.
During the Inspection of Accounts I did try and review the details on the invoices submitted by Agilisys and reconcile them to the contract but according to Barnet Council that information is commercially sensitive so both invoices and contract were excessively redacted to the point that I could not see how many days they have billed or what daily rate they have applied.
I have raised this matter with Grant Thornton, the Council's external auditor, as I wonder if this additonal £1 million should have been spent on this contract without any subsequent authorisation or if any further spending with Agilisys is ultra vires. I will have to await a response from Mr Hughes but irrespective of the outcome it illustrates that the Council's "relentless desire for efficiency" doesn't appear to extend to monitoring supplier payments.
Subsequently the Barnet Bugle submitted a Freedom of Information request to ascertain this maximum value. Following an initial refusal and a request for an internal review, the response which came back eventually stated:
"The establishment of an Implementation Partner contract enables
the provision of consultants for specific assignments based on end to
end process of phased delivery requirements. This means that the forecast
cost of the contract cannot be fully predicted it will be in excess
of £500,000 [in the first year of delivery with circa £2,000,000
identified as potential contract delivery cost over a three year
period.]" The section in brackets is the important information which was originally withheld.
The call in was reviewed by Cllr Dan Thomas who had originally signed off the DPR and he said he had decided to retain the contract without amendment - so from his point of view Cllr Thomas was happy with the contract as it stood.
Now just two years on, the bill for Agilisys at at 31 May 2012 is a shade under £3 million (£2,972,667.37) £1 million more than forecast and there is still a year to run on the contract.
I don't know who is keeping tabs on this spending (other than me) but if I had signed off a contract that was running 50% over total budget with a third of the contract term still to run, I would be kicking up merry hell asking what on earth was going on.
During the Inspection of Accounts I did try and review the details on the invoices submitted by Agilisys and reconcile them to the contract but according to Barnet Council that information is commercially sensitive so both invoices and contract were excessively redacted to the point that I could not see how many days they have billed or what daily rate they have applied.
I have raised this matter with Grant Thornton, the Council's external auditor, as I wonder if this additonal £1 million should have been spent on this contract without any subsequent authorisation or if any further spending with Agilisys is ultra vires. I will have to await a response from Mr Hughes but irrespective of the outcome it illustrates that the Council's "relentless desire for efficiency" doesn't appear to extend to monitoring supplier payments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)