According to a report on BBC Points West the problems at SouthWestOne, where they have outsourced services to IBM, seem worse that first thought. According to Cllr Ken Maddocks, Leader of Somerset County Council, by tearing up the contract they have with SouthWestOne they could save £58 million. I know I had to do a double take as well. Listen to what conservative MP Ian Liddell-Grainger has to say. I hope that every Barnet Councillor has read the details of what has happened here.
Standing up for common sense in New Barnet
Saturday, 30 April 2011
Thursday, 28 April 2011
Latest council payments published
The latest set of Barnet Council spending is available to view on line. I have only had a quick look but so far I have found a few items that are quite interesting.
In March MetPro Rapid Response were paid £43,818. At the same time Blue 9 Security were paid £8,490. But what is this, another company called Magenta Security Services who were paid £52,355.52. Now that seems a lot of security in just one month.
Then there is the Council’s implementation partner Agilisys who were paid £215,295.70in March along with various other consultants. Then there is Halliford Associates, the company of the deputy Chief Executive Mr Andrew Travers who was paid £51,000 in the period January to March.
One real oddity is the payment to a company called City Suburban Tree Surgeons Ltd. In the three months January- March 2011 they were paid £527,399.90. That seems a lot of grounds maintenance. Oh and a minor items £7,200 for venue hire at the Holiday Inn Elstree even though there are all those lovely meeting rooms at NLBP.
Finally, there are still an awful lot of redacted payments which we will never be able to scrutinise in detail.
In March MetPro Rapid Response were paid £43,818. At the same time Blue 9 Security were paid £8,490. But what is this, another company called Magenta Security Services who were paid £52,355.52. Now that seems a lot of security in just one month.
Then there is the Council’s implementation partner Agilisys who were paid £215,295.70in March along with various other consultants. Then there is Halliford Associates, the company of the deputy Chief Executive Mr Andrew Travers who was paid £51,000 in the period January to March.
One real oddity is the payment to a company called City Suburban Tree Surgeons Ltd. In the three months January- March 2011 they were paid £527,399.90. That seems a lot of grounds maintenance. Oh and a minor items £7,200 for venue hire at the Holiday Inn Elstree even though there are all those lovely meeting rooms at NLBP.
Finally, there are still an awful lot of redacted payments which we will never be able to scrutinise in detail.
Tuesday, 26 April 2011
Another £280k for One Barnet Staff
Another day sees yet more staff recruited to manage the One Barnet programme. Today's Delegated Powers Report shows that the Council will recruit another project manager and three support staff at a cost of £140k per annum (excluding on costs) for a fixed term of two year. For a project that won't let a contract for another 18 months, it really seems to be proving an expensive process. It also seems rather strange that at a time when the council are making hundred's of staff redundant yet more One Barnet staff are being recruited. When will someone stand back and start asking some searching questions about the costs and benefits of this entire One Barnet Programme?
Sunday, 24 April 2011
Lies, Damn Lies and FOI Responses
Barnet Council have helpfully put a link to their publication scheme on the front page of their website. This lists information which may be of interest to the public. It also details the disclosure log which is a record of Freedom Of Information (FOI) requests that the Council feel are of a wider public interest. Clear there is a difference of opinion on what is of a wider public interest as there are a number of notable absences from the log such as:
• How long it takes to fix a parking meter in Barnet;
• How much is raised in parking charges and how much are parking maintenance costs;
• How many days did a parking meter collect zero funds (one meter took no income for 8 months); and
• How much loss/profit is made by Barnet council on allotments?
There are some interesting disclosures listed which include the £10,035 the Chief Executive was paid as returning officer and that he claimed no expenses in 2009/10. It also revealed that the total paid out for damages claims caused by potholes (including costs) was £168,283 with the largest single claim of £5,414.17 for damage to the gearbox of a Mercedes.
Now we come to the bit that really worries me and that is the discrepancies in some of the FOI answers provided.
First of all is the cost of replacing and upgrading IT equipment. In the published statement it states that “The cost of purchasing the new laptops and tablets is £270k.” Now we know that that cannot be correct because they it also states that they purchased 2,450 new laptops and tablet computers and we also know from a previous FOI request submitted by Barnet Bugle that the cost per laptop including all the add on bits (docking station, ultra slim battery, separate TFT screen, keyboard and a mouse) is approximately £1,500 each. So how do they arrive at a cost of £270k when it is closer to £3.7 million? Beats me.
Maybe the list of away days conveniently stopped before the lovely £15,000 awayday break at the Sandbanks hotel was clocked up.
Now we come to suppliers. The council produces a list of companies with which the council has contracts. A few interesting examples are as follows:
Council states Logica plc contract value £13k. Openly Local says the value for Logica CMG UK Ltd (which I believe is probably one and the same) £1,635,960 – bit of a difference there.
No mention of Norwest Holst, £8,204,569; Catalyst, £7,977,334; Dimensions (ADP)Ltd, £3,491,107; Barnet Lighting, £2,527,493; Ridgeland Properties, £2,338,036 and so on and so on. One contract noticeable by its absence is for MetPro – maybe because there wasn’t a contract just, an arrangement.
I would urge all Barnet residents to scrutinise these details very closely because it is our borough where we all live, it is our money they are spending and it is in our name they are acting. We all need to take responsibility to see how the council is run and to shout up if we don’t agree with the decisions taken in our name.
• How long it takes to fix a parking meter in Barnet;
• How much is raised in parking charges and how much are parking maintenance costs;
• How many days did a parking meter collect zero funds (one meter took no income for 8 months); and
• How much loss/profit is made by Barnet council on allotments?
There are some interesting disclosures listed which include the £10,035 the Chief Executive was paid as returning officer and that he claimed no expenses in 2009/10. It also revealed that the total paid out for damages claims caused by potholes (including costs) was £168,283 with the largest single claim of £5,414.17 for damage to the gearbox of a Mercedes.
Now we come to the bit that really worries me and that is the discrepancies in some of the FOI answers provided.
First of all is the cost of replacing and upgrading IT equipment. In the published statement it states that “The cost of purchasing the new laptops and tablets is £270k.” Now we know that that cannot be correct because they it also states that they purchased 2,450 new laptops and tablet computers and we also know from a previous FOI request submitted by Barnet Bugle that the cost per laptop including all the add on bits (docking station, ultra slim battery, separate TFT screen, keyboard and a mouse) is approximately £1,500 each. So how do they arrive at a cost of £270k when it is closer to £3.7 million? Beats me.
Maybe the list of away days conveniently stopped before the lovely £15,000 awayday break at the Sandbanks hotel was clocked up.
Now we come to suppliers. The council produces a list of companies with which the council has contracts. A few interesting examples are as follows:
Council states Logica plc contract value £13k. Openly Local says the value for Logica CMG UK Ltd (which I believe is probably one and the same) £1,635,960 – bit of a difference there.
No mention of Norwest Holst, £8,204,569; Catalyst, £7,977,334; Dimensions (ADP)Ltd, £3,491,107; Barnet Lighting, £2,527,493; Ridgeland Properties, £2,338,036 and so on and so on. One contract noticeable by its absence is for MetPro – maybe because there wasn’t a contract just, an arrangement.
I would urge all Barnet residents to scrutinise these details very closely because it is our borough where we all live, it is our money they are spending and it is in our name they are acting. We all need to take responsibility to see how the council is run and to shout up if we don’t agree with the decisions taken in our name.
Thursday, 21 April 2011
How a £2.5 million project ended up costing £21 million - Why we need to learn the lessons.
This is a complex story that started back in 2003 but has huge relevance for the decisions being made at the moment on outsourcing. It started with an estimate of £2.5 million and today it has clocked up costs of £21 million and that is not the end of it. I have tried to assemble the facts correctly but if they are wrong I apologise. However, trying to get information out of Barnet Council has been exceptionally difficult and some of the information remains locked in exempt reports.
Back in 2003 it was identified that the core financials IT and HR/Payroll systems needed to be replaced. They estimated that the core financial system replacement would cost £2.5 million and that was the figure approved by the Council in March 2004. As they looked into this further they decided that this should now be treated as a business change project not an IT replacement project. Warning bells are starting to ring!
They put it out to tender in 2004 giving bidders three options:
• Option 1: A core financials system without HR/payroll
• Option 3: A HR/payroll system operated by the ‘bureau mechanism’
• Option 2: An enterprise-wide system with HR/payroll module included
Interestingly the Cabinet Resources report of 8 July 2004 states that “the response to Option 1 had been poor with no Best of Breed finance providers bidding for this option. The market response thus played a major role in informing the decision process”. So surprise, surprise the leading providers didn’t want to supply a basic and low cost solution; they wanted to sell their more expensive enterprise wide solutions. This is what happens when you let the market tell you what they want to provide. Sound familiar with what they are saying about the current outsourcing programme?
Right from the start it was clear there were problems. A memorandum from Audit in May 2004 (page 15) said,
“The Council is in the process “of modernising its core systems” with the aim to use the opportunities provided by the new system to modernise working practices.
Overall: at this stage no assurance can be given that the above objective will be achieved in an efficient, effective and economical way. Although a recognised project management methodology (Prince 2) is being used to manage the project, the initial stages of good project management have not been strictly followed and implemented.
In that report it also identified that cost estimates were now £8.3 million which included both internal and external staff costs. The risk register also identified the lack of a business case.
“As Pointed out by the Gateway review team there is a need for the Business Case to be developed by the Core Financials Project, to determine the project costs and viability”.
In July 2004 a business case was prepared and you can read it here (starts at page 26). I have read a few business cases in my time but the brevity of this one is nothing short of indecent. All the details may be locked up in the exempt report, which I have not been allowed to see, but to have 2 pages for costs and benefits without a single number being mentioned leaves me with a feeling that it was not one of the most thorough assessments. I may be wrong in which case, if Barnet Council care to provide me with a copy of the exempt report, I may change my view. However it also notes in the business case that they haven’t concluded negotiations with the suppliers yet. Again this has an all too familiar ring with the current outsourcing project.
So the Cabinet went ahead and authorised a company who we now know to be Logica to install and support the SAP system for five years with the option to extend for a further three years.
One year later in September 2005 the Cabinet ICT committee set out what was the budget in 2004 (someone with a black pen must have missed that). It shows that the capital budget was now £8.16 million and there were anticipated annual costs of £1.1 million with savings from the old system of £662,000.
Now six years later people are still talking about SAP and what else needs to be implemented. Through an FOI request I have been informed that the cost of installation was £7.8 million and the annual payments to Logica amount to £13.2 million. In addition there are a further two years to run on Logica’s support contract.
So what does all this mean?
• We started with a budget of £2.5 million and we ended up with a cost of £21 million.
• We started a process and got a long way down the track before a business case was prepared.
• We gave the market the option to tell us what they wanted to provide.
• The market chose not to provide us with the cheapest option.
• We have been locked into a support contract for 8 years which has consistently run at double or treble the initial estimated costs.
Now the SAP system may be great and it may be delivering all sorts of benefits but it has cost an awful lot of money. It’s a bit like the man who says a Porsche is wonderful value for money but most people can’t afford to run it let alone buy it. We need to learn lessons from the past to make sure we don’t repeat them in the future.
At the minute I am hugely worried that the current outsourcing programme is in danger of repeating all the old mistakes and it will end up costing us all a fortune. I have asked questions at numerous committees only to be fobbed off. The first contract being outsourced has an estimated value of between £270 and £290 million. This are not small amounts we are talking about and if these contracts do go wrong the financial consequences could be immense. Please Barnet Council, re-open the debate and open up the books. Give the rate payer of Barnet some comfort that this will not end like another SAP project.
Back in 2003 it was identified that the core financials IT and HR/Payroll systems needed to be replaced. They estimated that the core financial system replacement would cost £2.5 million and that was the figure approved by the Council in March 2004. As they looked into this further they decided that this should now be treated as a business change project not an IT replacement project. Warning bells are starting to ring!
They put it out to tender in 2004 giving bidders three options:
• Option 1: A core financials system without HR/payroll
• Option 3: A HR/payroll system operated by the ‘bureau mechanism’
• Option 2: An enterprise-wide system with HR/payroll module included
Interestingly the Cabinet Resources report of 8 July 2004 states that “the response to Option 1 had been poor with no Best of Breed finance providers bidding for this option. The market response thus played a major role in informing the decision process”. So surprise, surprise the leading providers didn’t want to supply a basic and low cost solution; they wanted to sell their more expensive enterprise wide solutions. This is what happens when you let the market tell you what they want to provide. Sound familiar with what they are saying about the current outsourcing programme?
Right from the start it was clear there were problems. A memorandum from Audit in May 2004 (page 15) said,
“The Council is in the process “of modernising its core systems” with the aim to use the opportunities provided by the new system to modernise working practices.
Overall: at this stage no assurance can be given that the above objective will be achieved in an efficient, effective and economical way. Although a recognised project management methodology (Prince 2) is being used to manage the project, the initial stages of good project management have not been strictly followed and implemented.
In that report it also identified that cost estimates were now £8.3 million which included both internal and external staff costs. The risk register also identified the lack of a business case.
“As Pointed out by the Gateway review team there is a need for the Business Case to be developed by the Core Financials Project, to determine the project costs and viability”.
In July 2004 a business case was prepared and you can read it here (starts at page 26). I have read a few business cases in my time but the brevity of this one is nothing short of indecent. All the details may be locked up in the exempt report, which I have not been allowed to see, but to have 2 pages for costs and benefits without a single number being mentioned leaves me with a feeling that it was not one of the most thorough assessments. I may be wrong in which case, if Barnet Council care to provide me with a copy of the exempt report, I may change my view. However it also notes in the business case that they haven’t concluded negotiations with the suppliers yet. Again this has an all too familiar ring with the current outsourcing project.
So the Cabinet went ahead and authorised a company who we now know to be Logica to install and support the SAP system for five years with the option to extend for a further three years.
One year later in September 2005 the Cabinet ICT committee set out what was the budget in 2004 (someone with a black pen must have missed that). It shows that the capital budget was now £8.16 million and there were anticipated annual costs of £1.1 million with savings from the old system of £662,000.
Now six years later people are still talking about SAP and what else needs to be implemented. Through an FOI request I have been informed that the cost of installation was £7.8 million and the annual payments to Logica amount to £13.2 million. In addition there are a further two years to run on Logica’s support contract.
So what does all this mean?
• We started with a budget of £2.5 million and we ended up with a cost of £21 million.
• We started a process and got a long way down the track before a business case was prepared.
• We gave the market the option to tell us what they wanted to provide.
• The market chose not to provide us with the cheapest option.
• We have been locked into a support contract for 8 years which has consistently run at double or treble the initial estimated costs.
Now the SAP system may be great and it may be delivering all sorts of benefits but it has cost an awful lot of money. It’s a bit like the man who says a Porsche is wonderful value for money but most people can’t afford to run it let alone buy it. We need to learn lessons from the past to make sure we don’t repeat them in the future.
At the minute I am hugely worried that the current outsourcing programme is in danger of repeating all the old mistakes and it will end up costing us all a fortune. I have asked questions at numerous committees only to be fobbed off. The first contract being outsourced has an estimated value of between £270 and £290 million. This are not small amounts we are talking about and if these contracts do go wrong the financial consequences could be immense. Please Barnet Council, re-open the debate and open up the books. Give the rate payer of Barnet some comfort that this will not end like another SAP project.
Thursday, 14 April 2011
Democracy RIP
Tonight I sat through a very thorough dismantling of democracy in Barnet. Council meeting, number to be reduced,questions on the work of the cabinet eliminated, reduction in the number of opposition motions. Much debate but irrespective of the arguments Conservative group simply put it to the vote and pass what they want. Limited discussion on Delegated Powers Reports. Then on to residents forums. Officers prepared a range of options; someone has carried out research with residents, two people speak and then the Conservative group put up their own proposal. It is an example of control freakery in the extreme. Labour and Libdems fight a losing battle - put to the vote and that's it the conservative group's proposal is accepted. Mr Reasonable confidently predicts that by this time next year residents forums will be gone forever. One of the objectives for the review of residents forums was to make them more cost effective. Well closing them down will certainly achieve that objective!
I simply despair.
I am sure Mrs Angry will give a far more comprehensive witty and lucid report of the meeting but I had to get this off my chest before I go to bed.
I simply despair.
I am sure Mrs Angry will give a far more comprehensive witty and lucid report of the meeting but I had to get this off my chest before I go to bed.
Wednesday, 13 April 2011
MetPro - Delegated Powers Report confirms a catalogue of errors
A rushed Delegated Powers Report highlights the failure to properly administer the MetPro Contract. Amongst other things the report confirms the following:
- MetPro Emergency Response took over a contract and operated it without the council's knowledge - even though all the bloggers of Barnet, but particularly Mrs Angry, had flagged it up much earlier.
- The report states that MetPro Rapid Response went into liquidation on 15th March 2011 yet they missed all the signs that they were in trouble six months earlier when on 10 August 2010 MetPro were issued a notice for the company to be dissolved by Companies House. At that time the company's correspondence was being directed to the insolvency specialists Bond Partners LLP.
- The report identifies that Blue 9 Security, the company who have taken over from MetPro, are actually cheaper than MetPro - so why on earth wasn't that picked up earlier? Perhaps it could have saved us some of the £1.2 million Barnet are supposed to have paid MetPro.
The Delegated Powers Report suggests this whole process was badly managed yet there will be no public inquiry. The report also states:
Section 5.7 of the council’s Contract Procedure Rules provides the delegated powers for Directors to take decisions on urgent or emergency matters. These decisions can also include the waiver of Contract Procedure Rules where justified. The justification in this case is contained in Section 5.8.2 of Contract Procedure Rules ‘the contract is for works, supplies or services that are required in circumstances of extreme urgency that could not reasonably have been foreseen.’
Strange then that at last night's council meeting the Labour emergency motion to discuss this matter was voted down because it was not urgent. This is a most serious matter, it runs to the heart of how contracts are managed at Barnet. With a massive outsourcing programme already commenced it is critical that the whole process of how contracts are managed needs to be examined now. We need a public inquiry now. An internal audit as is being proposed, will simply look like a cover up.
- MetPro Emergency Response took over a contract and operated it without the council's knowledge - even though all the bloggers of Barnet, but particularly Mrs Angry, had flagged it up much earlier.
- The report states that MetPro Rapid Response went into liquidation on 15th March 2011 yet they missed all the signs that they were in trouble six months earlier when on 10 August 2010 MetPro were issued a notice for the company to be dissolved by Companies House. At that time the company's correspondence was being directed to the insolvency specialists Bond Partners LLP.
- The report identifies that Blue 9 Security, the company who have taken over from MetPro, are actually cheaper than MetPro - so why on earth wasn't that picked up earlier? Perhaps it could have saved us some of the £1.2 million Barnet are supposed to have paid MetPro.
The Delegated Powers Report suggests this whole process was badly managed yet there will be no public inquiry. The report also states:
Section 5.7 of the council’s Contract Procedure Rules provides the delegated powers for Directors to take decisions on urgent or emergency matters. These decisions can also include the waiver of Contract Procedure Rules where justified. The justification in this case is contained in Section 5.8.2 of Contract Procedure Rules ‘the contract is for works, supplies or services that are required in circumstances of extreme urgency that could not reasonably have been foreseen.’
Strange then that at last night's council meeting the Labour emergency motion to discuss this matter was voted down because it was not urgent. This is a most serious matter, it runs to the heart of how contracts are managed at Barnet. With a massive outsourcing programme already commenced it is critical that the whole process of how contracts are managed needs to be examined now. We need a public inquiry now. An internal audit as is being proposed, will simply look like a cover up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)