http://barnetfutureshape.blogspot.com/2010/10/barnet-future-shape-exempt-from.html
The key section is this, the weighted scoring for assessing the potential bidders
It is fairly clear that Agilsys were the cheapest, given that they got a perfect score of 40 out of 40 for this. What is also clear is that for quality they only managed 34.65 out of 60. One of the other bidders (name redacted) actually got a better score for "delivery including capacity and capability". Does this mean that the Council only ascribes a 60% probablity of the the company having the capacity and capability to deliver? Does it mean that the quality of goods and associated services is only 56% of what they require? Without seeing a more detailed breakdown of these assessments it is hard to draw too many conclusions. We do know that the council has committed to spending a huge sum of money with a company which it's own tendering process has not exactly given a massive vote of confidence to, in terms of delivery and quality. I wonder if Nick Walkley, CEO of Barnet Council or Councillor Lynne Hillan, the Leader would care to explain why this is good value?
4 comments:
interesting, as my blog today, Lights out for the Territory, is on the secrecy surrounding the subject of the street lighting and pot hole filling projects, which last week found reporters from local papers the subject of an embargo on information when they tried to ask awkward questions. We desperately need to know more about how contracts are awarded and then how well they are monitored by the council on our behalf.
I raised this specific issue at the the Business Management Overview and Scrutiny committee in September http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy/meetings/meetingdetail.asp?meetingid=6261.(Decisions) All of the scores were in the original report. At the meeting an officer eventually admitted that they have no lower threshold score for quality. My concern was that as long as the price was right any quality score would be acceptable. Sadly the exempt report contains all the information that was in the original report and the only elements that are different are the parts that remain redacted. The Council has disclosed abolsutely nothing new and we still do not know what the maximum value of the contract will be.
because both Walkley and Hillan ared probably on the make! The maximum value of the contract depends on the amount of kick-back
You are no doubt wrong, and that is also libellous.
Such allegations are a distraction from the main battle, which is to challenge FreerShape in any way the public can.
Post a Comment