Capita Confirmed as One Barnet preferred bidder

The following email was sent by acting CEO of Barnet Council, Andrew Travers to all staff today

From: First Team [mailto:First.Team@barnet.gov.uk]
Sent: 22 November 2012 11:09
To: AllStaff
Subject: NSCSO Preferred Bidder announcement

Capita have been confirmed as the officer recommendation for preferred bidder for the NSCSO project and trade unions are currently being briefed. Staff immediately affected will be receiving a detailed briefing this afternoon.

Details of the recommended bid will then be published in Budget and Performance Overview and Scrutiny Committee papers this afternoon and I will be sending you more details later.

Andrew Travers

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congratulations to BT on dodging the bullet of the ire of the residents of Barnet

Hello Capita Hello BT

Dear Capita and Dear BT,

Congratulations to whichever one of you has lost the One Barnet Contract and commiserations to the winner.

The Barnet Eye welcomes the winner to the wonderful world of scrutiny, Barnet blogger style. Expect a massive rise in your media profile.  Did you ever wonder why CEO Nick Walkley walkleid off the job? Have you not been watching the TV or reading the papers. More people working in News, media and papers live in Barnet than anywhere else in the country. That is why Barnet Council cock ups always get lots of coverage. I'd suggest that you should notify your shareholders that they will be finding out plenty about the company they own in the coming days, weeks, months and years.

And to the loser, you lucky old sausages, you have dodged a bullet !

Signed

Rog T  on behalf of the bloggers of Barnet

Pam Wharfe's latest update on the One Barnet fiasco

From: Law, Lucy On Behalf Of Wharfe, Pam
Sent: 24 August 2012 16:37

DRS Joint Venture proposal – Staff Update

Following my DRS fortnightly email last week I have set out further details on the joint venture below:-

What is the decision making process around the joint venture?

The joint venture has been an option considered by the project Board over the last 2 years and has featured in the options appraisal and business case.  Although initially our preference was for a Strategic Partnership, the JV has developed as a progressively more attractive option following detailed discussions with bidders.  As a result the project Board recommended to Corporate Directors Group that this be formally advanced in discussions with bidders and indeed is currently our preferred option.  Following evaluation the final option, along with the preferred bidder, will be presented as a recommendation to Cabinet in the New Year. Cabinet will then take the final decision on whether to award the contract, the preferred bidder and the joint venture approach.

What does the joint venture approach mean in practice?

A new organisation would be formed by the Council and the successful bidder.  The Council would have a minority interest in this organisation and would appoint a small number of individuals to the senior management team of the new organisation.  This organisation would then contract with the Council to provide the DRS services.

Does this reduce any of my TUPE rights?

No.  In scope staff would TUPE into the joint venture organisation, and this would be on the same conditions as have been previously set out.  The obligations of the joint venture organisation would be backed up by the successful bidder’s parent company.

Who would my employer be?

The joint venture organisation.

Bidders have made reference to potential career opportunities in their organisations, does the joint venture limit these?

No.  The joint venture organisation would operate in many ways like any other organisation in the successful bidder’s group of companies.  There is no reason why the use of a joint venture company would limit the opportunities this could provide to staff.

Why use a joint venture approach for DRS?

As a result of being a part owner of the joint venture organisation and through having representation within the senior management team the Council would have more say in the organisation.  In addition the joint venture would allow us to share more easily in any commercial success the organisation has.  This is important to us as the DRS bidders and ourselves are confident that there are significant commercial opportunities in the delivery of DRS services both within Barnet and outside of the Borough.

What if the joint venture organisation is unsuccessful and becomes insolvent?

The joint venture organisation will have a contract with the Council for the provision of DRS services, and, as with a non joint venture approach this contract will be backed up by a ‘parent company guarantee’ which provides a legally binding obligation on the commercial parent company to fulfil the performance of the DRS contract.  It is likely that were the joint venture organisation were unsuccessful that the commercial parent company would provide further resources to the joint venture company to ensure it continues to function to service the DRS contract.  Such a situation could reduce the value of any investment by the Council in the joint venture company however the Council is only intending to invest a nominal sum (which could just be £1) and it is not obliged to provide any further assistance in the event of failure, unlike the commercial parent company which would be obliged to deliver the DRS contract.

Kind regards,

Pam Wharfe

Interim Director Environment, Planning & Regeneration

London Borough of Barnet

2nd Floor Building 4, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London N11 1NP

0208 359 7988

www.barnet.gov.uk

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 The Barnet Eye must conclude that the people within the Council are rather naive.  The statement "It is likely that were the joint venture organisation were unsuccessful that the commercial parent company would provide further resources to the joint venture company to ensure it continues to function to service the DRS contract." demonstrates the level of this delusion. The reason the joint venture company would become insolvent is because the parent company would see it is not making any money. Why on earth would the shareholders of the parent company sanction throwing good money after bad. That is not how private companies work. 

It is also interesting to see that the council intends to only have a minority stake and not make a financial investment in the company. This is a very important question as the shareholding of the company will demonstrate control and where the dividends from the JV go. It appears that the bidders are keen simply to use the JV as a vehicle to escape from liability and association with a risky venture. There is also the implication that the bidder can further dilute the councils control and shareholding of recapitalisation is required. 

It is interesting that the Council officers seem to believe it is there job to tell the councillors what to do. It also appears that the timetable has changed yet again. 

One wonders what the unsuccessful bidders make of all this. It seems that were excluded and then the ground rules were changed. A genuine joint venture would have shared control and shared investment. This particular scheme and the rushed announcements, made via emails late  on a Friday afternoon stink of panic. 

As it seems that the mantle of opposition is falling to the bloggers, this rather suits us. It gives us time over the weekend, to consider our strategy and response. What seems like a cunning ruse by the Council Officers, does indeed play to all the strengths of bloggers, allowing us to organise at times convenient to us. 

And organise we will. The Officers of Barnet Council do not seem to recognise the fact that the reason that the bloggers of Barnet are so committed is because we are long term residents who love Barnet and the surrounding area. We do not see  it as a convenient place to boost our CV's. We blog because we live here and we have a stake in the Borough. Our friends live here. We see the effects of the Council's stupidity on our friends and families.

This week two of my daughters were sitting GCSE's at local schools. Both got outstanding results. It was also my 50th Birthday. I was born at Edgware General hospital as were two of my children. The third was born at Barnet General. My parents are buried at Hendon Cemetary. My business is in Barnet and I employ ten people. These are the reasons I write this blog. Most of my close friends run their own business. My parents started the family business in 1948 in Bunns Lane and it is still running. I also have a cousin my age who lives in the care of Barnet Council, as she has Downes Syndrome. These are my motivations. I cannot fathom the motivations of the people within the council who get paid by us, the taxpayer and are using our money to divest profits and control from council services, to multi national companies, who have no interest in the Borough beyond making money for shareholders. If anyone believes BT and Capita Symonds are interested in anything other than making as much money as possible from you and I and our taxes, then you really don't understand what private companies are all about. 

Earlier today I posted a blog joking about how the Leader of the Council, Richard Cornelius will be remembered. Sadly, I suspect that it will be as a man who was completely out of his depth and who lead a very inept regime which made some extremely bad decisions. I hope I am wrong.

Believe nothing you read about Barnet Council in the Barnet Blogs !

Today the horrible truth dawned on me that I've wasted the last four and a half years of my life writing this stupid blog. Over the past week, it has become patently clear that no one in Barnet Council really has a clue what is going on. The senior officers says one thing, the Leader says another and the Deputy Leader says something different again. The Barnet Eye has our own little cabal of employees and councillors who tell us the odd snippet of information, and we get envelopes stuffed full of interesting papers through the post occaasionally.

The point is that if the organisation itself hasn't got a clue what is going on, what on earth is the point writing a blog about it? I rather feel that it is like the football pundits in the Sun. If Manchester United play Manchester City, one will predict United to win, One wuill predict City and one will predict a draw. That way, the Sun can always say "It woz the Sun that got it right" and print highlights from the article.

So is Pam Wharfe right that One Barnet is now going to be a joint venture? Is Richard Cornelius right when he says that No decision has been taken and it would need a pretty convincing case to change tack? Is Dan Thomas right that a Joint Venture is safer?

Search me. Here is my best guess though ** Pleae read this with caution ** I believe that the bidders are getting cold feet. They are worried about the reputational damage. they know that the Barnet bloggers have the ear of Eric Pickles and they know that Barnet is a media hotbed. Why on earth would Capita and BT want to run the risk of destroying their reputations? They have been religiously checking this blog on a daily basis several times, re reading old blogs etc. They can see the future, even if Barnet can't. They know that a joint venture guarantees profit and minimises risk. As there is no risk at all, they can experiment with no fear of losses. Who are the bidders actually in dialog with? Not Richard Cornelius, he's been on holiday and he only works one day a week at NLBP. Not Dan Thomas, why on earth should they bother with him? Nope, they've been talking to Pam Wharfe. So who would you trust to know their intentions and desires?

That is why I believe that even though Ruichard Cornelius doesn't know it yet, that is what Nick Walkley will tell him to sign off on. And I believe that is what will happen unless something rather unexpected happens, like a certain well known councillor, wiith a reputation to build, stabs dear old Richard in the back and nicks his job. And of that happens, anything could happen. So don't believe a word you read here.

Exposed - The conspiracy to rob the people of Barnet

I was forwarded an email being circulated by the senior management of Barnet Council regarding the One Barnet outsourcing program. What it contains is truly staggering. Until now, I've been totally unable to work out exactly why anyone would want to persue such a policy. As the old adage goes, follow the money. This email makes it 100% clear what is going on. Here is the email :-

_____________________________
Dear colleagues

Dialogue update

As with the last message, there is no specific news to report on dialogue other than it is continuing to progress well. This week’s meetings have included legal/commercial and technical sessions covering the bidders’ financial models, their emerging commercial development plans which provide details of new investment and income streams, insurance matters and our approach to resolving conflicts of interest in relation to service delivery. We have also been discussing the bidders’ Service Improvement Plans which set out how the services will be delivered and enhanced over the course of the contract.

In addition to enhancing service delivery we also believe that the DRS project has great potential to generate new commercial opportunities, both in Barnet and further afield.  As a result we have decided to form a Joint Venture organisation with the successful bidder, which provides an effective basis on which the Council can benefit from these opportunities and at the same time it gives the Council greater rights of transparency and control.  What this means is that the successful bidder and the Council will form a new organisation in which both have an interest.  This new organisation will then contract with the Council to provide the DRS services.  The Joint Venture approach does not change the approach to TUPE of staff or weaken any of the commitments given - staff would TUPE into the new organisation rather than to the commercial partner.  We shall provide further information on the Joint Venture in the next week however as ever you are welcome to ask any questions you may have regarding this or other elements of the DRS procurement’

Staff Group

The latest DRS staff group took place on Thursday 9 August and was attended by representatives from all your services. Make sure you speak to your rep if you want more detailed feedback or to raise any questions at the next staff group meeting. Martin Cowie has also been continuing to visit teams across the DRS service cluster to speak about the project and answer questions. If you haven’t yet had a briefing with Martin, let me know and we’ll make sure a suitable time is organised.

Also at the group meeting, a series of further questions were asked about various aspects of the project. The answers to these will be shared on the intranet over the next week.

Data cleanse

As you know, over the summer all DRS in-scope staff are having to take part in a data cleanse of their HR information; the data that will be transferred to the new provider after contract award. Environmental health and strategy and regeneration staff have completed their data cleanses, and next up is staff in Highways, Planning, Development and Building Control. Your line managers will take you through the process. They are being provided with the relevant forms on Monday 3 September and they must be returned by Friday 21 September.

Workshops

We still have places available at the TUPE workshops for staff and managers, as well as the Change and Me sessions. These workshops will run up until November and have already been on for more than a year. They are set to continue until November, by which time we will be approaching mobilisation.  During mobilisation we will begin to talk to you about how the transfer will affect you personally, but it would be a very good idea to have attended one of these sessions before that time.

The times and dates of the workshops are as follows:

Managers’ TUPE workshops

• 4 September – Training Room 2 – 2-5pm
• 2 October – Training Room 4 – 9.30am-12.30pm
• 14 November – Training Room 2 – 9am-12noon

Staff TUPE workshops

• 4 September – Training Room 4 – 1-2pm
• 4 October – Training Room 4 – 1-2pm
• 1 November – Training Room 5 – 12noon-1pm

Change and Me workshops

• 24 September – Training Room 3 – 2-3pm
• 17 October – Training Room 3 – 10.30-11.30am

To book a place on any of these sessions, email onebarnet@barnet.gov.uk.

Use that same email address if you have any further questions between now and the next newsletter, about the DRS project. Have a great weekend.

Kind regards

Pam Wharfe

Interim Director Environment, Planning & Regeneration

London Borough of Barnet

2nd Floor Building 4, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London N11 1NP

0208 359 7988

www.barnet.gov.uk

_____________________________

The key statement, which lays bare what is going on is "As a result we have decided to form a Joint Venture organisation with the successful bidder, which provides an effective basis on which the Council can benefit from these opportunities and at the same time it gives the Council greater rights of transparency and control.  What this means is that the successful bidder and the Council will form a new organisation in which both have an interest.  This new organisation will then contract with the Council to provide the DRS services. "

This means that a new company is being set up, which is jointly owned by the Council and the "successful bidder". We have already seen Barnet Council setting up such companies. The first thing that happens is that a board of directors is formed. Past experience of the council doing this has shown that senior council executives are appoined to the board. Now you may think that there is a conflict of interest (I certainly do). The same council executives who are making the decisions to form these companies are also appointed to the board, presumably on huge salaries and with juicy share options. It beggars belief that people can set themselves up as directors of a company with a turnover of a hundred million pounds a year at the expense of the Barnet taxpayer.

There is an even more dangerous side to all of this. The companies are presumably going to be limited liability enterprises. This means that Capita Symonds or BT have no exposure to failure. They own shares in the company, so if it all goes swimmingly, they make the profits, but if it fails and goes bust, they have no exposure  whatsoever. In a normal outsourcing exercise, the successful bidder takes a degree of risk. Multi national companies such as BT are unlikely to go bust, so there is a degree of protection for the taxpayer. With this model, the only thing which is being outsourced is the profits. It also means that if and when it all goes wrong, BT or Capita Symonds can say "Not us guv, we were only shareholders in the company".

We can sum up the whole One Barnet program with two questions.

Q: Who stands to gain from this arrangement?
A: The directors of the new company (many of whom are involved in setting up the company, whilst working for Barnet Council) and the shareholders of the "successful bidder".

Q: Who is left with the risk?
A: The Barnet Taxpayer, who if the "joint venture" fails, will have to pick up the tab.

I don't know about you, but the whole thing sounds to me like a conspiracy. This "joint venture" is riddled with "conflicts of interest". The fact that the bidders are unwilling to accept any risk at all, but are more than happy to accept the profits is truly staggering. Is there no one within Barnet Council who is prepared to speak out and call a halt to this attempt to rob the taxpayer?

Ms Wharfe talks about transparency. As this "joint venture" will be a private company, it will be exempt from FoI legislation, so there will be no transparency at all. 

I call on the Leader of the Council, Richard Cornelius to call a halt to the whole debacle immediately.

G4S - A lesson for BT and Capita

This morning it was announced that G4S's share price has continued to plummet. The companies share price has lost £700 million as a result of the Olympics fiasco. There is an important lesson for the bidders involved in the One Barnet program from all of this. G4S will not loose £700 million as a result of the Olympics cock up. As I understand it, they will still get their £50 million management fee. The reason the share price has dropped through the floor is because they now have a national reputation of non delivery.

If you are working for any organisation and G4S are bidding for the contract, would you hire them now? It may well be that they would do a fine job, are far cheaper than the competition and have put the best bid in, but they have lost trust. If we analyse why, the reasons are fairly obvious. They were blinded by the glow of a large contract and didn't think through whether they had the skills or resources to meet the needs of it.

You may ask, where are the similarities between the Olympic security and the One Barnet program. They are clear to see. Barnet is now the largest London Borough. The CEO Nick Walkley has committed the Council to be the first to become "a commissioning council". In other words the scale of what is being attempted in Barnet is way beyond any other outsourcing. The complexity of the contract is such that they've already spent £9 million on consultants reports and want another £10 million to finish the work. That is £19 million pounds just to figure out how to do it. The project has ground on for four years, delivering nothing,.

The money spent so far could have saved every shut library, day care centre and paid for the continuation of sheltered housing wardens. In short, all of the cuts in Barnet have simply paid the fees for One Barnet consultants. What have they produced? Reports recommending more reports, done by themselves. The fact that this wasteful project has gobbled up £9 million so far is a scandal in itself, but merely shows the difficulty of what is being attempted. Mr Walkley and Conservative cabinet member such as Councillor Robert Rams claim there is "no alternative", but their quiet clearly is. The Association of Public Service Excellence have demonstrated this. Mr Rams tried to describe  APSE as a "left wing organisation", without actually bothering to check what they are and who they work for. They have delivered real savings to councils of all political flavours up and down the country.

Anyone who has bothered to look (and trust me, Barnet bloggers have), know that Barnet Council is riddled with inefficiency. Yesterday, three Barnet bloggers went to see the Borough auditor to discuss concerns regarding the procurement process in Barnet and to discuss specific contracts. The response of the auditor? He sent one home, because he could only cope with two people at a time.

Yesterday evening, at the Cabinet resources committee, Councillor Jack Cohen gave an impressive speech detailing how Barnet Council had rejected a bid for Hendon Football Club's old ground of £3.5 million in favour of a lower £2.8 million bid from a property developer. Councillor Cohen rightly asked why the council, in a time of desperate financial need, was not trying toa chieve the highest price?  He also detailed all manner of shenanigans going on with the property company which is buying the ground.

This is yet another example of waste in Barnet, which the council clearly lacks the organisational abilities to deal with. So lets sum up the situation. BT and Capita are bidding (as G4S) did, for huge contracts, of great complexity, on a previously unprecedented scale. Barnet Council (as it is now clear with the London Olympics) do not have the track record or the management skills to successfully administer the project. This has been demonstrated in Barnet by Metpro, Aerodrome Road, the SAP fiasco, RM Countrysides to name but a few. Perhaps the one thing which BT and Capita think may be different is the level of public interest in Barnet Council compared to the Olympics. If this is the premise they are working under, they should think again. The list of national, regional and local TV, Radio and press coverage of various Barnet issues is endless. I have personally been involved with the following over the last few months, the BBC One Show interview, ITV Tonight used my film footage, I wrote an article for th Gaurdian, I was interviewed by the Evening Standard, and have been featured in a weekly basis in the local press (so much so that when I wasn't in the paper a few weeks ago, my aunty rang to see if I was alright).

If BT and Capita think "well that's only a few stroppy local bloggers", think again. Every major news organisation has offices in London, as well as hundreds of independent documentary makers and other freelance journalists. More live in Barnet than anywhere else in the UK. The power of such people can be demonstrated by the Stephen Lawrence case. Stephen's father Neville knew the editor of the Daily Mail. As a  result Stephens case was kept in the public eye until justice was done. If BT and Capita think that a massive story on the doorstep of the worlds media will be ignored, think again. The first cock up which hits a major news producer or editor in the pocket, or affects their parents, children or friends, will result in a media frenzy, which will make G4S look tame.

I produced this graph to help illustrate the possible effect on the shareprice of BT and Capita if OneBarnet goes TU.

Having seen £700 million wiped off G4S shares as a result of the Olympics cock up, I do wonder if I was a tad optimistic? Still I don't own shares in BT or Capita anymore, so what do I care?

The Barnet Graph of Doom - special version for BT and Capita Shareholders

In the 21st century economy, a companies reputation is one of their most important assets. Wheras fifty years ago, scandals and cock ups were only really noted when they ended up in court or on the paghes of the Financial Times, in todays economy, visible cock ups are accessable at all our fingertips by simply doing a google search. A simple google search for "One Barnet BT" and "One Barnet Capita" will reveal page after page of blog entries, none of which are particularly complimentary. Any council wishing to consider going down the outsourcing route, will see the potential for alienation from the voters, if they follow the One Barnet model. 

What does this mean for the shareholders of BT and Capita? It means less profits. Of course the One Barnet project will give them healthy profits, but what will it do for the chances of the companies developing more local authority business? Well I am not sure if the shareholders of BT and Capita Symonds are aware, but there are more journalists, TV producers and TV presenters living in the London Borough of Barnet than anywhere else in the UK. That is why stories such as the Metpro scandal have made the pages of National Newspapers. That is why the One Show interviewed me with regards to the closure of Friern Barnet. That is why the Guardian get myself and Mrs Angry to write articles. That is why ITV Tonight have used footage from films I've made in their documentary. That is why BBC London radio interviewed me when we released the film "A Tale of Two Barnets". 

There have been major problems with outsourcing contracts around the UK, such as Sefton Council, and South West One. The difference with these and Barnet is that these aren't media hotspots in the way that London is. Recently we had Jonathan Ross opening a new library in Hampstead Garden Suburb. Esteemed film director, Ken Loach gave the introduction to the film "A Tale of Two Barnets". We had a bevvy of celebrities attending the screening of A Tale of Two Barnets at The House of Commons, including Eastenders star Joe Egan, Footballer Gary Peake and Eastenders and Bill Star Russell Floyd. Russell Floyd made an impassioned speech about the need for accountability at the showing. 

All of this media activity has taken place even before the contracts have been signed. The eyes of the world will be on the contracts and how they perform. APSE and Professor Dexter Whitfield have already identified many deficiencies in the process of letting the contracts and the likely savings. 

It may well be that the board and the shareholders of Capita and BT think that One Barnet is worth the risk. They may be party to information that the council have hidden from everyone detailing how the project will be a rip roaring success. It may be they've seen a secret version of the business plan, which shows that they will confound the critics and there will be no problems and no adverse publicity.

The Barnet Eye hasn't seen any such evidence and Barnet Council has produced none. If the project goes wrong and the project attracts widepspread national media coverage, then BT, Capita Symonds and any other associated company are likely to get a pounding in local, regional and national press, radio and TV.

Companies which attract pariah status, generally suffer a massive drop off in share price, become undervalued and end up getting bought by rivals for peanuts. If  I was a BT or a a Capita Symons Shareholder, I'd like to see some evidence that the company I part own has condisered how to mitgate this in relation to One Barnet. If they haven't I've helpfully produced a graph to show what could happen to the shareprice if it all goes wrong. It is based on the famous Barnet Graph of Doom.

As a matter of public record, I used to own shares in Capita. I have no plans to buy any in the near future.

Please note, this graph is not based on anything other than my gut feelings as to what will happen. Shares can go up as well as down and the Barnet Eye is not qualified to give financial advice. We merely publish this information for the army of small shareholders in Barnet and beyond, so that they can have a chat with the companies they part own, for reassurance as to the company strategy regarding their public sector contracts.

Where is the business case for the One Barnet project?

Councils all over the country are looking for ways to save money. The government has imposed drastic cuts on their budgets and every council knows that they will have to try and make do with far less money. In some ways this is not a bad thing. The cash they spend is our cash, it is paid for by our taxes. Challenging councils to improve their efficiency is not evil, it is common sense. If they can cut out administration and deliver the same quality services that is a good thing. If they can use modern technology to "work clever" that is a good thing. If there is duplication in staff or services overlap, these should be consolidated

Then there is outsourcing. There are two cases where this should be considered. Firstly where a new service is being developed and an outside organisation already has a working model which can be transposed at lower cost, without the related start up costs of building systems from scratch. The second case is where there is a clear, low risk model for outsourcing supported by a robust business case. The business case should be based on hard evidence and not guesses of revenue that the council may accrue if all goes well. There should be no costs hidden from the business case (such as legal costs) and it must demonstrate the customer experience will not be degraded. Once such a business case has been developed, then the council should be in a position to open it to challenge from organisations such as trades unions. If it is robust, it will survive and any criticisms will be rebutted.

The One Barnet project is the culmination of four years work. What does the fact that no one is allowed to see the full business case tell you? Barnet Trades Unions have engaged various experts such as Dexter Whitfield and APSE, all of whom have deemed the project "risky".

One aspect of the project which has been completely understated is the risk brought about by change. This week we've seen the effects a minor computer software change at RBS/Nat West had on their business. Customers were left without banking facilities for days on end. People were left in jail, rent wasn't payed, home moves weren't completed. Why? Because someone in the organisation underestimated the impacts of change. One Barnet is a project which completely changes the way the Council is run. If it fails, tens of thousands of vulnerable people could be affected. Where is the detail which tells us this can't happen? Where are the contingency plans, if a contractor fails?

Most of all, who bears the risk? The answer to all of these should be in the business case. Sadly we are not allowed to see it. Why?

One final word. Bidders such as Capita Symonds and BT are licking their lips at the prospect of big contracts with guaranteed profits. Have they done a downside analysis? If the changes fail to deliver, there are an army of armchair auditors in Barnet. The world will soon be made aware. Over 2,000 people have now seen the film "A Tale of Two Barnets" which explains in laymans terms the problems with One Barnet project and the implications for the residents of Barnet. Many people, who would normally support "cost cutting measures" have expressed their concern. If the companies are happy to take a big contract for big profits, based on a dodgy business case, they will reap the whirlwind of bad publicity and reputational damage when it goes wrong and unravels.

One question which BT, Capita Symonds and all the other bidders should consider. There are more TV producers, documentary makers and people involved in the media living in the London Borough of Barnet than any other London Borough and probably anywhere else in the country. That is why Barnet is so regularly featured in programs such as London Tonight and The One Show.

Although this isn't the way the world should work, whilst these companies may get away with cock ups at Sefton Council, and the world at large won't notice, you can bet your bottom dollar a cock up in Barnet will have a completely different impact on their business.

Beware if you want to do business with Toxic One Barnet Council

Yesterday the Barnet Eye posted details of a DPR assigning a contract of not more than £74,999 to Addleshaw Goddard, a legal firm.This is what Addleshaw Goddard say about themselves

Welcome to Addleshaw Goddard. If you want to find out more about us, you should find it here. Our key facts give you a snapshot about us and our external profile, our Client Serviceswill tell you what we do, who we do it with and how we've helped them, and our international pages talk about our global capability. 

I was interested to see that the Barnet Eye had about 20 hits yesterday from the Addleshaw Goddard domain. This isn't surprising, given that we'd mentioned them in a blog. Most companies are very keen to see what is being written about them and hope that all coverage will be as positive as possible. According to the Barnet Council DPR, the firm had advised Barnet on a contract to replace street lighting and were again being engaged as this contract had run into issues with European tendering rules. Barnet have re-appointed the firm to advise on the issues raised. The Barnet Eye asked the question as to whether they were the best firm to take forward the case, given their previous involvement. It may come as no surprise to Barnet Eye readers that we have our own legal advisers (who give us free advice in exchange for the odd beer). They called yesterday to inform me that this was actually quite right and proper in this case and would be the most cost efficient way forward. The reason being that they are fully conversant with the contract and could hit the ground running. Another firm would have to start from scratch and incur a huge cost to the taxpayer, coming up to speed. Such legal issue crop up all the time and firms are not instantly dropped whenever there is a problem. If they were, then nothing would ever get done and legal costs would be enormous.

This seems to be a reasonable explanation as to why the firm were used. As was also pointed out, we have no idea at this stage whether the issue is a minor technicality or a major problem, that will presumably only become apparent as the complaint is processed.

What the issue does highlight is the way that the One Barnet project has become toxic for all involved. Barnet has a team of five highly committed political bloggers who pore over every One Barnet related DPR and other council paper. They have a huge team of informants within the council (and it's suppliers) who point us in the direction of the things Barnet don't want us to know. We use FoI requests to glean information and have become adept a making sure no stone goes unturned. We also get bundles of secret paperwork delivered to our doorsteps. Sadly Barnet Council consider information that other more open Tory Councils such as Windsor and Maidenhead put in the public domain, to be to important to share with the taxpayers.

Companies spend a fortune on PR and advertising, to ensure that potential clients and business partners know that they are good firms and do a good job. What any firm wishing to get work from Barnet Council on any One Barnet related outsourcing project should realise is that there is an enormous amount of public scrutiny in Barnet. Any firm involved in any project which goes pear shaped is extremely likely to find itself mentioned when the problems come to light. In this day and age, any sensible customer will at least do a quick google search on potential suppliers to see what sort of public image they have. This blog typically gets a very high rating, as you'd expect with over half a million hits and links to it from the Guardian, the BBC and a stack of other respected media outlets. Every blog we post gets displayed promenantly on the Guardian's London pages. The Barnet bloggers have dozens of other hits on a daily basis from various local, regional and national news organisations. Over 30 stories broken on this blog have been featured in other established media. Two of these have been on Prime Time TV - The parking protests on an ITV Tonight documentary and the Friern Barnet Library protest on the One Show on BBC 1.

Barnet Council has never released details of the business case for the One Barnet program. In fact, their own accountants said there wasn't one. Every major detail of the program which the Barnet bloggers have analysed appears to be flawed. The Association for Public Service Excellence described the project as flawed and risky. If you are involved in a company bidding for work on the project - Capita Symonds, BT, EC Harris, etc, you run the risk of all manner of bad publcity. Do not for one second believe that issues will be swept under the carpet, because they won't.

The Barnet Eye knows for a fact that Barnet Council has had to have many meetings in the offices of it's legal advisors for fear of leaks to bloggers. What does this tell you? Surely if the case stacked up, they would be shouting about it from the roof tops. The Barnet Eye believes that the One Barnet project is toxic and the reputational damage which firms face should be a primary consideration for these companies when bidding on it.

It is worth also making the point that the Street Lighting contract which Addleshaw Goddard advised on was not a One Barnet outsourcing project. It was a small (in comparison) deal of several million pounds. The One Barnet deals are £250 million an £750 million. The sad truth for all companies working on all outsourcing projects is that they are likely to be tarred with the same brush. Mud sticks

The Madness of King Nick - Barnet Council on Strike

As Barnet Council prepares for yet another strike by it's workers, my thoughts turn to the CEO Nick Walkley. What I really can't understand about the current bunfight is the fact that it is completely avoidable. You may think that this is a ridiculous statement but if you were to ask Nick Walkley these questions, his answer would reveal the truth. The questions are :-

1) Were the current in house services allowed to bid for the One Barnet contracts?
2) Are the criteria for awarding the contracts for the One Barnet bids available for public scrutiny?
3) Has the process of awarding the One Barnet contracts been open and transparent?

Sadly the answer to all of these questions is a resounding NO. Had the In House teams been allowed to bid and had these been shown to be uncompetitive, the staff and unions would have had no grounds for a dispute. You may ask how I can claim that the criteria are not available for public scrutiny? It is quite clear, I have a letter from a lawyer at Barnet council demanding that I take remove the document from my blog which explains the award criteria.

It is no wonder that the staff are up in arms. They know they are being shafted. The document makes it clear that the process is risky and dodgy. Barnet have not even published the business case. Recently a Barnet Tory councillor, Brian Schama stated "I have seen the business case and I believe the numbers add up". Well I believe in the tooth fairy, but if I wanted to convince you, then you'd expect me to come up with the evidence. If it is strong enough to convince Brian Schama, then it should be robust enough to be published.

Recently, the fight has become dirty. On the Barnet Council side I've had legal threats and on the other side I've had all manner of things from the workers at Barnet council, from embarrassing pictures of Mr Walkley claiming to be genuine (which in this day and age are probably photoshopped) as well as a few more highly confidential leaked documents. As the leaked documents contain commercially sensitive information relating to contracts in the process of being negotiated, there is clearly a huge risk of legal sanction should these be published and the leaker has advised me to take notes and then destroy them, which has been done. What do they tell me?

They tell me that if these documents were in the public domain, there is a significant chance that this program would be exposed for what it is. I am currently pondering exactly what questions need to be asked under the FOI act and whether I should try and get Eric Pickles, the Local Government minister to take a look. The most difficult issue is the fact that I've not seen all of the documents. It is clear that only the most damaging documents would be leaked and there may be other material that mitigates it. That is the madness of this secrecy culture, it is impossible to really know.

I would issue this caution to Capita and EC Harris and FM Conway. If I've seen stuff marked confidential, who else has? It is clear that some very senior staff at Barnet have grave doubts. My guess is that these companies realise that there is easy money to be had and so don't really care. I do wonder why EC Harris and FM Conway are continuing to throw money at the process given the likelyhood of their winning the contract. They have even been insulted at a council meeting by the Council leader who noted that they sound "like a firm of solicitors". Maybe they take the view that if you don't buy a ticket, you don't win the lottery.

What is clear to me is that whoever wins the bid, it will damage the economy of the London Borough of Barnet. Jobs will be exported and local people will suffer. I've no idea what the job description for Nick Walkley says, but does it really include "destroy the local High Street, damage the economic wellbeing of the Borough and export jobs to other London Boroughs, other parts of the country and other continents?

In short the whole thing is total madness and it's time King Nick realised.

Whistleblower puts a spanner in the works of One Barnet project - update

Yesterday this blog published a document which was sent from a Barnet Council office (verified by the postmark) and was a printed copy of the selection process for the multi million pound One Barnet bidders. Before this was published, I had to satisfy myself about two issues. Was it legal to publish the document and was it the right thing to do? Firstly let me address the issues of legality. I had received the document anonymously through the post. It contained no information describing any legal reason why the document should not be published, other than a statement that it was confidential and that if it was leaked it could have financial implications for the council. The view was that the document was only confidential because Barnet Council would find it inconvenient to see it published. As the document didn't even contain a Barnet Council logo, it meant that either someone had carefully doctored the document or the council had deliberately removed any information so they could claim "plausable denyability". Having decided that there was no legal reason why the document shouldn't be published, we come to the question of "whether it was the right thing to do".

So what were the reasons to refrain from publishing it. The reason Barnet give is that it contains information that could have serious financial consequences the Council. I reject this argument. In the USA, which has a far lower tax base than us, all public tenders and such evaluations are published. This ensures transparency. It ensures that bidders know why their tender was rejected, so they can improve them next time they bid. There is no chance of shenanigans, because a fair playing field is guaranteed. I think that it is highly immoral that a company can be rejected by a public authority and not really know the weaknesses of its bid or the strengths of the rivals. Us as taxpayers should want companies to all put the best bids possible and up their games accordingly. I have been accused of many things since I started writing this blog. Perhaps the most stupid and misguided is that I'm a swivel eyed Trotskyite and that I'm implacably opposed to ANY form of private involvement in the public sector. Nothing could be further from the truth. I've never belonged to a Trades Union, I run a small business which has been a supplier to several local authorities (including Barnet), I'm a member of the Federation of Small business and I stood at the last election as a candidate for for the Lib Dems. The reason I oppose the One Barnet process is because I understand business, I understand efficiency and I understand the concept of competetive tendering.

I oppose the One Barnet program for the following reasons :-

* It discriminates against small business and excludes them from the process
* There has been no transparency at all in the process
* The business case has not been made
* Councillors have been excluded from the process, removing democratic oversight
* There has been no consultation with the people of Barnet to ascertain their views
* The process threatens vital services for vulnerable people
* Barnet Council has a record of botched outsourcing projects, costing taxpayers millions
* Barnet Council has not got its procurement process in order. It is not fit for purpose for such a large contract

When I read the report, it became 100% clear to me that yet again Barnet was running the risk of embarking on a huge contract without correctly identifying the full risk associated with all bidders. This paper removed two of the companies who were bidding without resolving the issues of risk associated with the other bidders. Until all companies can accurately describe the costs and risks associated with their bids, it is completely irresponsible to proceed to the next stage. However Barnet Council try and gloss over this, you cannot exclude bidders if you are not comparing all tenders on an equal footing. Barnet council has had to pay a company called Catalyst, that runs its care homes over £8 million because the contract failed to remove the risk of financial loss from the Council. This project is far bigger, but yet again, despite their previous experience, they are proceeding to the next stage of the tender without resolving these issues.

Whether or not you agree with my reasons for opposing One Barnet, you cannot dispute the fact that risk is being ignored, because this is written in black and white in the report. Barnet Council claims that leaking this report would expose the Council to financial loss. What they don't say is that failing to expose it would have allowed the council to proceed with a hugely risky project. I am a Barnet Council taxpayer. I will ultimately fund this process. I expect my council to represent my interests in a professional and transparent manner. I expect to be able to find out the financial basis for the spending decisions they make. If they want to chose Capita Symonds and EC Harris as partners and exclude Mouchel and Jacobs, I expect to be able to see that this has been done on a fair basis that has delivered best value to me as the funder of the project. There is information that the Council has that should not be published. Things such as details of vulnerable people or plans to cope with terrorism. I also agree that evaluation of tenders should be conducted in private. The point is that once the decison has been made, details should then be published to show that the job has been done, properly. This document was published in November 2011. It does not say DRAFT, so we have to suppose it is the final report. The time for secrecy has gone and the time for the world to see why the decision was made is upon us. The fact that Barnet Council do not understand this shows that they are not committed to transparency and as such cannot guarantee "best value" for me the taxpayer.

It has been suggested that I won't be very popular in the corridors of power in Barnet today. They should be thanking me for doing something they should have done themselves. My blog stats yesterday show a huge public interest in the document. The stats show vistors to the blog from all the bidders along with a host of media organisations and other local authorities. I would propose to Barnet Council that no one leaks a document lightly. The mere fact that a senior member of staff has done such a thing demonstrates the fact that the executive have "lost the dressing room" on this.

It was suggested to me that publishing the document might open the council to the risk of legal action by disappointed bidders. This can only be the case if they have been unfairly treated. If this is the case, then it is correct to have leaked the document. It has also been suggested that I have created an impression that the Council cannot be trusted to look after confidential information. This is ridiculous, I did not leak the information or create the culture where it happens. Had I sat on the document, the Council would have been no more secure, but the world wouldn't have known. I could have secretly contacted the bidders and sold them the info. I'm sure they would have been interested. I didn't, all I did was accurately report exactly what happened. The Council could avoid all of this by opening its processes up to scrutiny. That is the way forward in the information age. There is no place for secrecy in local government finances. Anyone who does not recognise this is not fit to be running a council in the year 2012. One Barnet is a toxic brand. It is time this is acknowledged

Exclusive : Barnet Council whistleblower calls time on the One Barnet Project

Firstly a health warning. This document was received by me in a brown envelope with a Barnet Council franked postmark (ie posted through the Councils mail system). I have no idea whether it is a pukka document or a spoof, knocked up to discredit the blog. You will have to read it to decide for yourself. I am basing the commentary on the assumption that it is the real deal, but this is merely conjecture on my part. I sought legal advice prior to publishing this. As there is no disclaimer anywhere on the document to indicate that is privelidged information subject to legal sanction, I assume there is no reason to refrain from publishing it.The front page says "The information contained in this document is confidential as it is highly sensitive commercial information. Any leakage of this information will have very serious financial implications for the council". When I received the document, this concerned me. I did not want to cause expense to the Barnet taxpayer. Having read the document, I believe that the leadership of the council are embarking on a dangerous and risky path and failure to publish this document would expose the taxpayer to avoidable risks. I believe public sector accounts and bids should be open and transparent and companies biddings for work should be able to find out why their bid was rejected. I also see no reason why the taxpayer should not be kept informed.

My thanks go out to the member of Barnet Council who sent this. Whistleblowing carries risks and they should be commended for their actions by everyone in Barnet who believes in open, honest and transparent government. Here is the report. Read it and then read my analysis. I believe that this shows that the whole One Barnet outsourcing project is built on a house of cards of risk, untested assumptions and shoddy process.Firstly, I must say how shocked I was to receive this document. As access to this was stricly controlled, it shows that people at the heart of the Barnet Council must lack faith in the process. They must believe that it is safer to send it to a blogger to expose the process than it is to keep this under wraps. Why?

First lets look at the percieved weaknesses of the two bidders moving to the next stage. Read the risks associated with the EC Harris and Capita Symonds bid. These are huge for a contract worth £290 million. For example on risk the EC Harris bid was weak because "Ownership is not set out for a number of identified risks" or Capita Symonds "More specific commitments required eg regarding the financial implications of change". So they want to sign a huge contract with companies, when they don't know who is responsible for the risks involved. We've seen this before. In the railway industry, National Express took over the East Coast mainline. Then there was an economic downturn, the contractor couldn't make any profit, so they gave it back to the Government. On the financial and commercials, Capita Symonds actually are charging the highest fee. In the financial commentary, EC Harris are the company which offers the best guranteed financial benefit. This is nearly £4 million higher than Capita Symonds. In the final picture, they move to second because Capita Symonds add £5.7 million worth of "confidence adjusted aspirational financial benefit". You may ask WTF? Well in English an aspiration is something we'd like. I aspire to get a better job or live in a better area. It is something I want. So Barnet Council have paid a team of consultants a fortune to decide that Capita Symonds are more likely than EC Harris to want to give us (the taxpayer) a few million quid? Could you make it up?  It is clear to me that the wheels are off this project and it is clear to me that the whistleblower also knows this and has decided it is time to end this expensive charade. Whilst I doubt that Barnet CEO Nick Walkley will be overly chuffed to find his organisation has more leaks than Wales on St Davids day, the rest of us should be reassured that people at Barnet Council care enough to take the risk of letting us see how such decisions are made and why we should be calling time on such a flawed process.

*********************** Updated 20/1/2012 at 19:34  ******************************
The link to  SCRIBD detailing this document has been removed following a letter received at 19.10 from Barnet Council Legal Department. The Barnet Eye will be taking legal advice on Monday to ascertain any further action.
*****************************************************************************

Here's a brief summary which may help you understand what this is all about and why it's important.

What is this leaked document ?

Barnet Council is seeking to become the first all commissioning council whereby it no longer delivers any services. To do this the council have employed consultants to implement the One Barnet Programme, the total cost to the tax payers for these consultants to implement this Programme will be over £10 million. This figure does not include the amount of council officer time and resources provided to the Programme at a time when services to the most vulnerable and young people have been cut.

Who will deliver Council Services?

The Council have decided that only the big FTSE companies are able to carry out this task.

“What is DRS?”

DRS means Development and Regulatory Services

The following Council Services have been brought together for this outsourcing. Trading Standards & Licensing, Land Charges, Planning & Development, Building Control & Structures, Environmental Health, Highways Strategy, Highways Network Management, Highways Traffic & Development, Highways Transport & Regeneration, Strategic Planning & Regeneration, Cemeteries & Crematoria;

The Document appears to be a summary of the evaluation of bids from four big Companies

·         Jacobs Engineering (US international technical & profesional construction consultancy)

·         EC Harris & FM Conway (EC Harris is a construction consultancy owned by Arcadis, a Dutch based international engineering and management consultancy). FM Conway is highway, building, cleansing and recycling company operating in London and south east. Clearly, EC Harris leads the 'partnership'. 

·         Capita Symonds (subsidiary of Capita Group plc)

·         Mouchel Enterprise (a joint venture between Mouchel Group plc and Enterprise plc)

The document provides confidential information about what each bidders are claiming they can save and what income they can generate.

It is worth noting that a number of these services are income generating (like Parking) hence the attraction to the Private Sector e.g. the Cemetery & Crematorium). This assumption has been done before in Westminster!

Why is the report being leaked?

The local UNISON branch has already conducted a number of high profile strikes and it is clear that the whistle blowing release of this information indicates there are serious concerns. When organisations are engaged in competitive dialogue, confidentiality is a key risk to all parties.

The full cost of bidding is likely to be between £500,000 - £1m for each company involved in the full procurement process.

The One Barnet Programme has been under considerable scrutiny by local bloggers, residents and UNISON.

The fact that this document has been leaked suggests there is major disquiet over what is happening within the Council and its drive to outsource at any cost (cut following sentence - Someone has taken the very serious risk to alert the public about what is going on.)

This is a serious business, according to the OJEU notice this could be worth upwards of £270m - £290m to the private contractor in a ten-year contract.

*So who is the lead bidder?

From looking at the document it appears Capita are the clear favourites and unless there is some pretty major turnaround it is clear Capita are going to win this contract.

Although Jacobs have come out bottom who is to say that their bid is the more realistic?

* This is an assumption made only on what is in this document. The document refers to more detailed information contained somewhere else.