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 It contained no information describing any legal reason why the document should not be published, other than a statement that it was confidential and that if it was leaked it could have financial implications for the council.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.