Agenda and minutes

Executive Member for Resources (expired) - Friday, 1st February 2008 2.00 pm

modern.gov app available
View upcoming public committee documents on your iPad, Android Device or Blackberry Playbook with the free modern.gov app.

Venue: Union Street Civic Offices, Chorley

Contact: Tony Uren 

Items
No. Item

1.

Declarations of Any Interests

The Member is reminded of his responsibility to declare any personal interest in respect of matters contained in this agenda. If the interest arises only as result of membership of another public body or one to which the Member has been appointed by the Council then he only needs to declare it if he intends to speak.

 

If the personal interest is a prejudicial interest, then the individual Member should not participate in a discussion on the matter and should not seek to improperly influence a decision on the matter.

Minutes:

The Executive Member had no reason to declare an interest in the meeting’s agenda items.

2.

Exclusion of the Public and Press

To consider the exclusion of the press and public for the following item of business on the ground that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

Minutes:

Decision made:

 

That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item of business on the ground that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

3.

Joint Procurement Exercise - Award of Contract for new Telephone System

To receive and consider the enclosed report of the Corporate Director of Information and Communication Technology.

Minutes:

The Executive Member for Resources received and considered a report of the Corporate Director of Information and Communication Technology recommending the award of the contract for the provision of a new telephone system and associated services to Siemens.

 

The expiry of the current contract for the provision of telephony services to the Council had allowed the opportunity to seek competitive bids for a new service.  Telephony consultants had confirmed that a joint procurement exercise with South Ribble Council would produce financial savings and deliver additional functionality.  A joint specification had been agreed by both Councils, with the six bids received having been assessed against the evaluation criteria agreed by the Executive Member.  Following a more detailed assessment of the two short-listed tenderers, the combined scores had identified Siemens as the preferred supplier of the new telephony system and associated services (eg implementation, maintenance, etc) to Chorley and South Ribble Councils.

 

While a budget of £137,000 had been included in the current year’s Capital Programme for the equipment, the implementation of the scheme, at a projected cost of less than £125,000, may need to be postponed to 2008/09 or split across the financial years 2007/08 and 2008/09.  The resultant savings would be factored into the 2008/09 revenue budget.

 

Acceptance of the new contract with Siemens was also expected to realise revenue savings in the region of £190,000 over a 7 year period.  In addition, the shared procurement exercise had reduced consultancy costs and would deliver other efficiency gains, together with other efficiencies that would be offered by the additional functionalities of the system.

 

Decision made:

 

That approval be given to the award to Siemens of the contract for the provision of a new telephone system and associated services to the Borough Council on the basis of the financial and operational terms outlined in the submitted report.

 

Reason for decision:

 

The tenders received for the provision of telephony services/equipment have been evaluated against the agreed criteria and, following additional site visits and presentations, Siemens was found to best meet the evaluation criteria.

 

Alternative option(s) considered and rejected:

 

An extension of the existing contract had been considered and rejected on the grounds that (a) the extension of the contract would contravene procurement rules and (b) a better value solution could be achieved from a procurement exercise.