Decision details

To consider the report of the Cabinet Member for Sustainable Living seeking endorsement of the SCC First policy.

(i)  That Cabinet approves the SCC First policy attached as Appendix 1.

(ii)  Subject to (i), that Cabinet delegates authority to the Service Director – Digital and Business Operations (following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Sustainable Living and the Cabinet Member for Finance) the power to scope and deliver a pilot of the SCC First policy (using established in-house services).

(iii)  Subject to (i) and (ii), that Cabinet delegates authority to the Service Director – Digital and Business Operations (following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Sustainable Living and the Cabinet Member for Finance) to amend the SCC First Policy (if required to address outcomes of the pilot) and to undertake a full roll out of the SCC First policy.

1.  The implementation of SCC First will demonstrate a firm Council-wide commitment to utilise in-house services to meet Council requirements where such capability exists and where best value can be demonstrated in accordance with the policy.

2.   The pilot period will provide the opportunity to develop and test the most appropriate benchmarking process, identify options for improvement to the SCC First policy and processes, assess challenges and measure impacts, benefits and costs whilst allowing immediate benefits to be realised.

1.   The following models were considered and rejected as part of establishing the preferred SCC First model:

  Comparing in-house service offering with the market offering on a case-by-case basis: this model involves treating the in-house service as a normal bidder as part of the procurement processes set out in the Contract Procedure Rules (CPRs). Once a need is identified, the process to identify a supplier is managed by the Procurement Service and the in-house service must demonstrate that it is the Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT) when compared with external bidders in order to be awarded the work.

2.   Directly awarding to in-house services up to an agreed value and benchmarking against the market place in excess of this value: this model assumes that the in-house service provides the Council best value for requirements up to a certain value threshold. Above the value threshold, the in-house team would provide a quote and this would be compared with the price obtained from an external Quantity Surveyor (QS) or other specialist, depending on the type of works or services concerned. If the in-house price is within a specified and agreed parameter then the work or service would be awarded in-house. If the in-house price is outside these parameters then the market would be asked to quote in accordance with the Council’ Constitution Part 4 - Contract Procedure Rules (CPRs) and compared with the price provided by the in-house team.

3.   Both the models outlined in points 3 and 4 were rejected because the proposed model is deemed to incorporate the benefits of each by making best use of Council resources where best value can be demonstrated and encouraging the Council to become more commercially-focused in preparation for alternative service delivery models, in the first instance the proposed LATCo.