Annex A

Document Sample
Annex A Powered By Docstoc
					        Requests for information received under the Freedom of Information Act

                                     October 2010


Ref No: FOI 0370

Format: Email request 5 October 2010

Information Requested:

Request for information on research undertaken in preparation for Govt Hotel Program
Tender re perceived lack of representation for Serviced Apartments.

Response provided:

 We engaged with 14 departments (BIS, HMRC, DWP, DEFRA, DFID, Audit
Commission, British Council, DoH, HSE, DCLG, Bradford Council, Leeds University,
OGC and DVLA) across a number of government sectors to determine the requirements
for the Government Hotel Programme (GHP). Due to the significant volume of overnight
accommodation required by all Buying Solutions’ travel customers, we required a
guarantee of a minimum number of rooms and a consolidation of properties to a
manageable number while ensuring that at all times we obtained preferential rates. The
Invitation to Tender (ITT) illustrates the volumes required in each geographical region
and it was felt that an allocation provided the right balance of availability and
consolidation. Attached is the pertinent extract from the meeting held with the
aforementioned customers in November 2009 where the collective group determined
this need.



Ref No: FOI 0371

Format: Email request 8 October 2010

Information Requested:

Request for estimated spend for two MCAS Lots - Lot 2 & Lot 5

Response provided:


 Agency Spend                                 Agency Spend Cube
 Sectors                                      All Sectors
 Invoice                                      Financial Year
 Servi   Manage    Subcateg   Product    Framewo Lot         2009/20     2010/2   Grand
 ce      ment      ory        Group      rk                  10          011      Total
         Team
 Busin Professi    Advisory   Professi   RM662 -    Busines    £144,06   £301,0   £445,
 ess     onal      Services   onal       Managem    s          2         06       067
 Servic Services              Services   ent        strategy
 es                                        Consulta    Consult
                                           ncy &       ancy –
                                           Accountin Health
                                           g
                                           Services
 Organisation & Change     £27,390               £283,963              £311,353
 Management
 Consultancy – Health
 RM662 - Management        £171,452              £584,968              £756,420
 Consultancy &
 Accounting Services
 Total
 Professional Services     £171,452              £584,968              £756,420
 Total
 Advisory Services Total   £171,452              £584,968              £756,420
 Professional Services     £171,452              £584,968              £756,420
 Total
 Business Services         £171,452              £584,968              £756,420
 Grand Total               £171,452              £584,968              £756,420



Ref No: FOI 0372

Format: Email request 12 October 2010

Information Requested:
Requesting information regarding the Non Permanent Staff tender.


Response provided:

 We consider this information to be exempt from disclosure in accordance with section
43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act, namely that its disclosure would be likely to
prejudice the commercial interests of the bidders and the Authority as it is likely to affect
the ability of the Authority to conduct any similar procurement in the future. As a qualified
exemption, we have considered whether in all the circumstances of the case, the public
interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the
information and we are satisfied that it does; accordingly our decision is to withhold the
information.
Ref No: FOI 0373

Format: Email request 14 October 2010

Information Requested:

Request for details of un/successful suppliers who tendered in respect of the Integrated
Solutions framework.

Response provided:

 Thank you for your email dated 14 October 2010 regarding the Integrated Solutions
tender documents.

As this procurement was never completed, there are no successful or unsuccessful
bidder details available.


Ref No: FOI 0374

Format: Web request 19 October 2010

Information Requested:
Breakdown of tenders from 01/01/10 to date on MCAS framework and the name of the
top 3 companies

Response provided:



 RM662
 LOT                    Supplier                            Total             Top Three
                                                                              Total
 Lot 1: Business Strategy                 AMTEC Consulting plc            98,050.00£
 Evolve Business Consultancy Limited                         60,400.00£
 2020 Delivery Limited                    40,447.92£                    198,897.92£
 Lot 2: Business strategy Consultancy –   2020 Delivery Limited         346,729.37£
 Health
 Methods Consulting Limited                                95,859.00£
 Deloitte LLP                             84,669.00£                  527,257.37£
 Lot 3: Business Strategy Consultancy –   AMTEC Consulting plc        70,169.50£
 Local Government
 Agilisys Limited                                           57,067.50£
 Mott MacDonald Limited                   10,687.00£                      137,924.00£
 Lot 4: Organisation and Change           Evolve Business Consultancy     280,587.50£
 Management Consultancy                   Limited
 Tribal Consulting Limited                                  222,801.98£
 Methods Consulting Limited               197,225.92£                     700,615.40£
 Lot 5: Organisation and Change           Methods Consulting Limited      343,866.58£
Management Consultancy – Health
A.T. Kearney Limited                                       185,000.00£
Deloitte LLP                             44,400.00£                      573,266.58£
Lot 6: Organisation and Change           CPC Limited                     75,075.00£
Management Consultancy – Local
Government
PA Consulting Services Limited                             21,500.00£
AMTEC Consulting plc                     12,497.50£                      109,072.50£
7: HR Consultancy                        PA Consulting Services          218,035.82£
                                         Limited
Berkshire Consultancy Limited                               66,375.00£
CMC Partnership (UK) Limited             16,800.00£                      301,210.82£
Lot 8: Procurement Consultancy           Atkins Planning &               289,335.00£
                                         Management Consultants
                                         Limited
Methods Consulting Limited                                  51,362.00£
AMTEC Consulting plc                     31,900.00£                      372,597.00£
Lot 9: Programme and Project             CMC Partnership (UK) Limited    1,053,029.87£
Management Consultancy
Moorhouse Penna Partnership                                487,030.50£
Atkins Planning & Management             251,910.00£                     1,791,970.37£
Consultants Limited
Lot 10: Marketing Consultancy            Quadrant                        309,232.88£
Quatrosystem Limited (QS)                                  10,000.00£
Quo Imus Limited                         9,937.50£                       329,170.38£
Lot 11: Financial and Economic           RSM Tenon                       146,884.60£
Consultancy
Grant Thornton UK LLP                                      53,250.00£
Insight Management & Systems             31,939.80£                      232,074.40£
Consultants Limited
Lot 12: Accounting Advice and Services   RSM Tenon                       149,095.00£
Grant Thornton UK LLP                                      90,370.00£
Insight Management & Systems             58,615.59£                      298,080.59£
Consultants Limited
Lot 13: Audit and Assurance Advice and   RSM Tenon                       173,069.09£
Services
ParkHill Audit Agency                                      39,764.54£
Moore Stephens LLP                       29,402.69£                      242,236.32£
1st January 2010 to 31st October 2010
Ref No: FOI 0375

Format: Email request 19 October 2010

Information Requested:

Requesting number of tenders issued and metric (preferrerably pound) to indicate the
top 3 winning businesses for the Mutli Disciplinary framework.

Response provided:

 MDC                       RM353
 Top Three by Orders reported
 Supplier            Total     Grand Total All Suppliers
 Ernst & Young LLP         20,406,429£
 McKinsey                  18,586,187£
 Deloitte LLP              17,282,155£
 1 Total                   56,274,771£
 Grand Total All Suppliers 92,828,355£



Ref No: FOI 0376

Format: Email request 18 October 2010

Information Requested:

Request for how many Wide Access Networks (WAN'S) have been procured through
OGC in the last 12 months

Response provided:

 Thank you for your email dated 18 October 2010 requesting information regarding
 how many Wide Access Networks (WANs) have been procured through Buying
 Solutions in the last twelve months.
 Buying Solutions does not hold this information. We can provide details of how
 much money has been spent and by which Departments in the relevant Lots on the
 Telecom Networks framework agreement (Lots 3 and 6 of Telecom). Please see
 attached pdf document giving details of the data we hold. You will need to contact
 the customer organisations to find out whether the spend was on WANs and, if so,
 how many they bought.
Ref No: FOI 0377

Format: Email request 19 October 2010

Information Requested:

Requesting copies of the Supplier debrief reports for each supplier for the NPS lot 6a
bidders

Response provided:


 1) The volume of business anticipated for Lot 6a by Buying Solutions, which it
assumed/assessed/used in order to ensure it had a group of suppliers capable of
handling it.
The £2.5 billion figure, as contained within the published OJEU Notice, was an all
encompassing figure and not specific to Lots 6a and 6b.
This figure does not represent a commitment for the public sector to spend this amount
and all suppliers bid in the same economic and political climate, knowing that
expenditure would be influenced by these factors. All suppliers were treated equitably
and fairly throughout the tendering process.
We feel that this issue has been adequately dealt with in our previous correspondence
with you, dated; 6, 10 and 13 August 2010, and also on 8 October 2010, and therefore
have nothing further to add.
2) Full details of the evaluation and the due diligence work undertaken for the four
selected suppliers that led you to conclude that they could handle the volume of
business for Lot 6a.
Evaluation
We are content that a clear, transparent methodology was adopted in this procurement.
The methodology was clearly communicated to all bidders at the start of the ITT stage,
and no objections were received from any of the bidders, including Odgers Berndtson, at
the time or at any time up until the closing date for submitting tenders on 24 February
2010.
Due Diligence
The capability of bidders was assessed during the NPS procurement exercise and all
successful bidders gave appropriate responses providing us with confidence that they
could meet the needs of customers under the framework.
The evaluation of the NPS procurement exercise was subjected to a consensus scoring
check and, where appropriate, meetings were held to discuss issues / trends / anomalies
by the appropriate evaluation team members and consensus marker.
The moderation of the evaluation of results was undertaken by senior members of the
Professional Services Category Team, not directly involved in the evaluation of bid
questions or consensus marking activity, ensuring that the methodology adopted was
consistently adhered to throughout the evaluation process. A series of quality assurance
checks were also undertaken on the evaluation results to ensure accuracy.
3) A breakdown of the tenderers’ marks for each element of the evaluation (e.g.
quality, price elements).
We consider this information to be exempt from disclosure in accordance with section
43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act, namely that its disclosure at this point in time
would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of the bidders and the Authority as
it is likely to affect the ability of the Authority to conduct any similar procurement in the
future. As a qualified exemption, we have considered whether in all the circumstances of
the case, the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest
in disclosing the information and we are satisfied that it does; accordingly our decision is
to withhold the information.
4) Details of membership of the Tribal Consortium bid.
The structure of the bid was a prime contractor / sub contractor relationship.
5) Confirmation of whether the reference to ‘Moorhouse Consortium’ should read
‘Moorhouse Consortium’ or ‘Moorhouse Consultancy’.
Throughout the NPS tender exercise, including PQQ stages; we can confirm that it is
Moorhouse Consulting.
Information Not Provided Under FOI 0351 – Lot 6a Supplier Debrief Reports
Please accept our apologies for any confusion caused. We have, however, reviewed our
FOI response, dated 8 October 2010, and unfortunately we have misquoted our position
and have inadvertently given you reason to believe that this information was being
provided.
For the reasons contained within FOI response, dated 8 October 2010, we consider this
information to be exempt from disclosure in accordance with section 43(2) of the
Freedom of Information Act, namely that its disclosure would be likely to prejudice the
commercial interests of the bidders. As a qualified exemption, we have considered
whether in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in withholding the
information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information and we are
satisfied that it does; accordingly our decision is to withhold the information
Ref No: FOI 0378

Format: Email request 22 October 2010

Information Requested:

Request for list of all eligible registered Public Sector orgs currently using the GPC
framework.

Response provided:

Full Response provided. If you would like to receive a full copy of the text of our
response, please request this from: FOI@buyingsolutions.gsi.gov.uk



Ref No: FOI 0379

Format: Email request 22 October 2010

Information Requested:

Request for clarification concerning LA Internationals rates under NPS re fact
considered to be artificially low.

Response provided:

1. Transition
Question 1
Suppliers are contracted to supply staff at the rates which they have stipulated and these
cannot be increased.
There is no guarantee that a freelance contractor employed within the Interims and
Specialist Contractors framework agreement will transfer to the new NPS framework
agreement, as this would be regarded as a new piece of work which the customer would
need to make a decision regarding, if and how they would compete the requirement for
that role. Our response to Question 3 (see below) outlines the steps a customer should
pursue.
The NPS framework agreement is designed to drive value for money, and Suppliers
awarded to the new NPS framework agreement now have access to a larger market
place, via collaboration, than was previously enjoyed through Interims and Specialist
Contractors, therefore ensuring their ability to offer more competitive rates.
Question 2
The Customer has the option for the most commercially viable route available to them
and if it is the case that they could transfer from one framework to the other, it should
inform their business strategy as to the route and or services which they wish to pursue /
purchase.
Again there is no guarantee that a freelance contractor employed within the Interims and
Specialist Contractors framework agreement will transfer to the new NPS framework
agreement, as any alteration may be regarded as a new piece of work which the
customer would need to make a decision on, if and how they would compete the
requirement for that role. Our response to Question 3 (see below) outlines the steps a
customer should pursue.
If the customer determines that a job role under the Interims and Specialist Contractors
framework agreement is equivalent to the other under the NPS framework agreement
then that is within their gift.
Question 3
Should there be a substantive alteration to the original terms of the assignment / job role
then the customer may choose to run an open competition for that role with all capable
suppliers.
The NPS framework also allows for direct ordering. If a Contracting Body (customer)
wishes to place a direct order with a Supplier then once it has developed a clear
statement of its requirements for non permanent staff it must apply the direct award
criteria (which are set out in the framework agreement) to the catalogue of available
services for all Suppliers capable of meeting the Contracting Body’s statement of
requirement if a Contracting Body’s determine that;
There is only one supplier capable of meeting the Contracting Body’s particular
requirement; or

On the basis of the information available to it, the Contracting Body can determine
which supplier’s offering provides the most economically advantageous solution; and

All of the terms of the proposed contract for the supply of non permanent staff are
laid down in the framework agreement and that the Call Off agreement does not require
amendment or any supplementary terms and conditions;

Then, in such circumstances, a Contracting Body may place a direct order.
Question 4
There is no guarantee that a freelance contractor employed within the Interims and
Specialist Contractors framework agreement will transfer to the new NPS framework
agreement.
Because the transfer of contractors has to be by agreement between the contractor and
the service provider; Buying Solutions is not privy to that contract and has no need to
audit.
Legacy expenditure on the Interims and Specialist Contractors framework agreement will
continue to be monitored and will be audited on an as and when required basis.
Similarly, expenditure through the new NPS framework agreement will be monitored and
suppliers will be subject to audit on an as and when basis.
2. Abnormally Low Rates

Regulation 30 of the Public Contract Regulations relates to an Authorities duty to
investigate abnormally low prices. This regulation does not impose an obligation on
Buying Solutions to investigate abnormally low prices, it simply states that a relative
authority “may” investigate abnormally low prices and sets out the processes that the
authority must following when investigating these prices.
Case law has established [J Varney & Sons Waste Management Limited v Hertfordshire
County Council [2010] EWHC 1404 (QB)] that “the relevant authority is not under a duty
to investigate a tender which appears abnormally low unless it intends to reject it”
(paragraph 155) [emphasis added]. Buying Solutions did not consider that the prices
quoted by any of the successful tenders were abnormally low and warranted further
investigation under Regulation 30(6), nor did it intend to reject any of the tenders
received on this basis
Ref No: FOI 0380

Format: Email request 25 October 2010

Information Requested:

Request for information on number of requirements that have been placed against
MCAS Lot 7 and by whom.

Response provided:


 The number of ITQs which have gone through the Buying Solutions website for
Management Consultancy and Accounting Services, HR Consultancy - RM662/L7 since
award in January 2010 is 15.
It is important to bear in mind though that customers are not obliged to use our ITQ
system and may have issued them using other means, therefore the total number of
ITQs issued may well be higher


Ref No: FOI 0381

Format: Email request 29 October 2010

Information Requested:

Request on fact Accenture don't appear on spreadsheet under ICT Consultancy when
they do in fact supply within this category.

Response provided:


We have recorded one order for Accenture UK Ltd against the ICT Consultancy and
Delivery Services framework agreement since it was established in August 2009. That
order was placed in March 2010 and was from NHS Connecting for Health for £79,950.

We apologise that this order was not included in the original FOI response. The omission
was a result of a system fault. We have carried out a review and established that no
other contracts were wrongly allocated. We have now implemented a change control
that will avoid this happening in the future.
Ref No: FOI 0382

Format: Email request 29 October 2010

Information Requested:

Request for amount spend that has gone through Legal Services framework for each
year between 2006 - 2009.

Response provided:

Full Response provided. If you would like to receive a full copy of the text of our
response, please request this from: FOI@buyingsolutions.gsi.gov.uk



Ref No: FOI 0384

Format: Email request 20 October 2010

Information Requested:

Requested original PQQ for MDC and sift model and marking - weighting and any other
questionnaires.

Response provided:

Full Response provided. If you would like to receive a full copy of the text of our
response, please request this from: FOI@buyingsolutions.gsi.gov.uk

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:3
posted:11/4/2012
language:English
pages:11