AGENDA ITEM 10
BOROUGH OF POOLE
CABINET
3rd JUNE 2008
APPROVAL TO PROCEED TO IMPLEMENTATION STAGE OF THE PLANNING & LAND CHARGES SOFTWARE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
1. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
1.1 To request that Cabinet delegate the decision to approve the preferred supplier to the Project Board for the replacement of the Planning Software system subject to the contract negotiations not resulting in a figure in excess of the provision made within the estimated expenditure for the project, including the contingency (See table 3 – section 6.6).
1.2 This approach is proposed due to the urgency to replace the software as early as possible due to the de-support of the existing software which will leave both Planning and Land Charges services at risk after 31st October 2008.
1.3 A request for this report was made by Cabinet following approval to proceed to the Invitation to Tender stage of the project at the Cabinet meeting held on 12th December 2007.
2. DECISIONS REQUIRED
2.1 Cabinet is requested to approve the following: -
(i) That authority to approve the preferred supplier that has been identified through the tender and procurement process for providing a new Planning and Land Charges system be delegated to the Strategic Director in consultation with the Portfolio Holder. This will be subject to the final proposed costs of the new software not exceeding the total (Capital and Revenue) expenditure detailed in table 3. (Section 6.6)
(ii) That the funding strategy for meeting the total costs detailed in table 3 be approved (Section 6.6).
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 The Project Board set up for the replacement project comprises of:
· Andrew Flockhart Strategy Director
· Peter Watson Head of Planning Design & Control Services
· Katie Lacey Head of ICT
· Tim Martin Head of Legal and Democratic Services
3.2 The Project Board receive and consider the project progress with support from the Project Team set up for the software replacement project.
3.3 On 12th December 2007, Cabinet received a report attached (Appendix 1), seeking approval to proceed to tender stage for the Planning & Land Charges software replacement project.
3.4 The following decisions were taken by Cabinet:
· The issue of an invitation to tender for a replacement Planning and Land Charges system with regard to Council Procurement Policy: and
· That Council requests Officers to prepare a further report to be considered at a later stage that will indicate the preferred supplier, along with detailed costs of supplying a replacement system and proposals for meeting the cost.
3.5 On 19th December 2007 a letter was received from Northgate (supplier of MVM2020) stating that they intended to withdraw support with effect from 31st October 2008. The effect of the withdrawal of support notice is detailed further below in section 5.
3.6 The timeframes for the implementation stage are too tight to achieve the procurement of a new system by 31st October 2008
3.7 A full risk assessment has been carried out by the Service Units involved and many of the risks have been mitigated, however there remains the risk of running a key software system without supplier support in the event of a major unrecoverable software breakdown and that has been entered onto the Corporate risk register.
3.8 The implementation plan has taken this risk into consideration when planning timeframes and milestones. However, the plan is always subject to unexpected slippage such as protracted contract negotiations, key staff absence or data migration difficulties.
4. THE TENDER PROCESS
4.1 Detailed work has been carried out by the necessary Service Units in order to prepare an Invitation to Tender for software suppliers and ensure that the procurement process followed Council standing orders and policies.
4.2 The Service Units included
· Financial Services (Procurement),
· Legal Services,
· ICT Project management,
· Strategic Planning (GIS Team),
· Planning Design & Control Services
· Legal Services (Land Charges)
4.3 The Invitation to Tender was issued to leading Planning & Land Charge software suppliers on 10th March 2008, with an agreed closing date of 7th April 2008
4.4 During the tender evaluation process two of the six tenderers were discounted, as they did not meet the key essential functional requirements.
4.5 Two further suppliers were discounted after a pre determined detailed functional requirements and costs review was carried out.
4.6 The two remaining suppliers were then subject to a scoring system to evaluate their response.
4.7 To ensure that the tender process could be supported the following activities were also taken by the Project Team
· Visits to the supplier’s operational sites
· Visits to Local Authority reference sites
· Demonstrations of the supplier’s software
4.8 The preferred supplier will be recommended to the Project Board on a pre-determined basis of 60% quality and 40% cost according to their tender return.
4.9 Contract negotiations can then be commenced with the Project Board’s preferred supplier followed by the implementation stage of the project.
5. DESUPPORT IMPLICATIONS
5.1 The desupport notice issued by Northgate on 19th December 2007 puts the Planning and Land Charge services at risk from 31st October 2008.
5.2 A full risk assessment has been carried out by the project team to determine actions that are required to mitigate the desupport notice.
5.3 The majority of the risks can be mitigated however the one over riding risk remaining is the complete loss of the MVM 2020 server. This is a rare occurrence however it is one risk that cannot be ignored.
5.4 The data part of the server would be backed up daily and can be recovered by ICT, however the services of Northgate would be required to reload the software. (This would normally be covered by support and annual maintenance, which will be withdrawn from 31st October 2008)
5.5 Both Service Units rely fully on the MVM 2020 system for all of its administrative functions including:
· Registration of Planning Applications (including trees)
· Notification of Planning Applications to Neighbours and Statutory Consultees
· Deciding and Issuing of Decision notices
· Appeal procedures
· Land Charge Searches
5.6 All the above are legal requirements and would require unacceptable levels of manual administration in the event of the loss of the server.
5.7 Additionally the loss of the server would mean that the Planning Website would lose the ability to inform the public of new Planning Applications and the facility to look at old planning applications. The website currently receives over 18000 visits from the public per month.
5.8 The loss of the ability to put the information on the website automatically would put pressures onto Planning Administration staff and Customer Services through additional phone calls and visits from the public to seek the information.
6. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
6.1 The requirement for the replacement software has been part of the business plans for both Planning and Legal Services since April 2007. Accordingly the resources to cover the costs of the new system have been built into the various capital allocations and earmarked reserves available to the Service Units.
6.2 Table 1 - Supplier A - tender quote
SUPPLIER A – Estimated Cost /Total Cost £k
Software licenses / 46.8Project Management / 12.0
Technical and data migration costs / 22.7
Cadcorp mapping integration / 5.0
Other services / connectors integration eg Idox / Planning Portal / 1.0
Training services / 21.3
Go live costs / 3.5
Total Estimated Costs (Supplier A) / 112.3
6.3 Table 2 – Supplier B - tender quote
SUPPLIER B – Estimated Cost /Total Cost £k
Software licenses / 11.0Project Management / 16.7
Technical and data migration costs / 50.2
Cadcorp mapping integration + Crystal licenses / 10.7
Other services / connectors integration eg Idox / Planning Portal / 13.0
Training services / 18.9
Go live costs / 0
Total Estimated Costs (Supplier B) / 120.5
6.4 Tender award will be based on the whole-life cost of the tender. This will include consideration of the annual maintenance costs over the 5 year assumed life of the software.
6.5 Both suppliers have met the essential functional requirements listed in the tender:
· Development Control Module
· Planning Portal 1 App accreditation
· Land Charges Module
· Land Charges NLIS level 3 capability
· Local Land and Property Module (LLPG)
· LLPG Module accredited to BS7666: 2006 accreditation
· Seamless integration with the Corporate Document Management System (IDOX)
6.6 Table 3 – Estimated Expenditure for Replacement Project:
Estimated Expenditure for replacement project /Total Cost £k
Capital ExpenditureSoftware and third party project costs
(Prudent estimate based on tender quotes – see section 6.2/6.3) / 120
Revenue Expenditure
Project Management Support / 47
Software add-ons / 5
Planning Staff backfill costs / 6
Legal Services for supplier contract / 10
Contingency (8% of project costs)
/ 15Total Expenditure (Capital & Revenue) / 203
Funding Strategy /
Total £k
Specific Capital ResourcesPlanning Delivery Grant – Capital Grant
(Planning Services unspent 2006/07 & 2007/08 allocations) / 97
Planning Delivery Grant – Capital Grant
(Strategic Planning Services unspent 2006/07 allocation) / 11
Revenue Resources
Application of Grant Related Earmarked Reserve
(Planning Services – Planning Delivery Grant) / 58
Application of Service Unit Specific ICT Investment Plan Earmarked Reserve (Strategic Planning Services) / 18
Application of Service Unit Specific ICT Investment Plan Earmarked Reserve (Legal & Democratic Services) / 10
Application of Service Unit Specific ICT Investment Plan Earmarked Reserve (Planning Services) / 9
Total Funding (Capital & Revenue) / 203
Note 1, £12,000 of the identified revenue resources will be used to fund the identified capital resources by means of a revenue contribution to capital (RCCO).
Note 2, Annual maintenance costs have been removed from the expenditure table above as maintenance is currently paid at similar levels for the existing system. The annual maintenance costs for the next 5 years will though form part of the tender evaluation process.
6.7 Owing to the time constraints and service implications in the implementation stage of the project and in the absence of a clear preferred supplier, continuing site visits and contract negotiations, it is vital not to lose any project time in view of the risk to the Planning and Land Charge services due to the de-support notice effective from 31st October 2008.
6.8 It is the wish of the Head of Planning Design & Control Services and Head of Legal and Democratic Services to request approval to move the project forward with constraints (if proposed total tender cost exceed provision, including contingency, made) given the close proximity of tenders to each other and tender estimates are lower than previously advised to Cabinet. This unusual step of asking Cabinet to approve the conclusion of contract negotiations via the Project Board with the eventual preferred supplier will allow the current momentum of the project to be maintained.
7.0 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
7.1 A tender complying with European Regulations has been run by the project team that will result in the objective selection of a preferred supplier.
Peter Watson
Head of Planning and Control Services
Tim Martin
Head of Legal Services
BOROUGH OF POOLE
CABINET
12TH DECEMBER 2007
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE HEADS OF LEGAL SERVICES AND PLANNING DESIGN AND CONTROL SERVICES FOR THE APPROVAL TO PROCEED TO TENDER STAGE OF THE PLANNING & LAND CHARGES SOFTWARE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
1. PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 To seek Member approval to proceed to the tender stage for a replacement system to cover planning applications, local land charges and the Corporate GIS Local Land & Planning Gazetteer (LLPG) handling systems.
2. RECOMMENDATION
2.1 Cabinet is asked to:
(i) Approve the issue of an Invitation to Tender for a replacement Planning and Land Charges system with regard to Council Procurement Policy
.
(ii) Request Officers to prepare a further report to be considered at a later date that will indicate the preferred supplier, along with detailed costs of supplying a replacement system and proposals for meeting the cost.
3 BACKGROUND
3.1 3.1 The Council uses MVM (Northgate) 20/20 as an operating platform for its planning applications and Local Land Charges. The system has been in place since 1997. The system enables the 2 Service Units to:
· Process Planning Applications and Decisions
· Process Land Charge Searches
3.2 The supplier has not provided a “roadmap” for any further developments to the software and has stated that it will soon announce the date when it will cease to support the software. This date will not be less than 6 months after the announcement.
3.3 In addition, Ordnance Survey have made decisions which mean that Ordnance Survey maps cannot be accessed by users of software systems (eg MVM 2020.) that the Council operate after 30th September 2008.
3.4 Land Charges generate some £800,000 of search fees, which has increased over the past years as a result of a 24-hour turn around of searches. This is only achievable with the use of reliable back office systems
3.5 Planning Design & Control Services produce almost 3,000 Planning and Treework applications and decisions on an annual basis. Again, this is only achievable with the use of reliable back office systems.
3.6 If the authority continues to use the current software, it will be forced to deliver core services using unsupported software at sometime in the future. This will prevent any further improvements to current service delivery and degrade the quality of the existing service. It is therefore sensible to seek a value for money alternative. The usual procurement and replacement process for this type of software is approximately 15 months
3.7 The Head of Legal and Democratic Services says that providing land charges is a statutory service. The Council must provide it by law. The Head of Service adds that the Council will not be able to provide the service without this supporting technology. Lack of appropriate software would lead to service failure together with a large increase in demands for manually processed paperwork.
3.8 Both Service Units have identified the need to replace the current software system. This is being driven the risks to the service delivery associated with the current software system.