Hampshire Constabulary Best Value Scrutiny Board

Best Value Review

PROCUREMENTReview Proposal

1. SUMMARY
1.1 / The programmed Best Value Review of Procurement will commence in May / June 2005 and run through to Sept / Oct 2005. This review proposal seeks to clarify the position and set parameters for the review.
1.2 / This document outlines the definition, terms of reference and business case for the review and details the scope, aims and objectives and resources required. It will also seek to identify the assumptions, constraints and risks concerned in conducting the review.
2. REVIEW DEFINITION
2.1 / To carry out a fundamental Best Value Review of Procurement in accordance with the Best Value Programme.
3. TERMS OF REFERENCE
3.1 / Best Value Reviews are a statutory requirement for Police Authorities under the Local Government Act 1999.
4. SUMMARY OF BUSINESS CASE
4.1 / The Local Government Act 1999 places the duty of Best Value with the Police Authority. A ‘Best Value’ Authority must make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions are exercised having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, equity and environmental considerations, (known as the 5 E’s)
4.2 / This review will seek to identify best practice from other forces on how to carry out the many functions impacting on Procurement and assess the ability to measure outcomes, ensuring that the force achieves a high level of performance
5. CURRENT POSITION OF THE SERVICE
5.1 Aims & Objectives of the Function
5.1.1 / Procurement is an activity undertaken force-wide predominantly falling into two areas: -

Central procurement – contracts, purchasing, contract compliance
Budget holders – managing delegated or allocated budgets for the procurement of goods, services and works

5.1.2 / Force Policy 00300 – Financial Management – provides links to the procurement policy (10000). However, due to the need to update the policy the link is not currently working.
5.1.3 / On the 8th February, 2005 the Financial Affairs Panel of the Police Authority endorsed the new five year Procurement Strategy (2005 – 2010). The strategy was subsequently endorsed by the ACPO Group on the 21st February 2005.
5.1.4 / The strategy has a vision to provide a procurement function that has the flexibility and tools to deliver ongoing efficiency gains through best use of resources, whilst delivering a high quality service which enhances the ethical and business reputation of the Authority and Constabulary.
5.1.5 / It is intended that this vision will be achieved by: -

Establishing Hampshire Constabulary as an excellent performer under the HMIC baseline assessment and ultimately be heralded as a beacon force within the police service.
Responding constructively and positively to the issues identified by Sir Peter Gershon within the “independent review of public service efficiency”.
Exceeding customer expectations.
Providing greater transparency, securing greater use of collaborative arrangements, stimulating market interest in trading with the police authority and identifying a wider basis for performance measurement.
Reinforcing the value of central procurement.
Demonstrating the need for a strategic approach to procurement.

5.1.6 / From a recent customer survey, it was identified that information was not easy to find and policy and procedure often needed clarification. Half of respondents also felt that there was no consultation regarding their requirements.
5.2 Legal Requirements
5.2.1 / There is a variety of legislation and guidance appertaining to the procurement function. These are: -

EU Procurement Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and 93/37/EEC
Local Government Act 1998
Local Government Act (Part 1) 1999
Public Procurement regulations
World Trade Organisation
Police Authority Standing Orders
National and Regional Procurement Frameworks (e.g.ACPO, PITO)

5.3 Staff
5.3.1 / There are currently 12 members of staff within the Procurement and Purchasing team which includes contracts, contract compliance and purchasing.
5.3.2 / Results from the staff survey showed that staff felt that they were not getting enough information to enable them to carry out their jobs effectively. Many “People” issues were raised, such as the PDR system, and visibility of and direction given by senior and line managers. (It should be noted that this survey appertains to all staff within BAPs and may not necessarily represent the majority feeling within the team).
5.3.3 / The staff survey identified that 1/3 of staff had “plateaued”, which means that they felt undervalued and underpaid and saw senior management as weak and ineffectual.
5.3.4 / There are very few National Competency Framework (NCF) role profiles available via the intranet and these are based on generic NCF profiles for finance, procurement or management staff.
5.4 Training
5.4.1 / At an EFQM assessment on the 20th January 2005, held for the BAPs department, staff identified that training needs and requirements required review.
5.4.2 / The department is already part of the IPF procurement seminar series and participates in CIPS and Achilles Seminars and courses.
5.4.3 / Staff within the procurement team are expected to have or to attain professional CIPS qualifications, for example the foundation level or corporate membership of CIPS
5.5 Processes and Functions
5.5.1 / The procurement and purchasing manager is responsible for a number of function with the unit. These are: -

Procurement – contracts and purchasing
Contracts compliance
Stores
Reprographics

5.5.2 / At an EFQM assessment on the 20th January 2005, held for the BAPs department, it was identified that processes within all functions of the department required process mapping.
5.5.3 / The majority of comments received by respondents to the customer satisfaction survey concerned the procedures of the department and their associated timeliness. 42% also felt that there were no channels available to give feedback. Other comments showed that customers felt that changes were adequately communicated.
5.5.4 / For the purpose of the review Reprographics and stores are not included within the scope of the function.
5.6 Performance
5.6.1 / Only one KPI is reported within the Force Performance Profile, which is the number of suppliers. A target has been set to reduce the number of suppliers and this is being achieved.
5.6.2 / A departmental indicator concerns contract compliance. The team also prepare an annual report for the Police Authority, which gives details of activity over the past year. This is recognised by HMIC as good practice.
5.7 Costs of the Function
5.7.1 / Staff costs within the procurement team are calculated at £348,257. However, a full costing exercise will need to be undertaken to determine the costs of BCU and departmental personnel involved in procurement
5.8 Technology
5.8.1 / There is no information on the intranet regarding procurement.
5.8.2 / At an EFQM assessment on the 20th January 2005, held for the BAPs department, it was identified that the department should be promoting itself and its work through making use of the intranet site and through other high profile channels such as “Frontline”.
5.8.3 / 60% of staff respondents to the EFQM exercise felt that there was little or no evidence that the department had the technology it needed to work effectively.
5.8.4 / Business cases to advance e-procurement facilities have been put forward to the Information Management Development Committee (IMDC) and Information Management Board (IMB) but due to other priorities have been given a low rating. It is likely that this will be achieved through the acquisition of an integrated finance / HR package at some stage in the future.
5.9 Previous Reviews / Inspection
5.9.1 / In 1998, HMIC conducted a thematic inspection entitled “What Price Policing?” Chapter three of the report dealt specifically with procurement and made a number of recommendations. These were: -

That the potential to increase the involvement of PITO in centralised procurement be given more detailed consideration.
That those forces with links to local authorities for the provision of goods and services should review their arrangements to ensure that VFM is being achieved.
That ACPO should publish a procurement strategy.
That HMIC indicative savings of between five to eight percent for procurement and 13 per cent for contracting out services should form the basis upon which success and effectiveness of such initiatives is judged.
That forces submit an annual progress report on procurement to the police authority copied to HMIC, detailing what has been achieved from procurement initiatives over the past financial year.

5.9.2 / The 2004 HMIC baseline gave the resource management rating as Fair. Procurement strengths were identified as: -

Providing an annual report to the police authority (addressing recommendation 5 above)
Updating the procurement strategy
Good progress made in reducing the number of suppliers

5.9.3 / HMIC noted that overall supplies and services, and estate management costs were higher than the average of the force’s MSF group in terms of cost per police officer and cost per staff. Areas for improvement highlighted that: -

The force should make rapid progress to introduce modern integrated business systems
The use of benchmarking in procurement is low and needs to be improved.
The force and authority have not yet adopted and environmental strategy

5.9.4 / On the 20th January 2005, Business & Property Services undertook an EFQM based self assessment. Findings from staff and customers surveys and previous EFQM results were used. An action plan is currently being formulated to address the issues raised which were primarily ‘people’ issues. It should be noted that the results relate to the department as a whole and do not necessarily reflect the majority feeling within the procurement team
6. SCOPE
6.0.1 / For reasons of clarity the following definition will apply in relation to this review;
“The purchasing or acquisition of goods and services from 3rd party organisations for example, forensic services, transport, IT, etc”.
6.0.2 / The finance project manager is currently assessing Stores and Reprographics to determine whether these functions should be retained in-house or if there are alternative, more efficient methods of providing them (for example on a regional basis or through an external company). For this reason Stores and Reprographics will not be examined during the course of the review.
6.1 Key Areas For Examination
6.1.1 / Quantifying the cost and effectiveness of the Procurement functionthrough: -

Assessing the procedures manual to examine bureaucracy and threshold levels
Examining processes including e-procurement
Auditing contracts at BCU and department level
Exploring goods and services most suitable for national, regional or local procurement

Communication (perceptions of the department, freedom of choice for BCU / Depts who have devolved budgets, procurement planning / end of year budget)
Structure between HQ and BCU / Dept. (taking account of the findings from the Force Review)
Structure of the team (is it structured effectively to deliver efficiency savings whilst providing a quality service)
6.2The Purpose Of The Review
6.2.1 / To produce a final report documenting:
the findings,
recommendations
action plans.
6.2.2 / Findings will be reported in the Final Report. Links between findings and recommendations will be shown throughout the report, which will also contain an implementation action plan
6.3 The Aim Of The Review
6.3.1 / There are a number of aims for this review with the overall objective being to identify opportunities to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Procurement Function and thereby improve the service provided by and to staff and to members of the public. Specific aims are: -

To produce consistent and coherent procurment policies and processes for the force
To develop relevant and meaningful performance indicators
To develop outcome measures and benefit statements, demonstrating how the function contributes to the delivery of national, police authority and force strategies (for example: reduction of repeat occurrences)
To assist in the promotion of continuous improvement
To produce a list of procurement rules that will apply at national, force and BCU level

6.4 How The Aims Will Be Achieved
6.4.1 / Challenging the current approach to dealing with Procurement in Hampshire Constabulary.
6.4.2 / Comparing the Procurement function within Hampshire Constabulary with that of other Police Forces, agencies and commercial organisations to identify best practice.
6.4.3 / Consulting with key stakeholders including ACPO members, the Police Authority, divisional commanders, frontline officers, support staff, staff associations, other emergency services, and partners.
6.4.4 / Identifying areas where Competition and market testing are appropriate in the approach to Procurement
6.4.5 / Identifying areas where Collaboration with other forces and organisations is appropriate.
7. ASSUMPTIONS
7.1 / It is assumed that recommendations from previous reviews have been considered by the force and do not require further examination.
8. CONSTRAINTS
8.0.1 / The legal constraints the review team will have to work under include:
The Human Rights Act,
Data Protection Act,
Police Reform Bill.
8.1 Other constraints
8.1.1 / Support from other departments is limited.
9. RISKS
9.1 / Principal risks to the success of this review are:
Limited resources (e.g. in terms of ability to authorise back fill for team members)
Inadequate training for Review Team members
External factors (e.g. transfer of review team members to other BCUs, departments or units)
Emerging statutory guidance
10. RESOURCES REQUIRED
10.1 / David Steele is the Review Manager and is tasked with leading the review The team will consist of 6 further members of staff working on a part time basis, including one or two Police Authority members. The estimated cost of conducting the review cannot be calculated at this time.
10.2 / To ensure the review process has integrity and is transparent the majority of the team members consist of those with knowledge of the function. In common with Best Value Reviews, the Quality Development Team from Corporate Services will support the review. The Quality Development team will assist with provision of specialist services, such as process mapping, activity based costing, cost benefit analysis and gap analysis. The team will also have the ability and resources to identify areas of best practice from around the country.
10.3 / The proposed team member list is shown at appendix one.
11. PROJECT PLAN
11.0 / A project plan identifying the key tasks, milestones and timescales will be drawn up and maintained by the Review Officer. The work assignment and actions required to carry out this review will be decided by the full team during their initial meeting in May / June 2005.
11.1 Milestones / Deadlines
11.1.1 / In line with the principals contained in the manual of guidance for Best Value Reviews all work will be conducted in liaison with the Review Manager. Regular meetings of the team will be held to allocate work, update on progress and highlight areas of concern. The key milestones for the review are set out below.
11.1.2 / Reports / Date
Review Proposal to Scrutiny Board / 5th April 2005
Review Proposal to Performance Panel / 11th May 2005
Progress report submitted / Every 2 months
Final report to Scrutiny Board / March / April 2006
Final report to Police Authority Performance Management Panel / TBA
Summary of Final Report to full police authority / TBA
Final Report considered by ACPO group with regard to implementation / TBA

*Following recommendations and advice from HMIC and District Audit, Corporate Services are reviewing how the approval process and implementation phase can be sped up.

11.1.3 / Meetings / Date
Best Value Awareness Training / May / June 2005
Review Team introductory meeting / May / June 2005
Initial work allocation / May / June 2005
Regular progress meetings / Fortnightly
Wash up Meeting / Nov / Dec 2005
Consultation on Final Report with Review Team Manager / Jan – Feb 2006
Consultation on Final Report with Review Team Members / Jan – Feb 2006
Consultation on Final Report with ACPO members / Feb – March 2006
12. RECOMMENDATION TO THE SCRUTINY BOARD
12.1 / That the Scrutiny Board approves the Review Proposal.
David Steele – Head of Business & Property Services
13. CONTACT DETAILS
13.1 / Contact: David Steele (Review Manager – 79 1209)
13.2 / Insp. Richard Parsons (Quality Development Inspector – 79 1772)

Date Printed 14/10/18Corporate Services

Best Value Review

DOMESTIC VIOLENCEReview Proposal

APPENDIX ONE
Team Members
Review Manager / David Steele – Head of Business & Property Services
Review Team / Steve Colville – Procurement Manager, Business & Property Services
Marit Schofield – BCU Finance Manager – Southampton
Simon Richards – BCU Finance Supervisor – Isle of Wight
Chris Brier – BCU Facilities and Administration Manager – Portsmouth
David Ellery – Finance Project Manager – Police Headquarters
Departmental Finance / Facilities staff (TBA)
Police Officer (TBA)
Police Authority Member to be nominated.
External Challenge / Procurement Staff – Ford
Quality Development Team / Insp Richard Parsons – Lead Review Officer - Corporate Services
Fiona Fielding – Review Officer – Corporate Services
Consultation & Research Team / TBA – Consultation & Research Officer – Corporate Services

Date Printed 14/10/18Corporate Services