|
Communities, Housing and Environment Committee |
13 December 2016 |
||||
|
Is the final decision on the recommendations in this report to be made at this meeting? |
Yes |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Pest Control Arrangements |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Final Decision-Maker |
Communities, Housing and Environment Committee |
||||
|
Lead Head of Service |
Head of Environment and Public Realm |
||||
|
Lead Officer and Report Author |
Martyn Jeynes, Environmental Enforcement Manager |
||||
|
Classification |
Public |
||||
|
Wards affected |
All |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
This report makes the following recommendations to this Committee: |
|||||
|
1. To approve the appointment of Goodwin Pest Management as Pest Control Service provider from 1 January 2017 for an initial period of three years (with an option to extend for up to a further two years). |
|||||
|
|
|
||||
|
This report relates to the following corporate priorities: |
|||||
|
· Keeping Maidstone Borough an attractive place for all – provides a vetted, value for money service that enables the local authority, residents, businesses and land owners to utilise a service that controls vermin and other nuisance pests. · Securing a successful economy for Maidstone Borough - provides a vetted, value for money service that employees local people. |
|||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Timetable |
|||||
|
Meeting |
Date |
||||
|
Corporate Leadership Team |
6th December 2016 |
||||
|
Committee (Communities, Housing and Environment Committee) |
13th December 2016 |
||||
|
Pest Control Arrangements |
|
|
1. PURPOSE OF REPORT AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 The Council’s current pest control service contract expires on 31 December 2016. Maidstone Borough Council (MBC) carried out a tender process on behalf of Swale and Maidstone Councils, which was evaluated both on quality and price.
1.2 The primary purpose of this contract is to provide a range of pest treatments for residents and businesses within Swale. The contract also provides evidential reports to support pest control enforcement by Environment Officers. Other functions have used the service to provide pest treatments in public open spaces and Council property.
1.3 This report summarises the procurement process and its results, and seeks Committee approval of the recommended contractor.
2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
2.1 Since moving away from employing our own directly employed Pest Control Officer in the early 2000s, the Council has provided a pest control service utilising the skill and expertise of a private sector company. The Council initially reduced its overheads by paying a smaller fee to a local company to provide Pest Control at set prices, determined by the local authority, to residents and businesses via a dedicated pest control telephone line. This has previously been promoted online or through communication with the appropriate departments in the authority such as Environmental Health.
2.2 This should not be confused with the local authority’s statutory duties in regards to investigating public health nuisances, such as vermin and infestations, which are undertaken by officers within the Environmental Enforcement team. Nor should it be confused with the Council’s responsibilities as a land owner to keep its land free from vermin or nuisance pests such as wasps and birds.
2.3 In 2008/09, whilst retendering for the service, a bid was received from a different local company who offered to pay the council to provide its Pest Control Service. They were willing to pay for the benefit of being the recommended provider because of the level of business expected and potential repeat business that the initial contacts would provide.
2.4 This provided the Council with a contribution towards the management overheads for providing residents’ with advice about pest nuisance and investigating complaints regarding issues originating from neighbouring properties or land.
2.5 In 2011 Maidstone Borough Council (MBC), Ashford Borough Council (ABC) and Swale Borough Council (SBC) put together a joint tender specification, identifying the individual service requirements of each authority. This included ensuring that the company utilised safe working processes, best practice and innovative pest control solutions, as well as a customer focussed service in line with the values of each local authority and at a price controlled by the local authority.
2.6 As a result of the process a 3 year contract with option to extend for up to 2 years was awarded to the most suitable company. This is due to end at the beginning of January 2017 and therefore a new tendering exercise was initiated. This process was limited to Swale and Maidstone Borough Councils as Ashford had taken the decision to withdraw from the service.
2.7 The charges will continue to be set as part of the Council’s fees and charges process to ensure they are considered reasonable and are in line with other providers offering a similar standard of service. It is accepted that residents will be able to find cheaper alternatives to this service, either through carrying out the work themselves or using smaller independent companies. However the purpose of this arrangement is to give residents’ reassurance over the companies working practices and an avenue of complaint should they be dissatisfied with the outcome of the work.
2.8 The quality aspect of the tenders was evaluated by Alister Andrews, Environment Response Manager, SBC; Martyn Jeynes, Environment Enforcement Manager, MBC; and Kevin Metland, Technical Officer, MBC.
2.9 The quality of service to the customer was expected to be of a high standard with all of these providers as they were required to have membership of the British Pest Control Association. However the ‘quality’ component measured the added value for the councils, such as performance measurement, auditable and easily accessible systems, environmental and social value and the potential to grow the business.
2.10 The outcomes of the assessment exercise are set out in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Scores from assessment panel.
|
Organisation |
Price Score |
Quality Weighted Score |
Total Score |
|
Company A (Goodwin Pest Management) |
60 |
20.3 |
80.3 |
|
Company B |
57 |
22.1 |
79.1 |
|
Company C |
35.7 |
21.3 |
57 |
|
Company D |
27.7 |
26.6 |
54.3 |
|
Company E |
2.3 |
20.9 |
23.2 |
|
Company F |
0 (unable to score due to limited information) |
19.2 |
19.2 |
2.11 Company A and Company B were originally very close on their overall assessment scores. On the recommendation of the MBC Procurement Team both companies were interviewed by the evaluation panel to clarify points within their submissions. As a result Goodwin Pest Management was found to have submitted the most economically advantageous tender.
2.12 Goodwin Pest Management is located in Kent, with the owner and some employees living in both Swale and Maidstone. They employ local staff and encourage apprenticeships. They are also committed to local community events. The new contract is also estimated to generate approx. £12K pa for the Council.
3. AVAILABLE OPTIONS
3.1 The tender process has determined that Goodwin Pest Control, a local pest control company is willing to pay MBC a guaranteed income of £36k over 3 years in order to provide Pest Control in partnership with the local authority.
3.2 One option is not to award the contract and withdraw the service. This is not recommended as the contract provides a valued service to residents. The service provider supports frontline teams with evidential reports for enforcement, and provide pest treatments on council land and property.
3.3 Another alternative is to award the contract to one of the other companies that tendered. This is not recommended as Goodwin Pest Management scored the highest total in the formal tender assessment exercise.
4. PREFERRED OPTION AND REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 The procurement process has determined that Goodwin Pest Control offers the most economically advantageous tender whilst providing a pest control service which has been vetted to ensure:
· The price paid by the customer is controlled and competitive within the sector
· The company utilises safe working processes, best practice and innovative pest control solutions
· Customer satisfaction and other values are in line with the values of with those of Maidstone Borough Council
· Added value will provided in regard to the provision of Pest Control to property services and parks and open spaces and environmental enforcement in relation to the services they each provide.
4.2 The results of the procurement process were reported to the Director of Finance and Business Improvement, explaining the process and how the result had been determined. Under his delegated authority the Acceptance of Tender was duly signed. Goodwin have been made aware the contract remains subject to the report of this decision and are already prepared to go live on 3rd January 2017 should the preferred option be agreed.
4.3 Since 2009 the budget for Pest Control, which is used for Management and Administration charges and CIPFA reporting has had an income target set against it to cover those budgetary requirements. This is primarily the work undertaken by Technical Officers in the Environmental Enforcement team investigating pest related service requests. Should the committee decide not to implement this option there will be a budget shortfall of £12,000 pa.
5. CONSULTATION RESULTS AND PREVIOUS COMMITTEE FEEDBACK
5.1 Complaints have been minimal for the service, with more detailed customer satisfaction reports being a requirement for the new contractor.
6. NEXT STEPS: COMMUNICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION
6.1 Once agreed the formal handover of the contract provision will begin. This will include ensuring the council communication is redirected to the new provider.
6.2 It has been agreed to investigate the possibility of including a message on the telephone system to ensure customers are aware the service is provided by a third party company and to quote an agreed reference to ensure they benefit from the agreed rates provided by the tendered service.
6.3 The new pest control contract will be operational from 3 January 2017.
7. CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES AND IMPLICATIONS
|
Issue |
Implications |
Sign-off |
|
Impact on Corporate Priorities |
Keeping Maidstone Borough an attractive place for all – provides a vetted, value for money service that enables the local authority, residents, businesses and land owners to utilise a service that controls vermin and other nuisance pests.
Securing a successful economy for Maidstone Borough - provides a vetted, value for money service that employees local people. The tender document submitted by Goodwin Pest Management demonstrates a strong commitment to social, economic and environmental matters. The company employs local staff and encourages apprenticeships. They are also committed to local community events. |
Head of Environment and Public Realm |
|
Risk Management |
The successful contractor has all of the necessary qualifications - this was a key part of the selection criteria. The contract ensures that contractors are fully competent, particularly in the area of health and safety. Goodwin Pest Management’s competence is evidenced through their membership of the British Pest Control Association (BPCA). |
Head of Environment and Public Realm |
|
Financial |
The total value of the contract for the five years is estimated at £135K. Anticipated annual income from the pest control service contract is £12K pa. This is paid to the Council from the contractor as a result of undertaking pest treatments in line with council fees and charges. Goodwin Pest Management will also redistribute 25% of gross income over £100K pa to MBC and SBC (previous income was approximately £67,600 p/a). There are no TUPE implications identified by our outgoing service providers. |
|
|
Staffing |
None identified. |
Head of Environment and Public Realm |
|
Legal and Statutory including
Human Rights Act |
The contract will be the standard Council contract using the Council’s current Terms and Conditions. The Council has a statutory duty to investigate pest issues, but not to provide a pest control service. However, the provision of the service assists officers with delivering our statutory duties, as well as generating additional income.
There are no consequences arising from the recommendation that adversely affect or interfere with individuals’ rights and freedoms as set out in the Human Rights Act 1998.
|
Team Leader (Contracts and Commissioning) |
|
Equality Impact Needs Assessment |
No detrimental impact on the protected characteristics of individuals identified. |
Equalities and Corporate Policy Officer |
|
Environmental/Sustainable Development |
The service is provided by the contractor, and reliability and experience were considered in the tender process. Regular contractor meetings will ensure that service delivery and performance are reviewed regularly. Goodwin Pest Management has the necessary accreditations. |
Head of Environment and Public Realm |
|
Community Safety |
By having a qualified pest technician on hand we are able to target more complex pest enforcement issues quickly and effectively. |
Head of Environment and Public Realm |
|
Procurement |
The Council’s Contract Standing Orders, Commissioning framework, Procurement Strategy, relevant EU Procurement Directives, and the Public Contract Regulations 2015 have all been adhered to. |
Head of Environment and Public Realm [Section 151 Officer] |
|
Asset Management |
As a land owner the use of a vetted pest control provider and regular contracts meetings will ensure value for money in regards to our duties as a land owner. |
Head of Environment and Public Realm |
8. REPORT APPENDICES
The following documents are to be published with this report and form part of the report:
None
9. BACKGROUND PAPERS
None