Meeting documents

Update to be provided by Michelle Granat.

Michelle Granat attended the meeting to provide an update to the Contract Management Application (CMA).

·         From 1^st April 2015 accountability for the CMA transferred to the Innovation and Commercialisation Team.

·         The current status has highlighted significant gaps which need action, in particular regarding compliance and managing of information.

·         The team are establishing a work programme for the SRM Lead to follow (Supplier Relationship Manager).

·         In May 2015 the technical review was completed for the CMA to determine whether CMA was fit for purpose from an organisation perspective- it was recognised that work needs to be done to improve compliance. 

·         Although there has been some negativity around the audit findings, contract managers are still actively using the CMA to record contract details. To date: :

                              I.        A total of 1650 "Live" contracts have been entered onto the CMA

                            II.        The total annual contract value of the remaining 1328 contracts is £289,908,172.

                           III.        There are 56 suppliers with an annual contract value of £750,000 or more.

                                        IV.            Platinum providers, an estimated 60% have been uploaded on the CMA.

·         Michelle confirmed that the intention today was to report back on the progress of the CMF and CMA.

·         There is a plan in place.

·         Historically the SRM Lead has been a challenge to recruit. A workshop is being held today with the Business Unit Leads to identify the needs of the SRM post. The plan is to have this embedded by October 2015.

Members Questions / Comments

Question 1

·         A member thanked Michelle for the detailed report.

·         On page 11 of the agenda pack (page 3 of the report), regarding the SRM, reference is made to there being "Member involvement in contract and supplier relationships to enable effective knowledge share, support and challenge". How do the team plan to achieve this?

·         Michelle advised that the team have not identified a way how this will be achieved at present, but this is part of the review. Michelle confirmed that the team want to ensure that members are involved but also that they are protected against any commercially sensitive details. This will be a work in progress following the review. The review will be completed by the end of this year and the team will engage with the members throughout the process.

Question 2

·         A member asked for clarification on what exactly the "Technical Review" entailed?

·         Michelle confirmed that the technical review had been undertaken by James Mansfield Sturgess, Technical Architect within the team. The review has confirmed that functionality is there within the system, however it is not at present being used to its full potential. The review has highlighted significant issues to be rectified to enable better usage of the system;

                      I.        Criticality Matrix (outlining suppliers and where they fall in terms of risk and value)

                    II.        At present some business units are overriding this matrix with suppliers being moved into incorrect areas within this matrix – which is potentially presenting an incorrect overall picture.

·         Ian Dyson advised members that the Regulatory and Audit Committee are key stakeholders in this review process. The technical review related to the functionality of the programme but also need to enhance and define the reporting. Following the review it is expected that all reports will be accessible by members. Further feedback will be provided to the Regulatory and Audit Committee as the project progresses.

Question 3

·         The Chairman asked for clarification on the figures in the report, with 65% being Platinum contracts, how many suppliers will this equate to?

·         Michelle advised that originally this equated to 49 suppliers, however a few more have since been added.

Question 4

·         Does the one council board support?

·         Michelle confirmed that they do.

Question 5

·         A member queried how the process will work in the future. There have been instances in the past where contractors have under-performed, however their contracts have still been renewed. Would this new revised process enable the council to re-work or change contracts if the existing suppliers were seen to be under performing?

·         Michelle advised that once the data is fit for purpose, performance data will be able to be shared with business units as well as the Regulation and Audit Committee and discussions around under-performing contractors can take place. 

·         Ian Dyson also advised that the new process should also make the role of the contract manager transparent.

·         The system will also flag up when contracts are due to be renewed, which will proactively ensure Business Units are aware of.

·         Michelle advised that due to the new EU Regulations we are now in a better position and can score based on past performance.

Comment 1

·         A member suggested perhaps a RAG rating / traffic light system would work well to highlight those underperforming.

·         Michelle confirmed that a RAG rating status is already in use- the review will help to determine if this is being used correctly.

·         A member suggested that it would be helpful for the RAG rating data to be brought back to the Regulatory and Audit Committee on a regular basis for oversight.

·         Ian Dyson agreed that although this is not currently on the forward plan, it would be a productive step.

·         Members also confirmed that this confidential report, will be helpful if a history on those rated as Red could also be supplied.

·         Ian Dyson agreed, and as well as this contracts that are due for renewal and the action that is being taken to renew should be included in the report.

ACTION: Michelle Granat to present the RAG rated status report, highlighting in particular those contracts in RED as well as contracts due for renewal, on a quarterly basis. Michelle advised that the report capability will need to be tested within members and colleagues to ascertain whether this meets expectations. There are ongoing concerns that information may not drive the reports Members are seeking, however this will form part of the CMA Review. Michelle advised she will bring the first report to the November 2015 meeting.

The chairman thanked Michelle for her detailed report and update.