Content

Following the call-in by the Joint Overview
and Scrutiny Committee (JOSC), and in accordance with the
Councils’ Constitution and the Call-In Procedure, I have
reconsidered the decision to award the Community Catalyst
infrastructure support contract to Question Factory (Decision Ref:
ADforP&C/071/24-25) and re-consulted with Cabinet Members
having regard to the referrals made by JOSC. 
This reconsideration included a review of the
concerns raised by scrutiny Members, a full assessment in line with
the principles of decision-making outlined in Article 12 of the
Constitution, and further consultation with Procurement colleagues
and Cabinet Members for Communities.
Having considered the JOSC referrals against
the procurement documentation, evaluation records and our strategic
goals for community participation and support, I have resolved to
reaffirm the original decision. This decision continues to support
a fair, open, and inclusive approach to delivering infrastructure
support to community groups and organisations across Adur and
Worthing.
 

Reasons for the decision

Response to Scrutiny concerns

1.     
Transparency as a result of a single
lead contractor being contracted, when it was scored as a
consortia.

The procurement process was explicitly
designed to allow bids from single organisations or consortia, with
clear expectations set out in the tender documents and further
clarified during the process. Question Factory described their
response as a  consortium bid, partnering with New Citizenship
Project and other experienced contributors. Their roles,
responsibilities and delivery model were transparently outlined and
clarified that Question Factory were the legal entity bidding for
the contract which in procurement terms would not be defined as a
consortium bid but a traditional contract with named
sub-contractors. In these instances the lead organisation would be
responsible for meeting the council's minimum criteria, the
delivery of the contract, and management of
sub-contractors.

Councils are not obliged to require
consortia to meet different criteria to those of single entity bids
beyond describing how the end contract will be entered into and in
this case we did not define any alternative requirements in the
delivery elements. Therefore the scored elements of the bid were
scored using the same criteria regardless of the legal entity we
are contracting with. 

This model reflects common and acceptable
practice and was assessed using the same evaluation criteria
applied to all bidders, consistent with Cabinet Office guidance
(PPN
03/24) and the relevant
procurement legislation at the time the procurement exercise began
(The Public Contract Regulations 2015).

I have noted that scrutiny has raised
concerns on this point and we will ensure that we don’t use
the term ‘consortia’ to describe the successful bidders
going forward.

2.        
Concern over capacity/ability of
successful bidder to deliver on the tender given  they are the
single legal entity being awarded the contract

On the question of capacity, the
successful bidder passed all due diligence checks on finance and
organisational capacity. The guidance from the cabinet office on
how this due diligence and capacity check is completed can be found
at
PPN 03/24 and the amended version for this tender can be found
at the stage one selection questionnaire document. 

In terms of assessing ability, the
delivery model draws on a multi-partner team with a strong track
record in supporting communities and enabling democratic
participation. This is outlined in
Section 1 of Appendix 3 of the Call In
Report. The successful
bidder demonstrated an ability to support community groups with
practical tools and tested methods that empower local action and
leadership that are outlined below.

The annual contract value of
£60,000.00 roughly the equivalent of a single directly
employed staff member with on-costs is not considered a high risk
contract in terms of value. 

 

 

3.           
Concern around robustness of corporate
governance of successful bidder

While Question Factory is a small
organisation, the quality element of the bid was evaluated as a
whole, including the contribution of New Citizenship Project and
other partners. The wider team brings mature governance systems and
significant experience. Governance of the programme itself will be
strengthened by:

A participatory steering group made up of community
stakeholders. This would guide and create the new ways of working
outlined in the Types of support provided by Question Factory &
New Citizenship Project section in Appendix 1 below. We plan to
test with our Community Leaders group the best way of enabling
people to join this group. We would create a network of people who
participate in and help shape the support. This would take place
through collaborative sessions to make sense of key lessons learned
to help guide improvements to the support
provided. 

Monthly performance reviews and monitoring by
Council officers to review progress of the project and ensure
connections are made between insights coming through the activities
supported and work the Councils are doing.

Transparent delivery reporting through regular
monthly updates to local groups on the delivery of the
work.

This structure reflects a blended model
of delivery and governance that is appropriate for a contract of
this type and size.

Concerns were raised regarding the
relationship between directors of Question Factory, the directors
of Question Factory are related as is the case with many small,
medium enterprises. It is the duty of the procurement team to
consider whether additional due diligence is required where it is
considered that the status or actions of directors / persons of
significant control are considered to implicate any conflicts of
interest. The resource plan proposed by Question Factory only
indicates a single directors input, given the low value of this
contract we consider this feasible and therefore we do not consider
there is any further due diligence required. 

4.           
Concerns about rigour of compliance
check process

The procurement process followed the
Council’s Contract Procedure Rules and reflected UK public
procurement best practice, including:

A two-stage process with clear thresholds for
financial and quality standards

Evaluation by trained officers across different
teams

Moderated scoring and scenario-based clarification
interviews

Robust scrutiny of financial information, insurance
and references

The winning bid scored highest in the
second-stage evaluation and showed strong alignment with the
outcomes sought by the Council, including supporting local groups
to grow, adapt, and lead.

This model reflects common and acceptable
practice and was assessed using the same evaluation criteria
applied to all bidders, consistent with Cabinet Office guidance
(PPN
03/24).
Final decision

This commission forms part of our
commitment as councils for the community to invest in supporting
local groups, creating opportunities for people to shape the places
they live in, and enabling groups to build lasting capability and
resilience. 

We consider our approach to community
wealth building in procurement on a case by case basis, in this
process we ensured the widest possible appeal to local
organisations but unfortunately we did not receive a full compliant
bid from any local organisations to consider. Whilst the award of
this contract will not result directly in new council expenditure
in the local area the offer from the successful bidder will deliver
a wide range of community wealth building initiatives shown in
Appendix 1.

Appendix 1 outlines the different types
of support that local groups and organisations will benefit from.
11% (£18k) of the overall budget (£165k) will also be
made directly available to community groups to support them in
their communities.

Section 4 of the
“Call-In
of Decision ADforP&C/071/24-25- Contract Award for a delivery
partner for the Community Catalyst commission
outlines the purpose of the tender, and
details the engagement and procurement process.

Appendix 3 of the above report provided
further context and how the winning provider stood out across all
the criteria in the tender specification.

Appendix 1

Types of support provided by Question
Factory & New Citizenship Project

The support is designed to help
residents, local groups, emerging organisations, and the council
work together to build inclusive and resilient neighbourhoods.
Below is an overview of this support that shows our commitment to
supporting our local groups and organisations:

1. General support

Outreach & relationship
building

Proactive engagement with both long-established and
new or underrepresented groups

One-to-one conversations and follow-up for informal
and place-based groups

Specific outreach to smaller, less formal groups who
may not usually engage with infrastructure support

Guidance and navigation

Signposting and brokering connections between
groups, councillors, officers and partners

Helping groups understand how to access community
spaces, funding, or digital tools

Supporting groups to explore practical routes to
sustain or grow their activity

Peer support and mentoring

Facilitating peer-to-peer networks between local
groups and individuals

Supporting mentoring relationships and shared
problem-solving between more experienced and newer
groups

Turning ideas into action

Helping groups shape ideas into practical
experiments (e.g. youth-led panels, digital
noticeboards)

Support to develop, test and refine ideas through
prototyping, coaching, and reflection

Capability building

Building group skills in areas like facilitation,
storytelling, co-design, digital engagement

Developing leadership and succession planning for
group regeneration

Helping groups adapt to diverse lived
experiences 

2. Support through Neighbourhood
Participation Accelerators (see below)

Facilitation and design

Creative workshops including developing ideas,
testing, and storytelling

Techniques like collective visioning, empathy
mapping, and group coaching

Support for groups to try ideas out quickly, safely
and visibly

Tools and methods

Resources developed with local groups to support
idea generation, user journeys (putting ourselves in the eyes of
people using services), and project planning

Participatory tools adapted to local needs and
access barriers

Regular rhythm of sessions

Held in-person with digital follow-ups and access to
materials

Accessible to people with different
needs

WhatsApp peer groups and digital spaces to support
in-between moments

3. Support to work together across local
groups, council staff and councillors

Training and reflection spaces

Joint sessions with residents to build relational
practice and shared accountability

Support for councillors to engage with co-design
while managing expectations

Agile planning and learning

Structured reflection sessions every 2–4 weeks
and every 3 months

Use of agile sprint planning and retrospectives to
adapt and learn as a system

Strategic check-ins linking neighbourhood insight to
wider council priorities between communities and
leaders

Narrative support

Co-developing new stories of neighbourhood democracy
with staff and councillors

Supporting political leadership to connect the work
to their local priorities

4 Digital support

Digital participation tools

Design and testing of low-barrier tools such as
WhatsApp noticeboards, online maps, and digital story
trails

Support from a dedicated Tech Lead to identify
community needs in terms of digital

Matching groups with digital solutions (mainstream
or bespoke tools)

Access and inclusion

Creating a digital resource library for groups and
residents

Supporting digital reach while keeping trust through
in-person connection

Helping the council embed new digital approaches in
its long-term strategy

5. Evaluation, learning and legacy
support

Learning and evidence

Embedded data collection through light-touch
feedback tools and session reflections

Six-monthly “learning and stock-take”
days with the local groups, staff, councillors and wider
organisations to review and showcase progress

Participatory evaluation to track outcomes in line
with council missions and community priorities

Sustainability and legacy

Identifying local leaders and groups to take
ownership of the work over time

Testing “team around the place” models
to support neighbourhood leadership

Supporters’ network to bring in time, funding
and expertise from businesses and institutions

 

We also provide an extract from the
selection questionnaire of specific case studies:

1. Participation 

Case Study 1: 

Kirklees Active
Citizenship 

Focused on inclusive engagement through
participatory workshops, storytelling, and collective sensemaking.
The team co-designed engagement activities with voluntary sector
partners and incorporated perspectives from underrepresented
groups, aligning with the requirement for expert facilitation of
participatory spaces. 

Case Study 2: Liverpool
OPSI 

Facilitated joint ideation workshops,
user needs gathering, and sprint sessions to ensure participation
at multiple levels. 

Case Study 3: Thrive –
Doncaster 

Used appreciative inquiry with local
communities to identify priorities and developed roles for
community anchor organizations, ensuring broad participation across
sectors. 

2. Learning and
Evaluation 

Case Study 1: Kirklees Active Citizenship
Built peer-to-peer learning networks and ran training sessions to
develop facilitation skills within the council, fostering ongoing
learning and capacity building. 

Case Study 2: Liverpool OPSI Convened IT
and governance leaders to share best practices, creating dashboards
to identify learning opportunities. 

Case Study 3: Thrive – Doncaster
Defined system level success measures including improved outcomes
and reduced costs to the public sector. 

3. Social Innovation 

Case Study 1: Kirklees Active
Citizenship 

The “Shaped by People”
initiative was designed to measure and promote citizen-led
innovation, ensuring that new ideas were recognised and
scaled. 

Case Study 2: Liverpool
OPSI 

Used test-and-learn methods, releasing
findings in iterative cycles to allow feedback-driven
adjustments. 

Case Study 3: Thrive – Doncaster
The Children and Family Zone initiative was inspired by the Harlem
Children’s Zone, applying a proven model in a new context to
drive social change. 

4. Digital and Data 

Case Study 1: Kirklees Active
Citizenship 

Integrated digital deliberation tools to
analyse citizen input and enhance participation.

Case Study 2: Liverpool
OPSI 

Conducted a deep tech landscape review,
advised on data-sharing solutions, and worked on digital strategies
to improve public service coordination. 

Case Study 3: Thrive –
Doncaster 

Used multi-agency data analysis to
identify priority neighbourhoods and guide
decision-making. 

5. Political Nous 

Case Study 1: Kirklees Active
Citizenship

Helped council officers navigate internal
resistance, shifting them from a service-provider mindset to an
enabler role. 

Case Study 2: Liverpool
OPSI 

Engaged Chief Executives and senior
leaders in a devolved Mayoral Combined Authority, and advised on
situating the project in the new government’s political
priorities. 

Case Study 3: Thrive –
Doncaster 

Considered political sensitivities and
engaged MPs, ward members, and town councils, demonstrating a
strong understanding of governance dynamics. 

6. Community Power 

Case Study 1: Kirklees Active
Citizenship

Shifted council thinking towards
Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD), fostering longterm
citizen-led initiatives. 

Case Study 3: Thrive –
Doncaster 

Worked with local community strengths to
drive change and develop collaborative governance
 

Alternative options considered

Reduce or stop funding for infrastructure
support for the voluntary, community and social enterprise
sector.