Content

RESOLVED to:
 
1. 
Approve an extension of the present call-off contract
pertaining to Lots A, B & C for 1 year from the 3rd August 2025
to provide time to re-procure the services.
2. 
Approve the preferred procurement strategy for Lot A,
Corporate Site Security Services, option one, that is through a
closed framework agreement in conjunction Lots B and C.
3. 
Note that the Procurement Strategy for Lot A includes
bringing  the
Meet and Greet role for corporate buildings and various ceremonial
duties back in house to be delivered by the Facilities Management
and Customer Operations Team.
4. 
That subject to approval by the Committee of 1 & 2
above that the procurement will be run as follows:
 
The tender would
proceed on the basis of 50% quality / 50% price as follows:
 
Lot 1: (Lot A and
Lot B as described in the report will be combined)
 
Lot 2: (Lot C as
described in the report) will run separately
 
 
Reasons For Decision
 
Two options were identified and assessed in
relation to Lot A. In deciding upon the preferred option as well as
the service considerations there are financial considerations which
balance the Council’s strategic insourcing objectives
alongside savings requirements to meet the Council’s Medium
Term Financial Plan (MTFP).
 
The two options are as follows:
 
Option 1   Reprocurement of the Lot A Security Services Framework with Joint Delivery
Model
 
Option 2   Insourcing of Lot
A
 
A detailed summary of the underlying facts
behind each Option is provided below:
 
Option 1 -
Reprocurement of the Lot A Security Services Framework with Joint Delivery
Model
 
This option proposes no change to all c.75
officers employed in Lot A who would remain fully outsourced and
managed by the winning bidder of the ITT. As noted above, the
additional Hackney staff would come from the contact centre so they
are already employed, and when they are not occupied meeting
visitors to the Town Hall, they would continue to perform their
normal work duties from a desktop device.
 
The current contract value for Lot A is
£3.75m per annum.
 
It is envisaged that a new service provider
would propose a new model of staffing and hours of operation that
could leverage the investment made by LBH to deliver savings over
years 2,3 & 4.
 
Efficiencies may be obtained across Lot A
sites via the increased utilisation of alternative technologies and
use of Community Safety’s CCTV service.
 
Further consultation will occur in parallel
with Service Directors regarding the options for Lots A.
 
Projected cost reduction - This is an estimate
of probable savings based on the review report commissioned by the
Council and the implementation of its recommendations. Further
discussions will need to occur with the service leads to determine
full viability and permission to amend service hours and methods of
coverage.
 
Enhanced terms - does not apply as all staff
will be retained on their present terms and conditions.
 
The advantages and disadvantages of Option 1
are listed below:
 

Advantages

Disadvantages

 

· 
Brings a Hackney member of staff to the TownHall Service Desk
· 
Lowest organisational risk
· 
Meets member’s manifesto commitments of a safe and secure
borough through a professionally delivered security solution
· 
Efficiencies of outsourced service scale
· 
Projected to result in c£1m cost reduction Lot A only
(subject to service agreement on changes)
· 
Outsourced companies more experienced with security management
· 
Reactive resources to ensure service is effective and resilient
· 
Reduced redundancy liability exposure in the event of building
closure
 

· 
Does not deliver of manifesto commitment to insource
· 
Working contracts remain varied
· 
Cost of service are subject to market conditions / may increase
subject to ITT returns

 
 
Option 2 - Full
Insourcing of Lot A
 
This option proposes the full insourcing of
all c.75 officers delivering Lot A services into the Council.
 
Given the employment conditions of the Council
compared to the security industry a greater number of staff would
be required for the provision of a like for like service. Due to
the legislation around the security industry, an insourced option
would need to ensure a high level or regular, specialist training
for all members of security staff, specialist security tools,
equipment, systems and vehicle, as well as the operational
framework to support the specialist service.
 
A third party would need to be procured and
available on a call-off basis for additional security provision
needed to supplement the insourced sources for special events, ad
hoc protests, spend varies depending on Council demand, a variable
requirement across all service areas.
 
We estimate 0.6 additional Full Time
Equivalent (FTE’s) employees per insourced role which equates
to 45 additional staff as illustrated below. We have also modelled
on the basis of 30 additional staff to account for reduction in
staff resulting from rationalising sites across the board:
 
Financial Summary of Option
2:  A summary of Costs for
insourcing 75 officers in the existing team plus additional 30 or
45 officers required to maintain current level of service delivery
are illustrated in this table:
 

Item

Annual Cost

Total over 4
years
 

 
Base position - insourcing the current
security service staff of c.75 in Lot A
Average rate of £30k per Officer
 

£2.25m
 

£9m

 
Operational costs including specialist
training provision,
Uniforms, equipment EV vehicles, Patrol
System, Radio’s and management support
Using 32.54% on cost rate
 

£732k
 

£2.93m

Total cost of Option
2
(base position + 30
additional staff)
 

£4.17m
 

£16.7m

Total cost of Option
2
(base position + 45
additional staff)
 

£4.77m
 

£19.1m

 
 
The advantages and disadvantages of option 2
are listed below:
 
 

Advantages
 

Disadvantages
 

 
· 
Complies with member’s manifesto commitment of insourcing
· 
Control of security service in house
· 
Hackney brand across service
· 
Enhancement to staff working packages
· 
Improvement to working contracts
· 
Brings frontline service into LBH family
· 
Presents a more consistent ‘Hackney’ appearance in key
buildings
 

· 
Increased organisational risk
· 
Enhanced terms, fewer working hours per week = increased staff
(approximately 75 positions insourced)
· 
May result in recruitment of between 30 and 45 additional staff to
ensure continuity of service levels.
· 
TUPE arrangements will  restrict the 
ability to drive any savings in the next 2 years
· 
Increased exposure to redundancy liability in the event of building
closure due to the accommodation strategy
· 
Council inexperienced with security management and legislations
· 
Associated cost with additional delivery resources including senior
management team, equipment, vehicles, PPE and uniform, buy and
maintain a patrol and radio system
· 
May be harder to maintain Service quality due to sheer number of
new staff
· 
Increased mandatory training requirements governed by legislation
will need to be provided from an external provider (associated
costs)
· 
Counter to sustainability goals as more resources and assets will
be required
· 
Loss of staff overtime
· 
Internal approval routes and processes have the potential to lead
to delays
· 
Cover arrangements for leave, sickness, maternity or other absences
may increase overtime or possibly lead to agency staff to cover
shifts
· 
24/7 cover, 365 days per year will include enhanced overtime rates
for weekends, bank holidays, Seasonal holidays
· 
Loss of economy of scale and inability to increase security
provision quickly to minimise potential risks
· 
Dependency remains for third-party security support
 

 
 
The recommended option for the procurement of
Security Services for Lot A, Corporate Site Security Services, is
option one, that is through a closed framework agreement. The
reason that Option 2 has not been recommended is that  insourcing the
service will cost considerably more than tendering for a
replacement outsourced service over the four (4) year period. Given
the significant financial pressure Hackney is experiencing across
the board, this is a cost that can be avoided via retaining the
outsourced model. Further Insourcing would bring additional risks
and complications that would add additional indirect costs to other
services which are suffering their own pressures at this
time. 
 
Further the outsourced service will also bring
with it resilience in that the contract will bring with it access
to a large trained workforce that is able to respond swiftly to
emerging issues that require a security presence  which presents
a better service for the Council. 
 
 
Alternative Options
Considered and Rejected
 
In addition to the insourcing we also
considered:
 
Option: Not to
extend
 
The option not to extend was considered and
rejected on the basis that the Council has a duty of care to
protect its staff, assets and the visitors to all its corporate
sites.
 
It is not a viable option to exist without a
Security Service. 
 
Option: Create a
Hybrid Model
 
The Council rejected the option of creating a
Hybrid model due to the sheer complexity and additional cost this
would bring with it.
 
In the Council's worsening financial position
combined with the additional pressure it would place on already
stretched teams, it was felt this route would
bring no benefits.
 
Risk profile, the splitting of the service
could considerably increase the risk to LBH and would make the
staffing of ad hoc events more difficult and costly as the
insourced staff would be on enhanced terms and conditions which
would make calling them in at short notice far more difficult /
expensive.