Essex FSB (Federation of Small Businesses) is urging Thurrock Council to review its procurement procedures after another major contract has been awarded to a national firm leaving local businesses without council contracts after 40 years of working with the local authority.
South West Essex FSB Chairman, David Miles said: “We believe the latest contract to be awarded nationally by Thurrock Council is to Sheffield-based Lovell Powerminster Limited and is worth around £546,000.
“We understand that due to ‘official procurement procedures’ no local companies were invited to tender for this work which casts into doubt Thurrock Councils commitment to support local businesses, to ‘Keep Trade Local’ and the Signing of Small Business Engagement Accord last year.
“The new Council Leadership has stated quite clearly that they intend to do everything they can to support local business and then appear to sanction this drain on our local economy by allowing this award to go through.
“Coming closely behind the takeover of the Day-to-Day Responsive Repairs by Morrison Facility Services (another national organisation), local companies, who have supported the Council for many years, are once again left reeling.
“We understand that some companies have been providing electrical services to Thurrock Council for around 40 years repeatedly winning tenders for the contracts yet this time they seem to have been excluded from the process.
“Essex FSB finds that totally unacceptable and is seeking clarification on the regulations used by the council which effectively preclude local firms from tendering .
“Thurrock Council must realise that by not awarding contracts to local companies they are adding to unemployment in that Borough and taking money out of the local economy.
“Money spent with local companies gets ploughed back in to Thurrock’s shops and businesses rather than going to Sheffield as will happen in this case.
“Essex FSB challenges Thurrock Council’s administration to start putting their money where their mouth is and support local businesses with contracts as well as promises.”
More shortsightedness from our local council, my recent involvement in multi nationals on procurement contracts gives up the view that they have little knowledge of managing the works, using external managers / money men, and reducing numbers of the DLO work force to enhance maximum gain, the service given by many is one of reactive maintenance, to do something only when they are being made to do it, they have no interest or history with the local area, I see them as cash cows for the shareholders.
Local companies employ local people and as you state, keep money in our local economy, without employing local companies who do have a history and interest in the local area TBC are creating more problems with the distruction of the local infrastructure, that eventually local companies will be expected to put right at reduced rates.
Housing stock is already suffering from the change over as people are advised timescales that are not kept for inspections, without works taking place, in some cases some issues were dangerous and a risk and still are. Job losses will be felt as cost cutting exercises are put in place to maximise profit.
Its ok for TBC to advertise a £2m saving by employing these companies, but the realism of fleet vehicles left behind and still costing TBC for some time to come, has already reduced the saving, how many other situations are swept under the carpet to hide the ACTUAL costs of changing contracts.
There is no common sense to it, Government and Local Authorities throwing our hard earned taxes at Multi Nationals intent only on profit.
From my experience most local authorities judge tenders on the basis of 60% of the marks going on quality of service and 40% on the cost.
The reality of this is that cost is the biggest factor in choosing who will win a tender. Quality, although making up most of the marks, is actually judged by a number of different factors/ These will include things like a commitment to employing local people, delivering to a specified timescale, etc…
If an LA were to try score costs as less than 40% of the overall tender mark they would be crucified as wasting money by the more capitalist leaning members of the public. Big business, with it’s ability to hide or absorb overhead costs is bound to win in this type of tender arrangement. And that is only going to become more apparent in current political environment. As you reap so shall you sow.
Those who voted for the coalition come on and give it your best, as this is what you asked for; the state will fall back, the third sector will not be able to compete and the private sector will take over.
I suspect this comment will not be responded to…
Isn’t it great how it is easier to proof read in retrospect than when one still has the opportunity to make a change: reap and sow, sow and reap. Irritating.