1. Executive Summary
Conclusion, context and objectives
Background
The North Staffordshire Regeneration Partnership (“NSRP”) is based in Stoke on Trent and was established to address
regeneration issues within the region. The NSRP’s accountable body is Stoke on Trent City Council (“The Council”) and the
NSRP is based within the Council’s offices. The NSRP Board is unincorporated and includes the housing regeneration
function of Renew North Staffordshire Pathfinder. The Board was previously chaired by the elected Mayor of Stoke on Trent
and following a recruitment and selection exercise, a new Chair was appointed to the Board in December 2009.
The NSRP manages a regeneration programme of approximately £280m. Funding is provided by various organisations
including Advantage West Midlands (“AWM”), the Homes and Communities Agency and local authorities within the region.
The diagram below illustrates the relationship structure between AWM, NSRP, Stoke on Trent City Council and other related
parties including other funders.
Funding bodies
External parties
Stoke on Trent City Council
Homes and Communities Agency
Framework partners
Advantage West Midlands
NSRP
Consultants
RENEW
Housing
Market
Other local authorities:
Pathfinder
Contractors
(eg Staffordshire Moorlands and
Newcastle Under Lyme)
Delivery agents (eg Registered
Social Landlords)
Information / communication flows between AWM and related parties
Information / communication flows between NSRP and the Accountable Body
Information / communication flows between NSRP and other related parties
Initial Review of NSRP’s Procurement and Recruitment Activities
In 2009, we were commissioned by AWM to undertake a review of procurement and staff recruitment activities at NSRP.
Our work was undertaken in two phases and covered the procurement process for the appointment of 7 contractors and a
review of personnel records relating to the appointment of the S40(2) & S43
and the S40(2) & S43
As a result of our work, a number of recommendations were made to strengthen internal controls relating to the procurement
of contactors and consultants and the recruitment staff. All recommendations were accepted by NSRP and, in conjunction
with AWM, an action plan was developed to address each recommendation. Details of the original recommendations can be
found at Appendix 1.
Follow Up Review of Progress to Date
In January 2010, we were commissioned by AWM to undertake a review to assess the progress made by NSRP against the
agreed action plan. As part of this, additional testing was undertaken to assess whether the revised processes recently
implemented by NSRP have been fully embedded.
Our additional testing covered:
• a review of the performance management system for AWM funded roles;
• the recruitment and selection of the S40(2) & S43
© 2010 KPMG LLP, the UK member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative. All rights reserved. [Printed in the United Kingdom.]
0
1. Executive Summary
Conclusion, context and objectives
• the appointment of the consultant to the role of the S40(2) & S43
in respect of the management of
the Sustainable Urban Development package;
• the recruitment and selection of the S40(2) & S43
in respect of the Sustainable Urban Development package;
• the appointment of the consultants S40
in respect of the North Staffordshire Connectivity Study;
• the appointment of the consultants
S40(2) & S43 for the provision of marketing material to promote the city centre and
university quarter brand concepts; and
• the appointment of the consultants S40(2) & S43
in respect of the non-AWM funded provision of design options for
the Charter Road site.
The full scope of our review is detailed on page 5 of this report.
Overall Conclusion
Our original review at NSRP, completed in June 2009, identified a number of weaknesses in relation to the procurement of
consultants and contractors, the recruitment of staff and evidence of performance management. This review has focused on
following up the recommendations made previously, to assess the progress made towards their implementation, and further
detailed testing to assess whether procedures have been revised effectively and whether these revised procedures and
processes have been embedded.
Our review at NSRP has identified that significant improvements have been made to the design of Contract procedures and
adherence to them (refer to Appendix 3: ‘Contract Procedure Rules’ - compliance update, for details of where compliance has
been demonstrated). In addition, we have seen documented evidence to support compliance with recruitment procedures. It
is of note that:
• In August 2009, an action plan was developed by NSRP, and agreed in conjunction with AWM, which sought to address all
recommendations made as part of our initial review. This was reported to NSRP’s Risk Management and Audit Committee;
• NSRP’s Contract procedures have been updated to address the previously identified weaknesses and these have been
rolled out to all staff via a number of Procurement Workshops. These procedures reflect best practice and comply with public
procurement rules. (It should be noted that the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules have not been updated);
• Adherence to Contract procedures has been demonstrated in our testing of 3 procurement cases, which were undertaken
post June 2009, with only minor areas for improvement identified;
• Project specifications include objectives and milestones and there is evidence available to confirm that the performance of
contractors and consultants is being actively monitored; and
• Documented evidence has been retained to support adherence to the recruitment and selection process.
Notwithstanding the above points, we understand that the improvements made will take time to embed and further
tightening of controls and processes is needed in the procurement of consultants and recruitment of staff. Specifically:
• AWM and the NSRP have agreed the mechanism and process for integrating objectives into AWM funded roles. However,
objectives have yet to be incorporated into the PDR system;
• An exemption certificate was not obtained for the appointment of a consultant by single tender;
• Where a consultant is working on a number of projects, we identified that clear objectives have not been established
against which performance can be monitored and an appropriate mechanism has not been established to account for time
spent on each; and
• The evaluation report provided in support of the services of the S40(2) & S43
does not appropriately
demonstrate the achievement of value for money. In addition, while full funding has been provided by AWM for this project,
7 of 29 objectives stated in the report have not been achieved.
It should be noted that our review assessed only a limited sample of procurement and recruitment cases predominantly
related to AWM funded activity and, therefore, our findings may not be representative of all procurement and recruitment
activity undertaken by NSRP.
We have detailed in section 3 of this report, a summary of our findings for each procurement and recruitment activity
reviewed as part of this audit. The related recommendations are detailed at Appendix 2. We have also provided details of the
progress made against recommendations made in our previous report at Appendix 1.
© 2010 KPMG LLP, the UK member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative. All rights reserved. [Printed in the United Kingdom.]
1
