Sunderland Software City Initiative

Dear Sir or Madam,

This request under the FOI Act is in relation to the Sunderland
Software City initiative (http://www.sunderlandsoftwarecity.com)
which One North East has provided funding to (see press releases:
http://www.onenortheast.co.uk/page/news/...
&
http://www.onenortheast.co.uk/page/news/...
&
http://www.onenortheast.co.uk/page/news/...)

I would be grateful if you could provide the following details
relating to this initiative for the financial years 2008/09 and
2009/10 together with a forecast for 2010/11:

- The name of the applicant applying for the funding
- The process followed for developing and approving this funding
application and award of funding, eg copies of business case,
appraisal documentation and invitation to tender documentation
- The legal entity that the funding has been provided to
- Amount of funding provided
- Total number of staff on payroll directly and solely involved in
delivering this initiative and details of legal entity employing
them
- Breakdown of overhead costs for operating this initiative
- Details where funding has been provided to a third party of the
initiative together with process/tender documentation regarding the
transfer of these funds
- Detail regarding outputs (eg NTF4, NTF6 etc.) that this
initiative is contracted to deliver
- Detail of any potential conflict of interest regarding staffing
(eg employee, executive and board members) recorded

Yours Faithfully,

James Burke

Dear Jaymes Glew,

Thank you for your reply dated 24th December 2009.

In relation to the original request and response provided I would
be grateful if you could clarify/provide more detail on the
following to allow completeness of this request:

- Provide breakdown of funding, overheads and outputs for the
financial years 2008/09, 2009/10 and forecast for 2010/11
- Supply of documentation (eg copies of “business base, appraisal
documentation” etc.) relating to the process followed for
developing and approving this funding application(s) in accordance
with the “Agency’s Business Process”

I would also be grateful if you could clarify the following in the
reply to the above two points relating to the “Difference Engine”
programme:

- Clarification of complete funding, overheads and outputs relating
to the “Difference Engine” programme as per:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/di...
- Clarification of process followed, together with related
documentation, relating to the development of the “Difference
Engine” programme from the original “white paper”:
http://blog.thedifferenceengine.eu/blog/...

Yours sincerely,

James Burke

Dear Nicola Barnett,

Further to request by Nicola Barnett via email 10th May 2010 for
clarification on FOI requests that are long overdue and not
complete:

For info, business cases as received via this FOI request:
NE005325 - http://www.scribd.com/doc/31191462/NE005...
NE004134 - http://www.scribd.com/doc/31191571/NE004...
NE004801 - http://www.scribd.com/doc/31191588/NE004...
NE004802 - http://www.scribd.com/doc/31191595/NE004...

FOI response received via email 30th March 2010:
Further to your queries in the above letter relating specifically
to the SSC/DEV/Difference Engine, please see the below responses
from our client department.

1) Please clarify the discrepancy of £784,323
There is no discrepancy. The total funding for the entire SSC
Enterprise Programme is £2,105,030.

2) Please clarify discrepancy in outputs from the business case and
FOI response.
Again, there is no discrepancy. The 120 jobs created/safeguarded
and 260 businesses supported/assisted/created were specifically
related to SSC Enterprise and SSC Education and Innovation, as that
is what the FOI request and response targeted.

3) Please confirm that no payments have been made to third party
companies, consultants, or contractors.
No funding has been given in relation to this by the agency to
third parties. The proposer as part of the project delivery may
procure services subject to the necessary procurement process.

4) Please confirm that there is no perceived conflict in the same
person taking a Board level role at ONE and that there is no
perceived conflict in the same person taking the role of Chair of
SSC Board and Advisory Boards whilst also having a Board role at
ONE.
All Board Members are required to make declarations of interest.
Paul Callaghan made a declaration at the Board meeting where SSC
was discussed. As a result he stepped out of the room when the
relevant item was discussed. This is standard practice where there
is a conflict. Our declarations of interest for our website are
currently being updated and the amended version will be on our
website by the end of March.

5) Please clarify on what grounds it was decided that it was not
necessary to procure
As it states in both the NE004134 and NE004801 Business Cases, “as
this is a grant aid project to a non-profit organisation which was
nominated by the project board as the key strategic partner, this
is an appropriate response”.

Please provide clear and unambiguous clarifications for the
following:
re: 1) & 2)
Business Cases NE004134, NE004081 and NE005325 received via FOI
appear to provide different information to that provided in the FOI
responses in relation to Single Programme funding and Outputs.
FOI response via email on the 30th March 2010 states "There is no
discrepancy. The total funding for the entire SSC Enterprise
Programme is £2,105,030." Business cases NE004134 & NE004081 &
NE005325 appears to be £2,889,353.
Please clarify the actual Single Programme funding and Outputs
contracted with clear, unambiguous reasons for any differences
between actual and signed off business cases for SSC Enterprise and
SSC Education and Innovation strands. If the clarification refers
to business cases that have not been provided then please provide
them.

re: 3) Please confirm that the procurement of all services,
supplies and goods, including the tender specifications for the
provision of any services to the BIC for this initiative, is fully
compliant with this handbook (eg sufficient degree of advertising,
tender design, conflicts of interests of consultants etc.), if not,
please specify any departures from the procurement rules and
reasons for these variations. Please also provide copies of tender
documentation and details of award (company name and value of
tender awarded).

re: 4) Please confirm that declarations on the website have been
updated and date when they were updated. Please clarify any
conflicts of interest that have been declared during any activity
as per 3) and if none please clearly state none.

An incomplete response had been provided for "Total number of staff
on payroll directly and solely involved in delivering this
initiative and details of legal entity employing them", please
provide a complete response.

The response to the "Breakdown of overhead costs for operating this
initiative" for the "BIC overheads" was stated as £72,824. This
figure seems incredibly low and does not appear to correlate with
the business cases, eg one business case NE004134 appears to have
overheads of c£593k excluding salaries. Please provide a clear and
unambiguous response.

Yours sincerely,

James Burke

Dear Nicola Barnett,

I would be grateful if you clarify the last paragraph in your reply
and specifically list all "outstanding related FOI requests" that
you consider closed.

I would also be grateful if you could confirm, or otherwise, if you
consider these requests to have already undergone an "internal
review".

Yours sincerely,

James Burke

Dear Nicola Barnett,

Many thanks for the quick clarification.

I'd be grateful if you could reply to each of the links accordingly
and separately so that it is clearer to read, review and hopefully
close. It would also make it clearer for an independent review of
each FOI request should that need arise.

Yours sincerely,

James Burke

Dear Nicola Barnett,

Can you confirm (and maybe copy & paste if correct) that this
response actually relates to a different FOI request - eg this one?
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pr...

Yours sincerely,

James Burke

Nicola,

OK, thank you.

I sent you an email this morning at 11:27 that contains the
information below, all other "emails" relating to these FOI
requests will have been generated from the website and should
provide direct links within them that you can reply to.

Email as sent this morning:

"I’ve updated the related FOI requests on the “WhatDoTheyKnow”
website as per the links below.

You and Jaymes Glew should have received automated email
notifications as I replied via the website to the last reply.

Thanks,

James

Related links for reference:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pr...
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/di...
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/su...
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/we...

"

Yours sincerely,

James Burke

Dear Nicola Barnett,

Thank you for the response received today relating to the following
paragraph in the request:

"An incomplete response had been provided for "Total number of
staff on payroll directly and solely involved in delivering this
initiative and details of legal entity employing them", please
provide a complete response.""

I look forward to receiving responses to the remaining request
(http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/su...)

Yours sincerely,

James Burke

Dear Nicola Barnett,

Further to a ONE North East Press Release today -
http://www.onenortheast.co.uk/page/news/...

This press release states that over the last 12 months "£9.45m
towards developing the Sunderland Software City initiative" has
been provided via ERDF investment.

The business cases that have been provided in response to this FOI
request dated 14th December 2009
(http://www.scribd.com/doc/31191571/NE004... &
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31191588/NE004... &
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31191595/NE004...) do not appear to
correlate with this press release.

I can only assume therefore that incorrect, or incomplete
information has been provided in response to this FOI request and I
would be grateful if you could update with complete documentation
for the Sunderland Software City initiative as originally
requested.

Yours sincerely,

James Burke

Dear Jaymes Glew,

For info: please note that this FOI request
(http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/su...)
has had a new reply added today but an "out of office" reply has
been provided.

Yours sincerely,

James Burke

Dear Nicola Barnett,

Thank you for the quick reply, I notice that the press release
(http://www.onenortheast.co.uk/page/news/...)
has been updated to now show £945,000 rather than the £9.5m as
shown last week.

Yours sincerely,

James Burke

Dear Nicola Barnett,

The aim of this note is to provide a summary of the responses to
this FOI request.

This FOI request and the responses from One North East have raised
a number of issues.

Since 2008 One North East provided funding of £4,501,496 (including
an additional £1,799,540 from ERDF) via 3 projects relating to
"Sunderland Software City” (SSC) to the North East Business
Innovation Centre (BIC) with no tender process. Bernie Callaghan is
the CEO of the SSC initiative who is the brother of the current One
North East Chairman Paul Callaghan who was recently appointed by
Vince Cable. When One North East provided funding to the SSC
Initiative Paul Callaghan was a One North East board member in
addition to being Chair of the SSC Board and Advisory Boards and
has “made a declaration at the Board meeting where SSC was
discussed. As a result he stepped out of the room when the relevant
item was discussed.” -
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/su...

Three business cases have been provided in response to the FOI
request. The initial FOI responses and additional responses
received after the supply of signed off business cases appear to
show discrepancies in figures provided in the business cases (re:
outputs, single programme costs, overheads etc.) and in the FOI
response summaries. Clarifications sought about the differences in
the figures appear to remain unclear, e.g. BIC overheads was stated
as being £72,824 when one of the three business cases clearly shows
overheads of c£593,000. A response of “no funding is provided to a
third party” is provided yet sub-contracted activity appears to
have been delivered by, and continues to be delivered by, a number
of third parties.

Additionally, funding of £336,000 to deliver the “Difference
Engine” project appears to have been awarded by One North East to
the BIC to manage the project with again no tender process. A
further £180,000 has been provided to support this project via the
Design and Creative Fund (DCF) a Fund Managed by EDNE Ltd (a wholly
owned subsidiary of One North East). The Difference Engine
programme manager and DCF Fund Manager appear to be the same person
who was recruited by the BIC in 2009 following a tender process
carried out by the BIC for the provision of Project Management
services for the Difference Engine programme. This tender process
appears to have been carried out in breach of the ONE North East
Single Programme and European Funding Procurement Handbook
guidelines and which appears to be eligible for “clawback” of
£134,000 (see
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/su...).
Peter Judge, the One North East Head of Legal Services, is listed
as a signatory on the One North East Business Case for the
Difference Engine (previously known as has “The Cloud Foundry”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31191462/NE005...). Peter Judge Head of
Legal Services at One North East was made fully aware, in April
2010, of the apparent procurement irregularities relating to the
Difference Engine Programme Manager post the perceived numerous
conflicts of interest relating to Jon Bradford etc. Peter Judge was
also involved in the direct handling of various FOI requests and
discussions at meetings relating to these issues. It is not clear
that these issues have been addressed by One North east. Peter
Judge has subsequently issued a Section 14(1) FOI refusal notice
regarding FOI requests seeking further clarifications:
(http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/su...).
Further details regarding the Difference Engine procurement are
available here:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/th...

As a Section 14(1) refusal notice has been issued and upheld
following an internal review by One North East
(http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/su...)
it appears that I am unable to seek further clarifications.
 

Yours sincerely,

James Burke