What cashable procurement savings from South West One have been made as at end March 2013?

Roedd y cais yn rhannol lwyddiannus.

Dear Avon and Somerset Constabulary,

In this HMIC/NAO report from July 2013:

http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads...

the following claims are made:

"5.5 Avon and Somerset Constabulary achieved their forecasted levels of procurement savings earlier than expected and the partnership anticipates it will achieve further procurement savings over the contracted levels."

Q1a. What level of actual cashable procurement savings from South West One have been made as at end of March 2013? Please disclose total cashable savings since contract signing with IBM for South West One (SW1) in 2008 and the annual savings for 2012/13.

Q1b1. What forecast target does 5.5. above refer to and when was that forecast originally made e.g. £15m of procurement savings forecast made on contract signing in 2008?

Q1b2. When is the contract signing claim of £15m of procurement savings forecast to be made? Please also disclose the latest copy of the benefits tracking document/spreadsheet with regard to SW1 forecast cashable procurement savings.

Q1c Does the target in 5.5 above include all contract setup/legal, investment & borrowing(e.g. SAP) and contract management overhead costs etc to achieve contract true cost break even (break even previously estimated at £21m-£24m)?

Q2a. Who in the Constabulary (job title) reported the information to the HMIC/NAO, that was then used by the HMIC in section 5.5 of the above report?

Q2b. Did the Constabulary seek PCC and/or the Police & Crime Panel oversight and approval BEFORE the self-assessment reporting of the information relating to SW1 in 5.5 above to the HMIC? If so, when & please pass a link to the meeting minutes or disclose relevant document(s).

Yours faithfully,

Dave Orr

#Freedom of Information Requests, Avon and Somerset Constabulary

Corporate Information Management Department

Force Headquarters, PO Box 37, Valley Road,

Portishead, Bristol, BS20 8QJ

Facsimile 01275 814667

   

 

Private Our Reference 777/13

Mr David Orr Your reference  
Date 8^th October
[1][FOI #176295 email] 2013

  

 

Dear Mr Orr

 

I write in connection with your requests for information dated 11^th
September concerning South West One. Whilst you have submitted your
requests separately, each is concerning the same/similar subject matter
and can therefore be aggregated together for cost purposes under Section
12 of the Act.

 

Currently the 20 day period has not passed as our initial 20 day deadline
to respond is 9^th October; however, I regret to inform you that Avon and
Somerset Constabulary will not be able to complete its response to your
request by this date. 

 

I now advise you that the amended date for a response is 7^th November. 
This is due to consideration being given to the application of a qualified
exemption, concerning law enforcement, and as such will require further
consideration regarding the public interest test.  I can assure you that
every effort will be made to ensure an appropriate response will be made
within this new timescale.

 

May I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Freedom of Information Officer

 

Freedom of Information Officer

Corporate Information Management Department

 

 

Please note;

1.     Requests and responses may be published on Avon and Somerset
Constabulary’s website (within 24 hours), some of which may contain a link
to additional information, which may provide you with further
clarification.

2.     Whilst we may verbally discuss your request with you in order to
seek clarification, all other communication should be made in writing.

3.     Avon and Somerset Constabulary provides you with the right to
request a re-examination of your case under its review procedure.

 

 

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear #Freedom of Information Requests,

I ask you questions around actual savings from a prominent and controversial contract with IBM for South West One, where both of the other two partners (Somerset County Council and Taunton Deane Borough Council) have withdrawn a significant number of shared services this year.

Both of the other partners (Somerset County Council and Taunton Deane Borough Council) have also reported significant shortfalls in savings 6 years into the contract with IBM for South West One.

The PCC's Office says that you are responsible for tracking savings, so the cost of finding the information is a simple matter of looking at the latest savings tracking report or spread sheet - a job of a few minutes.

Now, to my astonishment you are considering a law enforcement exemption, instead of reporting the actual savings from a controversial contract, where the public interest is clear & demonstrable.

Unlike the two Councils (Somerset County Council and Taunton Deane Borough Council), I have in the past (2009-2012) found the culture of the Avon & Somerset Constabulary concerning disclosure around the IBM and South West One contract, to be less than open, transparent and helpful.

I had hoped that with the former Chief Constable gone, a new Chief Constable in place and a newly elected PCC, that the culture in the Avon & Somerset Constabulary would become more open & transparent, in terms of public interest FOI disclosures.

Your response above leads me to conclude that the underlying culture of instinctive resistance to open & transparent, public interest FOI disclosures remains unchanged from 2009-2012.

If basic financial information on SW1-based savings are with-held, I can assure you that I will exercise fully my rights of review and appeal.

Yours sincerely,

Dave Orr

Dear #Freedom of Information Requests,

Please consider this article in your Internal Review as it summaries the issues of principle and public interest I have:

http://ukcampaign4change.com/2013/10/24/...

Who polices police IT reports?

Posted on October 24, 2013 | Leave a comment

By Tony Collins

The police, and civil and public servants in central government, the NHS and local authorities criticise journalists for biased reporting – taking selected facts out of context.

They’re sometimes right. Journalists working for national newspapers can draft an article that is diligently balanced only to find, by the time it’s published, it leaves out facts which would have complicated, blunted, or contradicted the main points.

It’s one thing for this to happen in the world of journalism. You don’t expect public bodies to report on their own affairs with a partiality that rivals out-of-context reporting by some newspapers.

But it appears to be happening so regularly that one-sided self-reporting on organisational performance may be becoming the norm in the public sector.

In the NHS subjective, positive reporting in board papers – where managers tell directors what they think they want to hear – could help to explain why Cerner patient record implementations have, for years, gone badly wrong for the same reasons.

In recent months reports without balance have been published on the performance of Avon and Somerset Police’s IT outsourcing contract with IBM.

Somerset County Council, Taunton Deane Borough Council and Avon and Somerset Police are minority shareholders in a private company, Southwest One, which is owned by IBM.

Confusingly, Taunton Deane Borough Council issued positive reports about its successful partnership with Southwest One – and then it decided to take some services back in-house.

Now it has emerged – only as a result of FOI requests by Somerset resident and campaigner Dave Orr – that two independent organisations, the National Audit Office, and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, have commented positively on Avon and Somerset Constabulary’s partnership with Southwest One, based entirely on the unaudited opinions of the police force itself.

SAP

From his FOI requests Orr learned that the Avon and Somerset’s outsourcing deal with Southwest One has not gone entirely as expected. The National Audit Office’s FOI team has released notes of a joint visit by the NAO and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary to Avon and Somerset police in December 2012. The visit was to find out about how well Southwest One was delivering services to the police force.

The NAO’s notes are positive in parts. They say that performance has improved considerably since the implementation of the contract.

“Implementation of SAP improving the accounts close-down process, initial issues being resolved and a good quality of service being provided regularly.”

But there is another side to the story that is not reflected in the published accounts of Avon and Somerset’s relationship with Southwest One. The NAO’s [unpublished] field notes say:

“Fewer than expected benefits have been realised from IT due to the considerably different security requirements of the Police compared to the Councils.

“It also took a long time for SAP to be implemented. There has yet to be a duty management system implemented by SWOne which is part of the contract… SAP would have benefited from some pre-launch testing or piloting.”

A letter to Orr from the Home Office appears to confirm that Avon and Somerset Police’s participation in Southwest One is an unequivocal success.

“The private sector can help to deliver police support services better and at lower cost. Every pound saved means more money for the front line, putting officers on the streets…

“In its report “Policing in Austerity: rising to the challenge [2013] Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary identified the Southwest One partnership as being a key element in achieving savings for Avon and Somerset Constabulary while ensuring better procurement, streamlining business support processes, and ensuring better use of police officer time.

“The report also noted that the Southwest One collaboration was the first of its kind for policing in England and Wales and that to date, no other force has delivered this level of partnership with local authorities.”

A little of the other side of the story comes in the last sentence of the Home Office letter to Orr which says: “We understand that Avon and Somerset Constabulary continues to work closely with IBM to resolve any technical difficulties and improve the services provided by Southwest One.”

Indeed in a table on page 155 of HMIC ‘s 2013 report Policing in austerity: rising to the challenge indicates that Avon and Somerset Constabulary has one of the worst records of any police force when it comes to savings delivered between 2010/11 and 2012/13. [Table: Key indicators of the challenge - quartile analysis.]

Southwest One began a 10-year contract providing services to Avon and Somerset Police in 2008. The services included enquiry offices, district HR, estates, financial services, site administration, facilities, corporate human resources, information services, purchasing and supply, and reprographics. The contract involves 554 seconded staff.

Comment

Police forces, councils, the NHS and central government departments need a few Richard Feymans to report on their organisation’s performance. Feynman was a gifted scientist, MIT graduate and noble prize winner who was chosen as a commissioner to report on the cause , or causes, of the Challenger Space Shuttle “O” rings accident on 28 January 1986.

He reported with such independence of mind and diligence that his hard-hitting findings were not considered acceptable to be included in the main report of the Presidential Commission of inquiry into the accident. Feynman had to be content with having his findings published as an appendix to the Commission’s report – and an edited appendix at that.

He suggested in his book “What do you care what other people think?” that his appendix was the only genuinely balanced part of the official inquiry report.

“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled,” said Feynman.

One of his questions was whether “organisation weaknesses that contributed to the [Shuttle] accident [was] confined to the solid rocket booster sector, or were they a more general characteristic of NASA.”

One of Feynman’s conclusions:

“It would appear that, for whatever purpose – be it for internal or external consumption – the management of NASA exaggerates the reliability of its product to the point of fantasy.”

If such exaggeration happens at NASA it can happen in UK police force IT reports, and in board papers on the performance of councils and NHS trusts.

When journalists get it wrong it’s usually to their eternal regret. In the public sector positive unbalanced reporting is so “normal” that hardly anyone involved realises it’s a deviant practice. The US author Diane Vaughan coined a phrase for such corporate behaviour. She called it the normalisation of deviance.

It’s surely time for public bodies to move away from the norm and start reporting on their performance, and the performance of their outsourcing other private sector contracts, with balance, objectivity and independence of mind.

If managers knew that reports on the progress of their contracts would be audited for impartiality and competence over organisational self-interest, perhaps they would have a greater incentive to avoid badly thought through outsourcing deals and IT implementations.

Is this why some council and NHS scandals stay hidden for years?

NAO report “Private sector partnering in the police service”

http://www.nao.org.uk/report/private-sec...

Dave Orr’s HMIC FOI requests and answers

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d...

NAO’s FOI responses on Avon and Somerset Police

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d...
-------------------------------------------------------

Yours sincerely,

Dave Orr

#Freedom of Information Requests, Avon and Somerset Constabulary

1 Atodiad

Corporate Information Management Department

Force Headquarters, PO Box 37, Valley Road,

Portishead, Bristol, BS20 8QJ

Facsimile 01275 814667

Email foirequests@avonandsomerset.police.uk    

 

Private Our Reference 777/13

Mr David Orr Your reference  

[FOI #176295 email] Date 06 November 2013

 

Dear Mr Orr

 

I write in connection with your request for information dated 11^th
September concerning Southwest One. Whilst you have submitted your
requests separately, each is concerning the same/similar subject matter
and can therefore be aggregated together for cost purposes under Section
12 of the Act.

 

Your request for information has now been considered and some of the
information asked for is below following your questions.

 

Part 1

 

In this HMIC/NAO report from July
2013:[1]http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads...

 

the following claims are made:

"5.5 Avon and Somerset Constabulary achieved their forecasted levels of
procurement savings earlier than expected and the partnership anticipates
it will achieve further procurement savings over the contracted levels."

 

Q1a. What level of actual cashable procurement savings from South West One
have been made as at end of March 2013? Please disclose total cashable
savings since contract signing with IBM for South West One (SW1) in 2008
and the annual savings for 2012/13.

 

This information was published with Police authority papers until their
demise in November 2012. Total cashable savings achieved up to the end of
March 2013 were £7.670million, already implemented which will deliver
£12.697million by the end of the Contract term. In year delivered savings
for 2012/3 were £2.162million.

 

Q1b1. What forecast target does 5.5. above refer to and when was that
forecast originally made e.g. £15m of procurement savings forecast made on
contract signing in 2008?

 

Yes. The forecast does indeed refer to the £15m procurement savings
anticipated to be delivered over the 10 year term of the SWO contract.
Given that savings of £12.697m have been signed off at the half way point
ASP is well on track to achieve significantly higher procurement savings
over the 10 year term. The current forecast is for savings of £19.668m to
be achieved by the end of the contract term.

 

Q1b2. When is the contract signing claim of £15m of procurement savings
forecast to be made?

 

See above.

 

Please also disclose the latest copy of the benefits tracking
document/spreadsheet with regard to SW1 forecast cashable procurement
savings.

 

The exemption applicable to this exemption is section 43 – Commercial
Interests. The notification of the extension to your deadline incorrectly
quoted law enforcement. This was an error and I apologise for any
misunderstanding.

Section 43 is a qualified and class based exemption which means that there
is no requirement to identify and evidence the harm that would be caused
by disclosure; however there is a requirement to consider the public
interest.

 

Considerations favouring disclosure

Disclosure would provide a better understanding of how public funds are
spent and the decision making process

 

Considerations favouring non-disclosure

The Benefits Tracking Slips contain detail on savings and contract values,
which is deemed commercially sensitive information, in that current
suppliers may be disadvantaged on future contracts/tenders by other
potential bidders knowing how they have bid and the constabulary may not
achieve the most competitive tenders. Contract values over a certain
threshold are already published on the PCC’s website.

 

Balance test

Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of the expenditure
of public funds, the ability for the force to achieve the most competitive
tenders is of paramount importance. It is our opinion that for this reason
the balancing test for disclosure is not made out. In accordance with the
Act, this represents a Refusal Notice for this part of your request.

 

Q1c Does the target in 5.5 above include all contract setup/legal,
investment & borrowing(e.g. SAP) and contract management overhead costs
etc to achieve contract true cost break even (break even previously
estimated at £21m-£24m)?

 

No

 

Q2a. Who in the Constabulary (job title) reported the information to the
HMIC/NAO, that was then used by the HMIC in section 5.5 of the above
report?

 

HMIC interviewed numerous people and were supplied with extensive
documentation. It is therefore not possible to answer this question.

 

Q2b. Did the Constabulary seek PCC and/or the Police & Crime Panel
oversight and approval BEFORE the self-assessment reporting of the
information relating to SW1 in 5.5 above to the HMIC? If so, when & please
pass a link to the meeting minutes or disclose relevant document(s).

 

No

 

Part 2

 

The contract with IBM for SW1 was originally between the old Police
Authority and IBM.

 

Q1. Has the contract with IBM for SW1 been novated from the old Police
Authority? If so, is the contract now between IBM and the Office of the
Police and Crime Commissioner or is it now between IBM and the
Constabulary?

 

The contract has been transferred from the former police authority under
the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 Statutory transfer in
favour of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Avon & Somerset.

 

Part 3

 

An adverse audit report on the South West One SAP-based Workforce
Management (due for implementation in 2009) was produced in Nov'2012:

[2]http://www.aspola.org.uk/cache/PDF/Docum...

 

"South West One was unable to create a two way interface, therefore DMS
has never been informed by information from SAP. Instead the Constabulary
has been forced to maintain HR data in NSPIS, the Force’s previous HR
system, to feed into DMS to correctly populate rosters resulting in double
keying of information, duplicating work and doubling the time it takes to
enter or amend personnel records; this also increases the likelihood of
error;

 

Through this process the Constabulary has been advised that a number of
issues it experiences with time recording in SAP, including challenges
with the layout of the time recording module, could be fixed with the
application of SAP Enhancement Pack 4. This has been applied to the
background elements of SAP but has not been applied to the user accessed
elements of the system. SAP Enhancement Pack 6 has now been released, but
the Constabulary has not yet seen the improvements offered by Enhancement
Pack 4."

 

Q1. When will the much overdue and new Workforce Management solution be
implemented and fully integrated with SAP by South West One, to avoid
manual processes and double-keying etc?

 

Approximately 12 months.

 

Q2. Have the new Enhancement Pack 4 or later SAP modules now been
implemented by South West One? If not, then when is that due please?

 

Yes, the Enhancement Pack 4 has been installed.

 

Q3. Were the above outstanding SAP problems reported to HMIC when the
Constabulary self-assessed their submission to HMIC for the July 2013
"Public Sector Partnering" report (link below)?

 

Yes

 

[3]http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads...

 

Part 4

 

2012/13 Accounts: "37 Contingent Liabilities

We have reviewed the position in respect of contingent liabilities as at
31 March 2013.

We are withholding £515,442 from our payment of Southwest One unitary
charge invoices.

This relates to services no longer provided and performance failures.
These amounts have not yet been contractually agreed with Southwest One."

 

Q1a. Does the approx. £0.5m with-held payment to South West One (SW1)
relate to SAP and a lack of workforce planning (shift rotas etc)? If not,
what does it relate to - Please detail?

 

No, as stated it relates to services no longer provided and service
failures. However, both matters have now been resolved. The moneys have
been withheld by the Constabulary and are no longer in dispute.

 

Q1b. Please detail the service failures involved with description, value,
service impact and all other relevant service detail?

 

Service credits were due under the penalty regime for failures to maintain
police station enquiry office opening hours as published in 2009-10. Since
2011 the enquiry office service has significantly improved.

 

Q1c. Please list "services no longer provided" with service description,
unitary charge value, number of staff, staff employment status and all
other relevant service detail.

 

This relates to the Force Internet Team of five members of staff, seconded
to Southwest One in 2008 and returned to the constabulary by mutual
agreement within six months.

 

Q2. How much in total has been with-held from SW1 since contract signing
with IBM in 2008?

 

As above, plus the final instalment payment for SAP which is £371,750.
This continues to be withheld until the system is fully delivered.

 

Q3. Is any dispute or legal resolution being considered against IBM/SW1?
If so, please disclose all relevant document(s) including minutes, emails,
reports etc.

 

No.

 

Part 5

 

[4]http://ukcampaign4change.com/2013/03/28/...

[5]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-som...

 

Q1a. Have the Constabulary undertaken an impact assessment for the impact
of the Somerset County Council (SCC) dispute with IBM for South West One
(SW1) and the repatriation back in-house of many SCC services and staff
previously in SW1? If so, please disclose all relevant documents, emails
and reports etc.

 

The situation has been kept under constant review throughout the period of
the dispute. There is no relevant documentation.

 

Q2. Please disclose the latest copy of the Risk Log/Register (or similar
assessment report[s]) for the South West One contract with IBM.

 

The risk register is held, maintained and managed by Southwest One,
therefore, No information is held by the Constabulary in relation to this
question.

 

Q3. Now that Somerset County Council have significantly reduced services
with IBM in SW1, then by unitary charge value or similar value measure, is
the Constabulary/OPCC the largest partner in SW1 partnership with IBM?

 

It depends how one defines the partnership.  – Cost of services, size of
the organisation – scope of services delivered, number of services
delivered. The answer varies depending on perspective.

 

Yours sincerely

 

C Quartey

 

Freedom of Information Officer

Corporate Information Management Department

 

 

Please note:

1.     Requests and responses may be published on Avon and Somerset
Constabulary’s website (within 24 hours), some of which may contain a link
to additional information, which may provide you with further
clarification.

2.     Whilst we may verbally discuss your request with you in order to
seek clarification, all other communication should be made in writing.

3.     Avon and Somerset Constabulary provides you with the right to
request a re-examination of your case under its review procedure (copy
attached).

 

 

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir