Contracts for MPS crime map

Julian Todd made this Freedom of Information request to Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was successful.

Dear Sir or Madam,

A public FOI request by Harry Metcalfe on 5 September 2008[1] for the costs as well as a copy of the contract between the company which constructed the new on-line crime maps and the Metropolitan Police Service revealed that the costs had been published on 4 September 2008,[2] and that:

"The work was done by the MPS and not a third party although there were small amounts of consultancy on parts of the project."

The costs, as disclosed by the Co-ordination and Policing Committee notes of 4 September 2008 were, "to date", £72k for development, £136k for capacity management and protection against system overload failure.

However, a subsequent disclosure by the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee on 5 February 2009,[3] stated the costs and contractors as:

"""Phase 1: £210,000 - primarily contractors from 'Cable and Wireless' and WGT, including £134,000 for AKAMI facility for calls to be 'held' at high use times, protecting the reputation of the MPS;
Phase 2: expected to cost £20,000, for the work of contractors from Cable and Wireless; and
Phase 3: estimated at £70,000 to complete and fine tune the site - primarily Cable and Wireless contractor’s cost."""

In terms of what the product is, these are not small amounts consultancy.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, please send me:

* Copies of all contracts relating to delivery of the Metropolitan Crime Map signed with (a) 'Cable and Wireless', (b) WGT and (c) AKAMI -- or any of their recognizable consultant branches or resellers.

* Copies of the terms of service of the Metropolitan Crime Map guaranteed by any of the contractors. This is an agreement about the allowable downtimes of the website, the maximum response times, the visitor statistics gathered by the server, and so forth. Sometimes this is part of the original contract, but it is usually agreed closer to launch when the performance of the technology can be realistically assessed.

* Copies of advice provided to and sought by the MPS that the website required special website protection and capacity management facilities as supplied by AKAMI, beyond what could have been included in the core project. This is like a separate extended warranty beyond the normally sufficient manufacturer's warranty, so there needs to be a technical explanation for why the core product (produced by Cable and Wireless and WGT) was not capable of performing without it.

I understand that this is already a long FOI request letter -- although the actual requests are direct and for documents which should be readily available for contracts that are still in force.

I feel it is necessary to explain the facts as I understand them in order to avoid being referred to documents that I already know.

I also know from Derry City Council v Information Commissioner 2006 that the contracts negotiated and signed by the MPA are not the sole property of the contractors, and that government authorities have the right to disclose them.

I am also certain that these software systems should not contain any sensitive law enforcement information that is not available in the public domain. They are user-friendly presentations of publicly accessible statistical information, and I do not believe disclosure of any technical information about them could have law enforcement implications of the kind that may arise from disclosure of technical information relating to police operational computer systems.

Thank you for your time and patience.

[1] http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...

[2] http://www.mpa.gov.uk/committees/x-cop/2...

[3] http://www.mpa.gov.uk/committees/sop/200...

Yours faithfully,

Julian Todd

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Todd

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2009110006003
I write in connection with your request for information which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 23/11/2009. I note
you seek access to the following information:

* "Dear Sir or Madam, A public FOI request by Harry Metcalfe on
5 September 2008[1] for the costs as well as a copy of the
contract between the company which constructed the new on-line
crime maps and the Metropolitan Police Service revealed that the
costs had been published on 4 September 2008,[2] and that:
"The work was done by the MPS and not a third party although there
were small amounts of consultancy on parts of the project."
The costs, as disclosed by the Co-ordination and Policing Committee
notes of 4 September 2008 were, "to date", **72k for development,
**136k for capacity management and protection against system
overload failure. However, a subsequent disclosure by the
Strategic and Operational Policing Committee on 5 February
2009,[3] stated the costs and contractors as: """Phase 1:
**210,000 - primarily contractors from 'Cable and Wireless' and
WGT, including **134,000 for AKAMI facility for calls to be 'held'
at high use times, protecting the reputation of the MPS; Phase
2: expected to cost **20,000, for the work of contractors from
Cable and Wireless; and Phase 3: estimated at **70,000 to complete
and fine tune the site - primarily Cable and Wireless
contractor***s cost.""" In terms of what the product is, these
are not small amounts consultancy. - Under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000, please send me: * Copies of all
contracts relating to delivery of the Metropolitan Crime Map
signed with (a) 'Cable and Wireless', (b) WGT and (c) AKAMI -- or
any of their recognizable consultant branches or resellers.
* Copies of the terms of service of the Metropolitan Crime Map
guaranteed by any of the contractors. This is an agreement about
the allowable downtimes of the website, the maximum response times,
the visitor statistics gathered by the server, and so forth.
Sometimes this is part of the original contract, but it is usually
agreed closer to launch when the performance of the technology can
be realistically assessed. * Copies of advice provided to and
sought by the MPS that the website required special website
protection and capacity management facilities as supplied by
AKAMI, beyond what could have been included in the core project.
This is like a separate extended warranty beyond the normally
sufficient manufacturer's warranty, so there needs to be a
technical explanation for why the core product (produced by Cable
and Wireless and WGT) was not capable of performing without it.
I understand that this is already a long FOI request letter --
although the actual requests are direct and for documents which
should be readily available for contracts that are still in force.
I feel it is necessary to explain the facts as I understand them
in order to avoid being referred to documents that I already know.
I also know from Derry City Council v Information Commissioner
2006 that the contracts negotiated and signed by the MPA are not
the sole property of the contractors, and that government
authorities have the right to disclose them. I am also
certain that these software systems should not contain any
sensitive law enforcement information that is not available in the
public domain. They are user-friendly presentations of publicly
accessible statistical information, and I do not believe disclosure
of any technical information about them could have law enforcement
implications of the kind that may arise from disclosure of
technical information relating to police operational computer
systems. Thank you for your time and patience. [1]
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...
[2] http://www.mpa.gov.uk/committees/x-cop/2...
[3] http://www.mpa.gov.uk/committees/sop/200... "

Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act). You will receive a response within
the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act,
subject to the information not being exempt or containing a reference
to a third party. In some circumstances the MPS may be unable to
achieve this deadline. If this is likely you will be informed and
given a revised time-scale at the earliest opportunity.

Some requests may also require either full or partial transference to
another public authority in order to answer your query in the fullest
possible way. Again, you will be informed if this is the case.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet, which details your
right of complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
write or contact Peter Deja on telephone number 0207 161 3640 quoting
the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Peter Deja
Policy and support officer
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think
the decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your
request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again ***

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is
to telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your
decision letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues
and assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision
of the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act)
regarding access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS
to have the decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied
with the decision you may make application to the Information
Commissioner for a decision on whether the request for information has
been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information
Commissioner please visit their website at
www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk. Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Todd

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2009110006003

I write in connection with your request for information dated 22 November
2009 which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on
23/11/2009. I note you seek access to the following information:

* Dear Sir or Madam, A public FOI request by Harry Metcalfe on 5
September 2008[1] for the costs as well as a copy of the contract
between the company which constructed the new on-line crime maps
and the Metropolitan Police Service revealed that the costs had
been published on 4 September 2008,[2] and that: "The work
was done by the MPS and not a third party although there were
small amounts of consultancy on parts of the project." The
costs, as disclosed by the Co-ordination and Policing Committee
notes of 4 September 2008 were, "to date", **72k for development,
**136k for capacity management and protection against system
overload failure. However, a subsequent disclosure by the
Strategic and Operational Policing Committee on 5 February
2009,[3] stated the costs and contractors as: """Phase 1:
**210,000 - primarily contractors from 'Cable and Wireless' and
WGT, including **134,000 for AKAMI facility for calls to be 'held'
at high use times, protecting the reputation of the MPS; Phase
2: expected to cost **20,000, for the work of contractors from
Cable and Wireless; and Phase 3: estimated at **70,000 to complete
and fine tune the site - primarily Cable and Wireless
contractor***s cost.""" In terms of what the product is, these
are not small amounts consultancy. Under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000, please send me: * Copies of all
contracts relating to delivery of the Metropolitan Crime Map
signed with (a) 'Cable and Wireless', (b) WGT and (c) AKAMI -- or
any of their recognizable consultant branches or resellers.
* Copies of the terms of service of the Metropolitan Crime Map
guaranteed by any of the contractors. This is an agreement about
the allowable downtimes of the website, the maximum response times,
the visitor statistics gathered by the server, and so forth.
Sometimes this is part of the original contract, but it is usually
agreed closer to launch when the performance of the technology can
be realistically assessed. * Copies of advice provided to and
sought by the MPS that the website required special website
protection and capacity management facilities as supplied by
AKAMI, beyond what could have been included in the core project.
This is like a separate extended warranty beyond the normally
sufficient manufacturer's warranty, so there needs to be a
technical explanation for why the core product (produced by Cable
and Wireless and WGT) was not capable of performing without it.
I understand that this is already a long FOI request letter --
although the actual requests are direct and for documents which
should be readily available for contracts that are still in force.
I feel it is necessary to explain the facts as I understand them
in order to avoid being referred to documents that I already know.
I also know from Derry City Council v Information Commissioner
2006 that the contracts negotiated and signed by the MPA are not
the sole property of the contractors, and that government
authorities have the right to disclose them. I am also
certain that these software systems should not contain any
sensitive law enforcement information that is not available in the
public domain. They are user-friendly presentations of publicly
accessible statistical information, and I do not believe disclosure
of any technical information about them could have law enforcement
implications of the kind that may arise from disclosure of
technical information relating to police operational computer
systems. Thank you for your time and patience. [1]
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...
[2] http://www.mpa.gov.uk/committees/x-cop/2...
[3] http://www.mpa.gov.uk/committees/sop/200...

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), we have 20 working
days to respond to a request for information unless we are considering
whether the information requested is covered by one of the 'qualified
exemptions' (exemptions which must be tested against the public interest
before deciding whether they apply to the information in question).

In relation to your request, I have been consulting with colleagues in
both the Directorate of Information (DoI) and the Resources Directorate
(DoR) in order to provide a complete response.
The twenty days on this request are up on 23rd December, but from the
information I have currently received, it seems clear that I will not have
a response ready by that date. The complexity of the task you have set us,
the need to liaise between different departments and the approach of the
Christmas holidays have all taken their toll.
I am sorry to inform you that we have not been able to complete our
response to your request by the date originally stated. As a result we
will not be able to respond within 20 working days.
I will attempt to provide you with the final response as soon as I can,
but that will clearly now not be the case until the new year.

May I apologise for any inconvenience caused and offer you the Season's
Greetings.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me on 020 7161 3351 or at the address at the top of this letter,
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Howard Greenwood
Higher Performance Analyst, Information Management Engagement Team

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again -

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 working days.

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

6 Attachments

Dear Mr Todd

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2009110006003

I write in connection with your request for information dated 22 November
2009 which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on
23/11/2009. I note you seek access to the following information:

** Dear Sir or Madam,
A public FOI request by Harry Metcalfe on 5 September 2008 [1] for the
costs as well as a copy of the contract between the company which
constructed the new on-line crime maps and the Metropolitan Police Service
revealed that the costs had been published on 4 September 2008,[2] and
that: "The work was done by the MPS and not a third party although there
were small amounts of consultancy on parts of the project." The costs, as
disclosed by the Co-ordination and Policing Committee notes of 4 September
2008 were, "to date", **72k for development, **136k for capacity
management and protection against system overload failure. However, a
subsequent disclosure by the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee
on 5 February 2009,[3] stated the costs and contractors as:
"""Phase 1: **210,000 - primarily contractors from 'Cable and Wireless'
and WGT, including **134,000 for AKAMI facility for calls to be 'held' at
high use times, protecting the reputation of the MPS; Phase 2: expected
to cost **20,000, for the work of contractors from Cable and Wireless;
and Phase 3: estimated at **70,000 to complete and fine tune the site -
primarily Cable and Wireless contractor***s cost."""
In terms of what the product is, these are not small amounts consultancy.
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, please send me: * Copies of
all contracts relating to delivery of the Metropolitan Crime Map signed
with (a) 'Cable and Wireless', (b) WGT and (c) AKAMI -- or any of
their recognizable consultant branches or resellers.
* Copies of the terms of service of the Metropolitan Crime Map guaranteed
by any of the contractors. This is an agreement about the allowable
downtimes of the website, the maximum response times, the visitor
statistics gathered by the server, and so forth. Sometimes this is
part of the original contract, but it is usually agreed closer to launch
when the performance of the technology can be realistically assessed.
* Copies of advice provided to and sought by the MPS that the website
required special website protection and capacity management facilities
as supplied by AKAMI, beyond what could have been included in the core
project. This is like a separate extended warranty beyond the normally
sufficient manufacturer's warranty, so there needs to be a technical
explanation for why the core product (produced by Cable and Wireless
and WGT) was not capable of performing without it. I understand that this
is already a long FOI request letter -- although the actual requests are
direct and for documents which should be readily available for contracts
that are still in force. I feel it is necessary to explain the facts as I
understand them in order to avoid being referred to documents that I
already know. I also know from Derry City Council v Information
Commissioner 2006 that the contracts negotiated and signed by the MPA are
not the sole property of the contractors, and that government authorities
have the right to disclose them. I am also certain that these software
systems should not contain any sensitive law enforcement information that
is not available in the public domain. They are user-friendly
presentations of publicly accessible statistical information, and I do not
believe disclosure of any technical information about them could have law
enforcement implications of the kind that may arise from disclosure of
technical information relating to police operational computer systems.
Thank you for your time and patience.
[1] http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...
[2] http://www.mpa.gov.uk/committees/x-cop/2...
[3] http://www.mpa.gov.uk/committees/sop/200...

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request I have been in contact
with various colleagues in the Directorate of Information (DoI) and the
Resources Directorate (DoR) of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

RESULT OF SEARCHES

As a result of these contacts I have been able to secure the following
information which is relevant to your request.

DECISION

I have today decided to disclose the located information to you in full.

I must first apologise for the length of time that has passed since I last
contacted you over this request.

You have asked for information relating to a number of contacts which the
MPS had with external contractors in relation to the launch and
maintenance of the MPS Crime Mapping website in August 2008.

I have consulted with colleagues within the Directorate of Information
(DoI) and the Resources Directorate (DoR) of the Metropolitan Police
Service (MPS) who have helped me search for documents relevant to your
request. I can now confirm the following.

In relation to Cable and Wireless, their initial involvement was secured
under the PNN3 Framework, so that contract details pertain between the
National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) and Cable and Wireless. We
have found two documents relating to an Order which was raised - allowing
for the employment of Cable and Wireless contractors to work on the
development of the Crime Mapping website.

With regard to the use of the company WGT (I'm now being told that this
should be WTG), I am informed that at the time, WTG were subcontracted by
Cable and Wireless themselves and that since they were not specified as a
compulsory contractor by the MPS, we (the MPS) hold no information in
relation to any contract between Cable and Wireless and WTG relating to
the work on the Crime Mapping website.

In relation to the employment of Akamai, I have secured documentation
created for an order requesting support for the MPS Crime Mapping website.
I am also attaching a short document outlining our understanding of the
rationale that led the MPS to feel it needed the services of Akamai to
guarantee the availability of the website during this "high profile"
launch.

Please find attached information pursuant to your request above.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet which details your right of
complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please write
or contact Howard Greenwood on telephone number 020 7161 3351 quoting the
reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Howard Greenwood
Higher Performance Analyst, Customer Service Engagement Team
In complying with their statutory duty under sections 1 and 11 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the enclosed information, the
Metropolitan Police Service will not breach the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988. However, the rights of the copyright owner of the
enclosed information will continue to be protected by law. Applications
for the copyright owner's written permission to reproduce any part of the
attached information should be addressed to MPS Directorate of Legal
Services, 1st Floor (Victoria Block), New Scotland Yard, Victoria, London,
SW1H 0BG.
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again ***

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

The Metropolitan Police Service is here for London - on the streets and in
your community, working with you to make our city safer.

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). The MPS has a
strict staff conduct policy. Any email that causes you concern should be
reported to [1][email address]

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Dear Mr Greenwood,

Many thanks for this full and diligent disclosure.

The reason for my request was that the cost and necessity of the Akamai dynamic site accelerator raised many eyebrows among my colleagues in the web industries.

This is a fast evolving field where sudden spikes in activity (when something goes "viral") are seen as positive events, and I believe it is normally considered the responsibility of the supplier to use appropriate software technology that has the scalability built directly into it.

There is a common suspicion that when a client's understanding of the state of the market falls behind current trends, not every supplier sees in their interest to update them of it.

Many thanks once again,

Yours,

Julian Todd