Sexual Health Contract for CWACC - additonal information

N.Siddle made this Freedom of Information request to Cheshire West and Chester Council

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 partially successful.

Dear Cheshire West and Chester Council,
as required by you in your response to my previous request (Case Reference: 101002648675), I am raising these items as a new FOI.

Please provide a copy of the brief given to Liverpool John Moore’s University by CWAC and a copy of their report to which you refer in your reply to the above FOI to me.

Please also supply a copy of the tender document (or at least that part of it which specifies the scoring criteria) and of the score and scoring outcome, including the report which is required to have been written covering the following requirements of the tendering process:-
"The jury shall record its ranking of projects in a report, signed by its members, made according to the merits of each project, together with its remarks and any points that may need clarification"
and the " Complete minutes shall be drawn up of the dialogue between jury members and candidates".

Yours faithfully,

N.Siddle

Cheshire West and Chester Council

RE: Your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000

Case Reference: 101002746175

Dear Mr Siddle

Thank you for your email.

It will be treated as a request within the meaning of the Act: this means that we will send you a full response within 20 working days, either supplying you with the information which you want, or explaining to you why we cannot supply it.

If we need any further clarification or there is any problem we will be in touch.

In the meantime if you wish to discuss this further please contact FOI West. It would be helpful if you could quote the log number.

Yours sincerely

Jessica Wright
Solutions Team

Cheshire West and Chester Council

show quoted sections

Dear Cheshire West and Chester Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Cheshire West and Chester Council's handling of my FOI request 'Sexual Health Contract for CWACC - additional information'.

Yet again, you have allowed the 20 working day deadline to pass without either providing the information requested or advising a reason for the delay. Once more, I am left to conclude that your team is more interested in concealing information than doing what is legally required of you.

I do not expect to have to wait for the conclusion of the review before I receive the information, which should be readily available.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...

Yours faithfully,

N.Siddle

FOI West, Cheshire West and Chester Council

Dear Mr Siddle,

Thank you for your email. Please accept my apologises for the delay in responding to your request for additional information. Please be assured that your request is currently being addressed,

Kind Regards

Liz Bennett

Liz Bennett
Assistant Solutions Officer
Cheshire West and Chester Council

‘Make sure you are registered to vote’.

show quoted sections

Dear FOI West,
Another month passes and no reply:- Could I now suggest that the review that I have already requested on this issue should take place together with the review already arranged for the 28th April on related issues? (Case Reference: 101002648675). The issues are intertwined and it will save us all time if they are covered by the same panel.

Yours sincerely,

N.Siddle

N.Siddle left an annotation ()

They chose not to accept my suggestion and cover this IR in the same review as the linked enquiry. No surprise as it is another opportunity for them to try and spin things out and avoid providing the information. I have little doubt that they will come back on the basis that I may have quoted the wrong part of the legislation (I'm no lawyer) in order to add further delay in the hope that I'll give up (I won't - something here stinks)

Dear Cheshire West and Chester Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request, yet again, an internal review of Cheshire West and Chester Council's handling of my FOI request 'Sexual Health Contract for CWACC - additional information'.

You have not progressed the Internal Review that I requested on 18th March, despite sending me a message that same day saying that the original enquiry was "currently being addressed". Not only have you failed to provide the additional information requested, you have not responded to or held the IR or advised me of any reason for any delay. You did not, as I had suggested, deal with it as part of the IR into the related enquiry (2648675)

It is now more than the 40 working days ago that is enshrined in CWaCC's procedures since I first requested the IR and much longer than the 20 working days recommended by the ICO. I expect you to hold the IR immediately and not use this prompt to delay for another 40 days.

Given the reluctance of CWaCC to be in any way helpful regarding this, and associated enquiries, it is perhaps worth putting on record the fact that the destruction of any records once the information has been sought, is a criminal offence under the act.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...

Yours faithfully,

N.Siddle

FOI West, Cheshire West and Chester Council

Dear Mr Siddle

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your email. A response will be provided shortly.

Yours sincerely

Caroline Timms
Solutions Assistant - Solutions Team
Cheshire West and Chester Council

show quoted sections

FOI West, Cheshire West and Chester Council

Dear Mr Siddle,

I have reviewed the case history for your request (2746175) and sincerely apologise for the delay in responding to your FOI request and internal review. I have escalated this case as a matter of priority for a full internal review. You will be notified shortly of the date that the review panel will meet. I have also met with the case officer for your request and can confirm that your case is being progressed and you should receive a response in the next 5 working days. I apologise for the poor level of customer service you have experienced, but want to reassure you that we are progressing this case and there is no attempt by the Council to be 'unhelpful' in our approach.

Regards,

Michelle du Bock
Information Governance Senior Manager

show quoted sections

FOI West, Cheshire West and Chester Council

3 Attachments

Dear Mr Siddle

 

Thank you for your request for information dated 14 February 2015 which
has been logged as 2746175 and was a follow up request from FOI 2648675
requesting additional information. This has been dealt with under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000.  I can confirm that Cheshire West and
Chester hold information relating to your request. For clarity I have
reproduced your questions and appended the response beneath. Please
accept my apologies for the delay in you receiving your response, as
requested a full Internal Review will be carried out.

 

Please provide a copy of the brief given to Liverpool John Moore’s
University by CWAC and a copy of their report to which you refer in your
reply to the above FOI to me.

 

Please find attached a copy of the Liverpool John Moore’s University
report with appendixes.

 

Please note after a thorough search of the relevant files on our shared
drive we cannot locate the brief given to Liverpool John Moore’s
University. We believe we no longer hold the information. You may wish to
contact Liverpool John Moore’s University who may still retain this
information.

 

Please also supply a copy of the tender document (or at least that part of
it which specifies the scoring criteria) and of the score and scoring
outcome, including the report which is required to have been written
covering the following requirements of the tendering process:- "The jury
shall record its ranking of projects in a report, signed by its members,
made according to the merits of each project, together with its remarks
and any points that may need clarification"

and the " Complete minutes shall be drawn up of the dialogue between jury
members and candidates".

 

Please find attached the tender document which was sent to prospective
providers which specifies the scoring criteria.

 

Section 40

 

Under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act details (name) of an
Officer below Tier 4 has been excluded from the information provided. This
is in accordance with guidance from the ICO, ‘Requests for Information
about Public Authority Employees’ which confirms that junior officers’
details should not be disclosed.

It is the Council’s view that: -

 

·    Disclosing the data would be unfair to the individual concerned,  

·    Disclosure is considered incompatible with the purpose for which the
information was gathered.

 

The council considers that disclosure will contravene the first data
protection principle, which states that “ personal data shall be processed
fairly and lawfully, and in particular, shall not be processed unless: 

(a)  At least one of the conditions in schedule 2 is met, and

(b)  In the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the
conditions in Schedule 3 is also met.”

 

 The Council considers that disclosure would be unfair and unreasonable
and would breach Principle 1 of the Data Protection Principles and would
also be contrary to the ICO guidance and the requested information held in
relation to the individual was not intended for wider public
disclosure. For clarity, the information is not sensitive information.
Therefore, there is no need to consider the conditions in Schedules 2 and
3.

 

 

In relation to a report: we do not hold this information.

 

In relation to dialogue minutes: we do not hold this information.

 

In relation to the score and  scoring outcome for the tender exercise:

 

Section 43

 

The Council considers that information in relation to the score and
scoring outcomes is exempt under Section 43 of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 as it is commercially sensitive information likely to prejudice
the commercial interests of both the provider and the Council.

Section 43(2) explains that information will be exempt if its disclosure
would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interest of any
person. This exemption is qualified. Even if information falls within
section 43 (2) of the Act, public authorities must then apply the public
interest test set out in section 2(2)(b) of the Act. The information can
only be withheld if the public interest in maintaining the exemption
outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

                The Information Commissioner suggests considering the
following factors when applying the public interest case to this
exemption:

a)         Does the information relate to, or could it impact on a
commercial activity?

b)         Is that commercial activity conducted in a competitive
environment?

c)          Would there be damage to reputation or business confidence?

d)         Whose commercial interests are affected?

e)         Is the information commercially sensitive?

f)          What is the likelihood of the prejudice being caused?

 The public interest applies. In relation to the public interest test the
following should be recorded:  

·         Public interest factors in favour of maintaining the exemption
and the weight attached to them.

·         Public interest factors in favour of disclosure, and the weight
attached to them.

·         The outcome of the public interest test. The information can
only be withheld if the public interest in maintaining the exemption
outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

Considering these factors first:

 

a)      Does the information relate to, or could it impact on a commercial
activity? Yes the information relates to the scoring of tender bids for
the Sexual Health Contract to provide sexual health services.

b)      Is that commercial activity conducted in a competitive
environment? Yes the providers operate in a commercial market for the
services supplied by the contract.

c)      Would there be damage to reputation or business confidence? Yes,
to the providers by disclosure of their individual  scores which can be
compared across those organisations who submitted a tender. This causes
harm to those third parties  and loss of confidence in the provider
because the scores indicate how well or how badly a provider did in
relation to each part of the evaluation criteria. It indicates the strong
and weak parts of their tender, and those areas where their service did or
did not meet the requirements stated in the ITT. Disclosure would damage
the provider’s ability to  win new business opportunities for its services
and to perform them within a commercially competitive market because other
contracting authorities and  competitors would be aware of the strengths
and weaknesses of a bidder’s delivery model and methodology.

d)     Whose commercial interests are affected? The providers’ by
disclosure of the scoring as explained in c) above. Disclosure will also
harm the Council  through loss of confidence from the provider and  other
business who may tender for contracts , and who are concerned that
confidential information will be disclosed to the world at large.
Disclosure will also harm the Council  at the point of re tender  as by
disclosing such information, the Council will lose the confidence of
suppliers.

e)      Is the information commercially sensitive? Yes, the information
relates to the scores awarded to each potential provider as part of the
Sexual health Services tender process. The providers and the contracting
authority operate in a commercial market. Disclosure would damage the
providers’ ability win new business opportunities for its services within
a commercially competitive market because of the reasons set out in c)
above.

f)       What is the likelihood of the prejudice being caused? The
likelihood is more likely than not. The information  contains the scores
of each bidder and discloses how well they did in the tendering process.
The impact on providers is explained in c) above. Disclosure would also
prejudice the Council’s ability to carry out open tendering processes
where sufficient information needs to be provided to the Council to enable
it to adequately evaluate tenders it receives. Inability to carry out a
competitive tendering process will also harm the Council’s ability to
obtain value for money services.

 

The Public Interest Test applies:

 

 

 Factors in favour of maintaining the Factors in favour of disclosure
exemption
Disclosure of the scoring for each Disclosure may help with
bid could prejudice the commercial transparency, understanding, probity
interests of each provider by of decision-making and justification
reducing market confidence in their of financial decision-making in
ability to provide services. HIGH respect of the use of public funds.
Disclosure would prejudice the  There is public interest that the
commercial interests of the Council public is reassured that value for
who may or may not be able to money is achieved in relation to the
negotiate the best terms with use of public funds/resources
 another business once the scoring
information has been made public. 
This puts the Council at a
disadvantage when seeking to renew
its contract with another supplier
due to loss of confidence in the
Council to keep information
confidential  HIGH
Disclosure of  commercial There is public interest in ensuring
information  may generally deter the that the Council’s commercial
willingness of a third party to enter activities are conducted in an open
into a contract with the Council if and honest way
the scoring information negotiated is
placed in the public domain. HIGH
Disclosure would impact on the trust  
and credibility the Council has with
third parties.  It would harm the
Council’s reputation and ability to
deal in confidence with prospective
service providers. HIGH
Disclosure could harm the interests  
of the providers and prejudice the
Council’s ability to carry out open
tendering processes where sufficient
information needs to be provided to
the Council to enable it to
adequately evaluate tenders it
receives. HIGH
   

 
   
Disclosure of individual scores which  
can be compared across those
organisations who submitted a tender
causes harm to those providers and
loss of confidence in the provider
because the scores indicate how well
or how badly a provider did in
relation to each part of the
evaluation criteria. It indicates the
strong and weak parts of their
tender, and those areas where their
service did or did not meet the
requirements stated in the ITT. HIGH
   

 

The outcome of the public interest test is that there are more factors
against disclosure than factors in favour of disclosure. The public
interest test is made out and the grounds for non disclosure are upheld.

 

The Council considers that your request has been answered in full by
either confirming that information is not held, providing you with the
information requested, or explaining why any information has been withheld
and the reasons for any redaction.   

 

If you are unhappy with the way your request for information has been
handled you can request a review by writing to the Solutions Team within
40 working days from the date of the Council’s response.  You are entitled
to a review by the Council if:

·         You are dissatisfied with the Council’s explanation of why the
application was not dealt with within the 20 working day time limit.

·         All the information requested is not being disclosed and you
have not received an explanation why some information is not being
disclosed.

·         A reason for the disclosures under the request being refused is
not received.

·         You consider that exemptions have been wrongly applied, and/or

·         You consider that a fee has been wrongly applied.

 

Please set out your grounds for seeking a review together with what
specific part of your request those grounds apply to and the outcome you
are seeking.  The Council reserves the right to ask you for clarification
of the grounds for your review request if the grounds are not clear, and
to delay commencing the review if such grounds are not provided.

 

The Solutions Team can be contacted by email via: 
[1][Cheshire West and Chester Council request email] or at the following address:

 

Solutions Team

Cheshire West and Chester Council

HQ

58 Nicholas Street

Chester

CH1 2NP

 

 

More information about the Council’s internal review process can be found
via:
[2]http://www.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk...

 

If you remain dissatisfied following the outcome of your review, you have
a right of appeal to the Information Commissioner at:

 

The Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire SK9 5AF

 

Telephone: 08456 30 60 60 or 01625 54 57 45

Website: [3]www.ico.gov.uk

 

There is no charge for making an appeal.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Liz Bennett

Solutions Team

Cheshire West and Chester Council

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear FOI West,
I cannot make sense of that part of your reply which follows from 'The Public Interest Test applies:'. I suspect that the original was in a tabulated form and that the formatting has been lost. Please attach that part of your reply in a .pdf or Word format doc - or send to me at the email address you have on file)

Yours sincerely,

N.Siddle

Andy Scargill left an annotation ()

Surely it is in the public interest to be able to check that such an expensive and important contract was awarded properly! As things stand a more expensive bid was accepted by CWaCC from a Health Board who went on to fail an inspection. The 'loser' was a hospital with a nationally proven reputation of excellence in this field who consistently always pass their inspections!

N.Siddle left an annotation ()

For anyone struggling to read the section on the Public Interest Test, the factors deemed to be in favour of maintaining the exemption were given as:-

1) Disclosure of the scoring for each bid could prejudice the commercial interests of each provider by reducing market confidence in their ability to provide services. HIGH

2) Disclosure would prejudice the commercial interests of the Council who may or may not be able to negotiate the best terms with another business once the scoring information has been made public. This puts the Council at a disadvantage when seeking to renew its contract with another supplier due to loss of confidence in the Council to keep information confidential HIGH

3) Disclosure of commercial information may generally deter the willingness of a third party to enter into a contract with the Council if the scoring information negotiated is placed in the public domain. HIGH

4) Disclosure would impact on the trust and credibility the Council has with third parties. It would harm the Council’s reputation and ability to deal in confidence with prospective service providers. HIGH

5) Disclosure could harm the interests of the providers and prejudice the Council’s ability to carry out open tendering processes where sufficient information needs to be provided to the Council to enable it to adequately evaluate tenders it receives. HIGH

6) Disclosure of individual scores which can be compared across those organisations who submitted a tender causes harm to those providers and loss of confidence in the provider because the scores indicate how well or how badly a provider did in relation to each part of the evaluation criteria. It indicates the strong and weak parts of their tender, and those areas where their service did or did not meet the requirements stated in the ITT. HIGH

Factors given in favour of disclosure were:-
1) Disclosure may help with transparency, understanding, probity of decision-making and justification of financial decision-making in respect of the use of public funds.
2) There is public interest that the public is reassured that value for money is achieved in relation to the use of public funds/resources
3) There is public interest in ensuring that the Council’s commercial activities are conducted in an open and honest way

I do not accept their assessment of either the factors or their weighting and will be challenging the decision in favour of non-disclosure

Dear FOI West,
I wish to challenge your response to this FOI, but note that Karen McIlwaine, in her letter to me of 22 June 2015 has already instructed the 'Solutions Team' to close all three of my requests on this topic (2648675, 2746175 and 3003827). This is despite in your unsatisfactory response to this request saying that I should raise an Internal Review request if dissatisfied.

I would therefore be grateful if you would confirm that I should address my concerns directly to the ICO rather than via an Internal Review request to CWaCC.

Please advise.

Yours sincerely,

N.Siddle

Darren left an annotation ()

Why has her letter been sent directly to you rather than via this site? Surely no-one may follow a true history if the council do not allow us to be party to information. Can its contents be uploaded?

N.Siddle left an annotation ()

Darren
It is on the site, but logged under the original enquiry 'Sexual Health Contract for CWACC' at https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s....

It is one of the problems arising from where they have used challenges to raise new enquiries, rather than clarify their response to the original. They have now been pulled up about this by the ICO, so it should be less of a problem in future. Having said that, they have in this case used 1 letter to close 3 enquiries that they determined were different.

Nic

Darren left an annotation ()

Clarity from you in 1 response, thanks.

N.Siddle left an annotation ()

Given the 'nil' response to my request as to to whom I should complain, I referred this and my other Sexual Health FOI to the ICO. I have now heard back from them as follows-
"Thank you for your correspondence of 20/07/15 in which you make a complaint about the above public authority’s handling of your request for information.
Your complaint has been accepted as eligible for further consideration and will be allocated to a case officer as soon as possible.
We aim to deal with complaints in chronological order and, because of the number of complaints we are required to deal with, there may be a delay in allocating your case."

I will update this site when I hear more

CROSS, Michelle, Cheshire West and Chester Council

Dear Mr Siddle,

I am writing to confirm that an internal review is being undertaken into your request reference 2746175, and should be with you in the next 5 working days. As you will be aware the Information Commissioner's Office have been in contact with the Council about this request and we are working with them to resolve your complaint.

Regards,

Michelle Cross
Information Governance Senior Manager
Cheshire West and Chester Council

show quoted sections

FOI West, Cheshire West and Chester Council

Re: Request for Information (RFI) - Internal Review

 

Requester:  N. Siddle

RFI legislation: Freedom of Information (FOI) Act

Case reference: 2746175

Request date:  14 February 2015

Statutory due date: 12 March 2015

Response date: 12 June 2015 (full response with formatted PIT table sent
17 June 2015)15 July 2015

Internal review request date: 18 March 2015; 23 April 2015; 27 May 2015;
26 June 2015

Internal review request reasons:  Lateness and dissatisfaction with
response

 

You made a Freedom of Information Request (FOI) to Cheshire West and
Chester Council for the following recorded information:

 

as required by you in your response to my previous request (Case
Reference: 101002648675), I am raising these items as a new FOI.

 

Please provide a copy of the brief given to Liverpool John Moore’s
University by CWAC and a copy of their report to which you refer in your
reply to the above FOI to me.

 

Please also supply a copy of the tender document (or at least that part of
it which specifies the scoring criteria) and of the score and scoring
outcome, including the report which is required to have been written
covering the following requirements of the tendering process:- "The jury
shall record its ranking of projects in a report, signed by its members,
made according to the merits of each project, together with its remarks
and any points that may need clarification" and the " Complete minutes
shall be drawn up of the dialogue between jury members and candidates".

 

The Review of your FOI response has now been carried out by myself, the
Senior Manager responsible for the function of disclosure of information
through the Freedom of Information Act (FOI), Environmental Information
Regulations (EIR) and Data Protection Act Subject Access Requests
(SAR),  and by Catherine Gaukroger, Legal Manager (Contracts and
Governance)

 

You made your request on 14 February 2015.  A response was sent to you on
12 June 2015, which was substantially outside the 20 day statutory time
limit, although your case was progressed during this time period.  

 

On 18 March 2015 you asked for an Internal Review for the following reason
(lateness):

 

I am writing to request an internal review of Cheshire West and Chester
Council's handling of my FOI request 'Sexual Health Contract for CWACC -
additional information'.

 

Yet again, you have allowed the 20 working day deadline to pass without
either providing the information requested or advising a reason for the
delay. Once more, I am left to conclude that your team is more interested
in concealing information than doing what is legally required of you.

 

I do not expect to have to wait for the conclusion of the review before I
receive the information, which should be readily available.

 

On 23 April 2015 you submitted 2 separate emails again asking for an
Internal Review on the grounds of lateness:

 

I note that you say that the review will be dealt with "on 28 April along
with two others on the same subject made by another applicant". Could I
also ask that the same panel covers my own Internal Review request on the
directly related subject covered by Case Reference: 101002746175? The
issues are intertwined and it will save us all time if they are covered by
the same panel.

 

Having not received a response you again requested a review on 27 May
2015:

 

I am writing to request, yet again, an internal review of Cheshire West
and Chester Council's handling of my FOI request 'Sexual Health Contract
for CWACC - additional information'.

 

You have not progressed the Internal Review that I requested on 18th
March, despite sending me a message that same day saying that  the
original enquiry was "currently being addressed". Not only have you failed
to provide the additional information requested, you have not responded to
or held the IR or advised me of any reason for any delay. You did not, as
I had suggested, deal with it as part of the IR into the related enquiry
(2648675)

 

It is now more than the 40 working days ago that is enshrined in CWaCC's
procedures since I first requested the IR and much longer than the 20
working days recommended by the ICO. I expect you to hold the IR
immediately and not use this prompt to delay for another 40 days.

 

Given the reluctance of CWaCC to be in any way helpful regarding this, and
associated enquiries, it is perhaps worth putting on record the fact that
the destruction of any records once the information has been sought, is a
criminal offence under the act.

 

Following receipt of your request response on 12 June 2015; escalation to
the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) of your case;  and a letter
from the Head of Governance on 22 June 2015, you requested an internal
review on the grounds of dissatisfaction with the response, and requesting
clarity on the complaint process:

 

I wish to challenge your response to this FOI, but note that Karen
McIlwaine, in her letter to me of 22 June 2015 has already instructed the
'Solutions Team' to close all three of my requests on this topic (2648675,
2746175 and 3003827). This is despite in your unsatisfactory response to
this request saying that I should raise an Internal Review request if
dissatisfied.

 

I would therefore be grateful if you would confirm that I should address
my concerns directly to the ICO rather than via an Internal Review request
to CWaCC.

 

According to our review into your request for information (RFI) our case
records show that request 2746175 was considered by a senior manager of
the Council (Karen McIlwaine) in conjunction with your other requests on
the same subject matter, in an attempt to resolve your outstanding
issues.  The review noted that the letter did state that the cases were to
be considered “fully resolved”, and this was interpreted by the Solutions
Team to mean that an internal review was not required into request
2746175.  However, this should have been clarified to you in a reply to
your email of 26 June 2015.    

 

The Review found fault in the way that we have handled your requests in
this case, in that there have been significant delays, in addition to a
failure to respond to your repeated requests for an internal review.  The
Council failed to respond by a significant time period and in doing so
failed to comply with the statutory time limit starting with the day
following the receipt of the request and therefore breached sections
1(1)(a) and (b) of the FOIA.  The Council sincerely apologises for the
delays and errors you have experienced in this request for information.

 

Regarding your request for a copy of the brief given to Liverpool John
Moores University (LJMU)  by CWAC ( the Council gave you a copy of the
subsequent report) , the Council said in its response: “Please note after
a thorough search of the relevant files on our shared drive we cannot
locate the brief given to Liverpool John Moore’s University. We believe we
no longer hold the information. You may wish to contact Liverpool John
Moore’s University who may still retain this information”.

 

The Review made enquiries as to whether any further information was
available concerning the brief to LJMU by CWAC.  It was told that CW&C did
not issue a brief to LJMU for this work but that it was commissioned by
Vale Royal CCG.  Accordingly, the Review was satisfied that the Council
does not hold the information requested.

 

The Review also considered the application of exemptions in the disclosure
of the tender document to you. It was satisfied that the exemption for
personal data in section 40 had been correctly applied in respect of
junior officers’ details, mindful of the ICO guidance.

 

In relation to the application of section 43 to the score and scoring
outcome of the tender exercise, in its response, the Council had applied
section 43 of the FOI to the scores and scoring outcomes,  which if
released it considered would or would be likely to prejudice the
commercial interests of the provider and the Council. The Review was
satisfied that the exemption had been properly applied at the time the
response was given to you and that the public interest test had been
properly applied to justify the decision not to disclose the scores and
scoring outcome.

 

The Review considered whether the passage of time since the original
response affected the position. It was advised that implementation and
roll out of the contract was still ongoing. The Review concluded that the
disclosure of the scores and scoring outcome would still be likely to
prejudice the commercial interests of the provider and the Council, that
the exemption in section 43 still applied and that the reasoning in
balancing the factors in the public interest test remained valid as set
out in the Council’s response in June 2015.

 

This completes the review into request 2746175.  As this request has
already been escalated to the ICO we will ensure that a copy of this
review is sent to the case investigator. 

 

Yours sincerely,

Michelle Cross
Information Governance Senior Manager
Cheshire West and Chester Council

 

 

show quoted sections

N.Siddle left an annotation ()

Yet again, CWaCC are using spurious ‘confidentiality’ excuses to deny provision of the information. It is also clear from their latest response that they continue to be obstructive (eg only now advising that the reason they do not have the Liverpool John Moore’s briefing document is because it was actually commissioned by Vale Royal CCG). It seems incredible to me that they would not also hold a copy of such a document, but even if that is so, they had a duty to point me to where I could get it at a much earlier stage.

This request is currently with the ICO, who have asked to see the information which is being withheld. I will post a note when I hear from the ICO.

Please note that there were two linked FOI requests on this topic:-
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...
&
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...

Responses have appeared in either or both, but now the ICO is involved, I expect future correspondence to appear under this “Sexual Health Contract for CWACC - additonal (sic) information” heading

FOI West, Cheshire West and Chester Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Siddle

 

The Council is currently liaising with the Information Commissioner in
relation to a complaint you raised about your information request
reference 2746175 [their reference FS50585307].

 

The Council advised the Information Commissioner that it had previously
disclosed the tender document for the sexual health services contract to
you with minor redaction for junior officer details.  The Council has
reviewed this redaction and and, as the ITT was made public, the Council
has informed the Commissioner that it is happy to lift this redaction as
the name of the officer will already be in the public domain.  The
Commissioner has requested that an unredacted copy of the ITT be forwarded
to you, please find it attached [Integrated Sexual Health Service ITT –
Final].

The Council awaits the Commissioner’s final  Decision Notice in relation
to this complaint.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Miriam Wallace

 

 

Miriam Wallace
Solutions Team Manager
Cheshire West and Chester Council

Tel: 01244 972212

Email: [1][email address]

Location: Floor 2, HQ Building, 58 Nicholas Street, Chester, CH1 2NP
Visit: cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk

Winners of the MJ 2015 Best Achieving Council National Achievement Award

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. https://remote.cheshire.gov.uk/owa/,Dana...

N.Siddle left an annotation ()

This withdrawal of the redaction of the officer's name is a very minor concession and really does not help us to understand how this contract came to be awarded to Cheshire East Trust.

However the ICO has now responded to the referral to them, and has issued a Decision notice which wholly endorses the need to issue the requested information. It is now up to CWaCC to decide whether they are going to release the information or to escalate the matter to the First Tier Tribunal in the hope of keeping it secret. Any attempt at further concealment of the facts could only be interpreted in terms of 'there is something that someone is determined to hide', whether that be incompetence or something more venal.

CWAC ICO CASES, Cheshire West and Chester Council

5 Attachments

Dear Mr Siddle

 

Further to my email below, the Council received the Commissioner’s
Decision Notice on 29 January [dated 21 January 2016].  The Commissioner’s
decision is:

 

·        Disclose all the withheld information to the complainant.

 

The information requested concerned the scores and scoring outcomes for
the Sexual Health Services tender.  The information held relevant to this
request, and to which the Council applied the exemption for commercial
interests, was:

 

·        Tender decision letters for the successful and unsuccessful
bidders

·        The Integrated Sexual Health Service evaluation results table

 

The Council informed the third parties [successful and unsuccessful
bidders] about the Commissioner’s Decision Notice on 10 February 2016 and
has received no comments/objections to the Commissioner’s decision. 

 

The information previously withheld is attached.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Miriam Wallace

 

 

Miriam Wallace
Solutions Team Manager
Cheshire West and Chester Council

Tel: 01244 972212

Email: [1][email address]

Location: Floor 2, HQ Building, 58 Nicholas Street, Chester, CH1 2NP
Visit: cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk

Winners of the MJ 2015 Best Achieving Council National Achievement Award

 

 

 

From: FOI West
Sent: 17 December 2015 12:01
To: N.Siddle
Cc: FOI West; CWAC ICO CASES
Subject: Your request reference 2746175 [ICO ref: FS50585307]

 

Dear Mr Siddle

 

The Council is currently liaising with the Information Commissioner in
relation to a complaint you raised about your information request
reference 2746175 [their reference FS50585307].

 

The Council advised the Information Commissioner that it had previously
disclosed the tender document for the sexual health services contract to
you with minor redaction for junior officer details.  The Council has
reviewed this redaction and and, as the ITT was made public, the Council
has informed the Commissioner that it is happy to lift this redaction as
the name of the officer will already be in the public domain.  The
Commissioner has requested that an unredacted copy of the ITT be forwarded
to you, please find it attached [Integrated Sexual Health Service ITT –
Final].

 

The Council awaits the Commissioner’s final  Decision Notice in relation
to this complaint.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Miriam Wallace

 

 

Miriam Wallace
Solutions Team Manager
Cheshire West and Chester Council

Tel: 01244 972212

Email: [2][email address]

Location: Floor 2, HQ Building, 58 Nicholas Street, Chester, CH1 2NP
Visit: cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk

Winners of the MJ 2015 Best Achieving Council National Achievement Award

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. https://remote.cheshire.gov.uk/owa/,Dana...
2. https://remote.cheshire.gov.uk/owa/,Dana...

N.Siddle left an annotation ()

This answer addresses (at last) most of the specific questions originally asked (and has proven again just how careful one has to be in phrasing the original questions in order to not allow them to deliberately exploit ambigiuites or loopholes). However it does not explain the basis on which the panel was selected, how the scoring meetings were run and many of the other aspects of the awarding of this tender that have led to suspicions of irregular procedures/ dealings. That there were serious flaws in the process has been acknowledeged and future tenders should be more equitably conducted and open to greater scrutiny. There are still outstanding queries around the award of this contract but now that CWAC's CEO has resigned it is probably less likely that any further information will be forthcoming. I will however update this post if further information comes to light