Summary: Mr X complains the Council wrongly prevented his company from submitting a tender for a CCTV contract in March 2018. The Council did not prevent Mr X from submitting a bid but it did invite three other companies to submit a bid. This action is in line with the Council’s procurement policy. There is no fault either in the Council’s decision to invite direct bids or to use companies other than Mr X’s.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly prevented his company from submitting a tender for a CCTV contract in March 2018.
2. Mr X says this has affected his company’s income and reputation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X’s company, Company A, has previously provided the Council with advice relating to the town centre CCTV. In 2014 his company carried out and costed a feasibility study around moving a number of control rooms to one central control room. Mr X believed the Council would subsequently contract his company to carry out some of the associated works.
7. In December 2018 the Council approved a procurement contract relating to the CCTV hardware. It wanted information on the cost of replacing CCTV cameras. It felt that without detailed knowledge of the technological requirements it would be difficult to achieve best value when it came to tendering for the actual replacement. It said the budget for the replacement of the cameras was significant at £2million.
8. The procurement report provided details of the soft market testing carried out. It said it was necessary to get detailed information before starting any actual hardware procurement. The Council noted six firms had been engaged so far and it aimed to invite three to six suppliers to bid for the contract which was an estimated £30,000. Comments from a manager were included on the report. The comments stated that three quotes would be appropriate in this case.
9. The Council invited three companies to submit bids for the work. Mr X’s company was not chosen. All three companies submitted bids which the Council evaluated and the contract was awarded to the company achieving the highest score.

Analysis

10. Mr X complains the Council prevented his company from submitting a tender for work in March 2018. In response to my enquiries the Council says it did not prevent Mr X’s company from bidding but agrees it did not invite him to bid which has the same impact.
11. The Council has a set of procurement rules which I have considered as part of my investigation. It states that all contracts must be let in accordance with UK and EU legal requirements. The documents includes a table detailing the financial thresholds and the process that must be followed. The EU procurement threshold is currently £181,302. The contract in this case was for £30,000 with a £20,000 contingency. So the contract did not have to go to open tender.
12. The procurement policy allows for different options for all contracts between £15,000 and the EU threshold. Option iii requires the Council to obtain at least three quotations with at least one from a local supplier, with the reasons recorded if this is not possible. This is the procedure followed in this case for the CCTV contract.
13. I can appreciate that Mr X would have liked to bid for this contract. However, I am satisfied the Council followed its published procedure and I find no fault in its decision to invite three bids directly from selected companies.
14. The Council says it did not select Mr X’s company because it did not consider it had sufficient technical knowledge. It says it based this view on the 2014 report Mr X’s company provided. In particular it says the report lacked focus on technical aspects and was deficient in areas such as storage, impact on fibre connectivity and cyber security.
15. Mr X told me the Council had never raised any questions about the quality of the report he produced in 2014. He disagrees with the Council’s assessment of the abilities of his company and feels he is being treated unfairly. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to take a view on the technical abilities of Mr X’s company. The Council has provided an explanation for why it did not ask Mr X’s company to bid on the March 2018 contract. This is a matter of professional judgement for the Council and there is no basis for me to criticise this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I will now complete my investigation as there is no evidence of fault causing Mr X a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman