Thursday, 27 October 2022 – When Good Services are Lumped with Bad People
There is a theory that one of the roles of a local authority is to employ residents who wouldn’t be able to get a job anywhere else. Marx ungenerously called these people the lumpenproletariat and, otherwise, saw no contribution they could make to society after the inevitable socialist revolution. Made-up jobs in local government may be the late-stage capitalism solution, but it still causes problems.
You may remember that two weeks ago, the Public Health Commissioning Team wanted to send me evidence of social value measures delivered by their contractor, Turning Point, in their last contract, so that I could comment in their contract award report that they had delivered the social value bit of the service commissioned and then their contract could be agreed to be extended by CAB. By the end of the week, the PH Commissioning Team hadn’t sent me anything.
The Contracts & Performance Officer, dedicated to being responsible for nothing else apart from the delivery of the KPIs in the Team’s service suppliers’ contracts, had emailed me an assertion that the contractor had “provide[d] social value information” to her but that, “It was agreed that Turning Point would not upload onto the portal until new contracts are in place…” She didn’t say why this was agreed or what purpose it she thought it might serve but, in the real world, it has served the purpose of me not having any evidence of social value delivered and unable to comment in their report that their supplier has delivered the KPIs in their contract and also served the purpose of earning the recommendation to never be recommissioned.
However, on the following Monday, 17 October, the Contracts Officer did email me a report. She didn’t say anything in the email such as what it was she had sent me, or even “please review”, just a blank message with a spreadsheet attached with the vague file name written with caps lock on, “SOCIAL VALUE”. In it are oblique yet obviously vacuous “deliverables” such as:
“SASH have looked at ways that we can continue to provide complimentary [sic] therapy support to River House service users remotely during this period when River House building is closed.”
“SASH continue to hire space at River House.”
“SASH activities and the community development offer have been promoted through the SOBUS newsletter.”
What these have got to do with social value: additional activities to the service commissioned delivered to residents and local businesses, I don’t know. No evidence has been provided as is prompted on the Social Value Portal. And no explanation of who SASH is, what SOBUS is or what the relevance of River House is. And just to hammer the nail home, all the activities are dated April 2019, two years before this contract started and one year before the council even had a Social Value policy. I replied,
“Hi [Contracts & Performance Officer],
“I’m not sure how this relates to the council’s Social Value measures (“TOMs”). Social value delivered should be recorded on the council’s social value portal with evidence.
“I’m happy to work with suppliers to bypass the portal and send evidence of social value delivered directly to me if that is easier, but measures delivered must relate to the council’s predefined TOMs (that is, what social value the council has chosen to ask for) and suppliers must still provide evidence of social value measures delivered.
“Also, I assume from this report, these outcomes were delivered up to April 2019. The contract in question started in April 2021. The Social Value policy, along with the TOMs, were adopted in May 2020. Has the supplier delivered any TOMs in the contract that started in April 2021?
“Paul.”
She replied the following day, “Paul, please see updated SV based on TOMs” and attached the same spreadsheet. Which I had to read the sprawling mess in it to see if she had changed anything. Enough! If they have evidence of social value delivered on the contract in question, then I’m happy to review it and add my comments to the CAB report accordingly, but I’m not chasing them up to help them get their report done if they are being this obstructive to their own work. I replied,
“Hi [Contracts & Performance Officer],
“Sorry, I don’t know what this is or how it relates to the council’s Social Value TOMs or the contract in question.
“Paul.”
No reply. Then, on the following Monday, 24 October, the Head of Public Health Commissioning replied:
“Paul, can we have a quick chat about this and how we can move forward. I’ll set something up with ourselves and [the Contracts & Performance Officer] who I know has been in contact.”
Barely. I’m not sure she is in contact with reality, never mind me. It is interesting to see so starkly the Head of Service having to intervene because her Contracts Officer hasn’t, and couldn’t, do her core, and not very difficult, job and simply just stopped trying to do it for a week. She has given up going through her own employee to do her job and instead wants to talk to me directly about “how we [read “she”] can move forward.”
We had the meeting on the same day. In it, the HoS told me, “we just haven’t used Social Value Portal but Turning Point has delivered lots of Social Value that [her Contracts Officer (also in this meeting but so far not said anything)] has contract-managed.”
“You
already told me this weeks ago”, I thought but didn’t say. “And I asked you then to send it to me and so
your member of staff sent me unformatted gibberish in a spreadsheet dated two
years before the contract even started.
Twice!” I didn’t say that
either. I did tell her that “I didn’t
understand the words in the report and it was dated April 2019 and, when I
questioned it, your Contracts Officer sent me the same report again unchanged.”
The Contracts Officer still said nothing and I’m not sure she understood that we were talking about her as if she wasn’t there. Then her HoS started to explain to her what I had just said, talking to her like she was a four-year-old. I think the Contracts Officer proves the theory. If she wasn’t employed by the council, I’m sure she would be lying in whatever would be the equivalent of Hogarth’s Gin Lane today. Why she has been inflicted on the Public Health Commissioning Team I don’t know. But I do know Heads of Service are mostly allowed to recruit whom they want and this is who she chose for whatever reason.
“I know
Turning Point has delivered lots of social value”, the HoS then told me after
she had finished wiping her Contracts Officer’s nose (I don’t really know she
was doing that because they both had their cameras off, but the Contracts Officer
never spoke in the whole meeting), “because, if nothing else, they employ lots
of local residents on the contract.” I
told her I would send both of them a reporting template that has prompts for
the evidence requirements needed for contract management of social value
measures, including local jobs, and they can fill it out with the measures they
know have been delivered and send it back to me to verify. I can then add the comments to the report.
“How long will that take?”, she asked sounding worried. “The contract expired in September and the supplier is currently delivering without having a contract or payment.” Wow, these guys really are disorganised! “I’ll verify it in minutes”, I told her, so it depends how long the Contracts Officer takes to fill in the spreadsheet with the information on the jobs on this contract in which her HoS “knows” our residents have been employed.
As of today, I have received nothing. The contract extension sought is for three months before the whole thing goes out to retender. That takes us to Christmas. Let’s see if that arrives before the report.
Comments
Post a Comment