Wednesday 25 January 2023 – RIP Social Value

Yesterday I attended a “Meet The Buyer” event in the council’s main office in Hammersmith where 65 small business came to learn about how they can win contracts with both the council and its major suppliers.  I was asked to present the council’s Social Value policy to obligate our suppliers to use local small businesses in their supply chains, and many businesses seemed very interested in the concept and were keen to give me their business cards after the presentations.  It was a rare and fun day away from one’s desk and laptop but the AD of Corporate Procurement said to me on the walk back to the tube station that she was dreading seeing her inbox in the morning full of unread emails.  I saw today what she meant but worse.  Amongst all the other detritus of an average day’s inbox of work were five email threads on social value for four different major procurements and one on a S106 unilateral undertaking by the council, and I suspect today will forever more be known in the council as Black Wednesday for its Social Value and Economic Development policies.  In any case, I give up.

The first was from the Assistant Director of Research, Innovation and Growth (whatever that is).  He is asking Cabinet for more money for the ongoing, tortuous and seemingly increasingly ruinous development of Hammersmith Town Hall as the economy and the commercial property and construction sectors continue to tank since the decision was made to “commercialise” the people of Hammersmith’s public asset (see For the Betterment of the People) post-covid and post-Johnson/Truss (see Why Do Managers Do It?).  In this cabinet report, the Head of Planning commented on the implications for Social Value.  Perhaps she forgot she was Head of Planning and, during a momentary brain freeze, thought she was the Social Value Officer and hadn’t realised she had never commented on the implications of Social Value policy before.  Or perhaps she is trying to defraud the council’s governance processes to spend public money.  I don’t know which it is but, logically, it has to be one or the other.  As it happens, the administrator for Cabinet agendas caught the error/fraud and returned the report saying she couldn’t add it to the agenda without my comments and the AD forwarded it to me instead with his apologies.  No harm, no foul.  But things got worse.

Next in my inbox was an email from my own AD:

“Hi Paul,

“Hope all well [sic].

“See email trail [in this email thread].

“Whilst I am keen to be robust on social value – also keen to be supportive of heads of service eg [the Director of Public Health] who are very committed to the social value agenda.

“Hope this strikes a balance!

“Happy to catch up on social value – perhaps at [the Head of Employment & Skills] and mine [sic] 121.

“Thanks

“[Assistant Director of Economic Development]”

 

In the email thread was an email to him from the Director of Public Health:

“Dear [Assistant Director of Economic Development],

“We had a useful meeting with Paul Clarke recently about the social value statement on our drug and alcohol tender.  The paper has been approved at CAB board this morning (procurement board), but I’d like to suggest we substitute Paul’s social value wording, as this will be a public document.

“Can we substitute Paul’s wording of

“’Social Value contributions should be considered in any contract let with a price over £100,000.  The recommended supplier, Turning Point, did not deliver any social value on their previous contract with the council let in 2021.  This has not been addressed on the last contract.  It can be expected that they will not deliver the social value proposed as detailed in paragraph 6 above.

“’Implications completed by Paul Clarke, Social Value Officer, 12 January 2023.’

“And change this to:

“’The substance misuse contracts have delivered social value, with innovations in hiring ex-users, encouraging clients into adult education, and creating a bespoke programme for offenders.  Although there hasn’t been formal reporting on social value with the previous contract, this will be rectified for the new contract.’

“I will trying [sic] ringing you to catch up…

“Best wishes, [Director of Public Health].”

 

If you remember the story from Why Do People Lie?, the Director and her staff asked and pressured me to change my comments (she quotes above) from the stark truth to, not just a softer truth, but to a lie.  I refused to be part of these lies so as to avoid being led down a rabbit hole.  Why lie?  Why ask for my comments if you want me to lie?  Technically, it is the council that wants me to comment as part of its governance process, not her, but she is a director of the council.  Why?  My AD replied to her copying in the Assistant Director of Corporate Procurement, with whom I walked to the tube station yesterday evening, who is also the chair of the Contracts Assurance Board (CAB) which oversees the council’s procurement governance:

“Hi [Director of Public Health],

“Thanks for your email on this.

“Yes – I’m happy to change the wording along the lines you suggest.

“[…]

“[Assistant Director of Corporate Procurement] – useful for you/me/Paul [are we one entity now; did he mean to use commas instead?] to think through how we get and document regular reports eg quarterly on what contracts eg Turning Point are delivering re: social value.

“Thanks

“[Assistant Director of Economic Development]”

 

It seems the Contracts & Performance Officer in Public Health didn’t stow away in the suitcase of the ex-Head of Public Health Commissioning when she left the country because, the day after her Director assured me she would take personal responsibility for ensuring I got the final report of social value outcomes she was convinced Turning Point had delivered because they told her so when they were bidding for the new £8.2m contract, the Contracts & Performance Officer sent me a third report of social value outcomes from Turning Point on their 2021-22 contract.  Progress: this one had one job start in it: a local resident employed as a Health and Wellbeing Coach in May 2018!  And it also had some vague info on some school visits they conducted to deliver Relationship and Sex Education classes in 2020.  I don’t know what those references to “innovations in hiring ex-users, encouraging clients into adult education, and creating a bespoke programme for offenders are”, but the assumption here is that they have delivered a lot more because they said so and that’s good enough for the Director of Public Health, the chair of CAB and the council’s governance process.  And, seemingly, that is okay with my Assistant Director.  It also saves on the bureaucracy of having to fill out the form.  So, why does the council need me, especially when he is telling me his catch-up on the matter doesn’t include me or else he would have called it a 122, not a 121?  I had better check, so I replied to my AD.  I wanted to tell him that I applaud his blind fanaticism of covering his fellow directors’ backs by denying the obvious reality and doggedly backing up their fantasies that anything they do has an effect on the borough; that normal people who are less sociopathic than the average director like he and colleagues he defends would find it challenging to lie so brazenly and guilt-free, but I thought I would tone it down a bit and simply say it wasn't true:

“Hi [Assistant Director],

“I’m well thanks. 

“Just to give you a bit of background, I do take into account that social value and its processes are new for many suppliers and try to find a balanced approach to my interpretation of SV implications, but this example has been a particularly egregious case of the supplier and the team, including after my conversation with [the Director], not co-operating with delivering social value on the last contract, hence my unusually direct comments.  I don’t believe [her] comments… are true.”

 

So, to recap, the council has employed me to comment on the implications of major procurements so that CAB can govern on the proper application of this democratic policy and, in this most stark and egregious of cases of the service and their supplier not complying, CAB has not only disregarded my comment that is so reductive that I cannot have made it any clearer that there is no other implication other than Turning Point aint never gonna deliver social value, and the senior leaders have clubbed together to delete my comment before publication and replace it with an absolute lie.  Can anyone explain to me why?

Next up I have a draft Unilateral Undertaking from Legal to comment on.  This is for the S106 planning contributions for the old Hartopp & Lannoy council estate in Fulham the council demolished and is planning on rebuilding, half for the private sale of flats.  I’ve commented on it before but there is a sticking point in the wording of the agreement between me and the council’s Property Team: they don’t want to make economic development contributions because they cost them money.  As with Social Value policy, I don’t care (see Nihilism in the New Year); but if they don’t want my comments on the S106 agreement, then why ask me?  In the umpteenth iteration sent to me by Legal, the wording on spending 10% of the build cost with businesses based in the borough, not only a policy of the council but also in the Mayor of London’s Local Plan by which London Planning Authorities are bound, hasn’t changed.  As well as obligating the 10% local spend, there is a clause that reads,

“Nothing in this deed shall affect the Owner’s obligations under Public Procurement Regulations and the need to seek economically advantageous tenders.”

 

The owner being the council, they thought they would slip that one past me when they sent me this draft on Monday, but I commented:

“I don't fully understand the legal implications of this statement and would appreciate advice.  Would a developer commissioned by the council be subject to Public Procurement Regulations?  Does any legal obligation to seek the most economically advantageous tenders contradict the S106 obligation to use Local suppliers if a Local supplier makes a reasonable bid?  […]  The reason this is important is that it appears to negate the obligation to procure locally.”

 

The planning lawyer, unable to answer it, passed my comment on to the Chief Solicitor (the one who told me that the contract schedule that she drafted for enforcing social value was unenforceable), and she forwarded on to me her reply:

“Hi

“The amendment is just stating the statutory obligations under the Public Procurement Regulations 2015.  Even if the wording was not included, the statutory obligations would still have to be complied with by the Council when tendering the works which have a value of £213,477 or above.  For contracts which have a value which is less than that, most of the provisions in the 2015 regulations do not apply and we can reserve a contract to SMEs.

“Kind Regards

“[Chief Solicitor]”

 

The procurement is c£50m and so well above the threshold for having to comply with Public Procurement Regs as explained here.  I replied to the planning lawyer:

“Hi [Senior Planning Licensing Solicitor],

“I’m not sure [the Chief Solicitor’s] reply answers my questions.  I understand that the Council is subject to the PPR 2015.  But would the appointed developer be subject to it?  Because it is a Unilateral Undertaking, I understand the council is making this agreement, but don’t these obligations get passed on to the developer?

“And, if the answer to this is, whether or not the obligations are passed on, the council is still responsible for the PPR and, therefore, so is the appointed developer, then why ask for a contribution of 10% local procurement if this S106 obligation contradicts the obligation to the PPR to ensure the Most Economically Advantageous Tenders?  Why not just remove the S106 obligation rather than have two counteracting obligations in the same agreement?

“The reason I ask is that I will have to manage this once the agreement is agreed and I don’t know how to do this as it is currently worded.

“Paul.”

 

If you don’t want this economic development contribution, or procurement regulations simply preclude it, then why ask for it?  And why is it in the council’s planning policy (the Local Plan)?  And why is it in the council’s Industrial Strategy?  The answer is, we have to include it; it’s planning law.  It’s in the London Plan, the National Planning Policy Framework and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.  On the other hand, people stand to make a lot of money out of this development and those people are managing the planning process.  I’m not saying that these two things are linked, but you have got to wonder what is happening here.  The way around it seems to be to pass a dense draft contract of 15 pages of legalese and references to other obscure legislation to the Employment & Skills Officer  and hope that he doesn’t understand it enough to challenge Property, Planning and Legal over property, planning and legal matters, or probably even spot one clause negating an obligation in another.  That didn't work so she gave up with the Chief Solicitor and referred my query back to the planning officer.

Next I have a meeting scheduled to moderate the social value scores for three bids received for the council’s £675,000 translation and interpreting service.  Highlights of the bids included proposals to deliver two one-hour workshops to 265 benefit claimants at a time, with the impact of two hours work valued by them at £65,950.50 (that’s £32,975.25 per hour – nice work if you can get it), a five-week apprenticeship (a five-week degree course wasn’t offered) and five weeks of a six-week paid work placement.  The rest of the social value measures proposed weren’t as good.  In the moderation meeting, the other scorer and moderator just accepted my scores without challenge which were mostly zeros.  They are still going to submit an award report to CAB anyway as they saw no reason why this should be a hindrance to awarding a contract to one of the three bidders.

And, lastly, I was sent a login to view the one and only bid for the council’s new computer user hardware; mostly laptops.  Four measures were proposed:

1. They show some favour to any young people from the borough not in employment, education or training for two new IT jobs created,

2.    They would refurbish and recycle 2,500 of the council’s old laptops,

3.    They would plant 450 trees in Greater Manchester to absorb 1,410 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions a year and

4.    Drive 10,000 miles on this contract in electric vehicles they will lease in 2025.

The Head of Corporate Procurement, a Contracts & Procurement Officer in his team and I are the nominated scorers for the social value part of this important council contract.  The Head yesterday sent his comments on the proposals to the IT Director and me:

“We only have 1 bidder (!!!!).  But it’s a competition and it only takes one to win.

“So we need to swivel, move to a triage position and ask ‘can this bidder pass the Mandatory Thresholds’.

“[…]

“CDW [the bidder]

“The headlines for me are:

“I’m giving them a 4 (out of 5). The reason they did not get a 5 was to do that they would have had to excel which would have involved a higher amount / commitment to the Borough itself, such as setting up a training academy, or having the tree planting in H&F

“I will need Paul and [the Contracts & Procurement Officer’s] views but as a working assumption CDW have passed the Social Value … and rather well.

“Best regards

“Head of Corporate Procurement”

 

Hmmm, are we reading the same proposal?  I replied to him (not copying anyone in so as just to get on the same page):

“Hi [Head of Corporate Procurement],

“I’ve had an initial look at the method statement, and I’m not sure I understand all of it and don’t think they have committed to the local employment measure proposed.

“I have no comments on the proposals to recycle devices and there is a full method statement provided here to explain the proposal, more than we normally ask for, so that is clear to me.

“However, for the local recruitment, they have proposed in the TOMs matrix to employ 2 local NEETs (16 to 24 year-olds not in employment, education or training) but, in the method statement, they haven’t committed to this.  Instead they have committed to positively favouring “applications from the target group”.  This is not the same thing and I don’t believe it will lead to 2 NEETs being employed.  This target group may typically be young people just leaving local authority care and have little to no experience, skills or confidence.  To be successful, they need to be given a pathway into useful jobs.  They will have little on their CVs to be favoured so I expect it will end up being an empty offer.  And it is not the definition of our SV measure for that reason.

“Re the de-carbonisation proposal, I can’t make sense of the numbers.  I understand that 450 trees (in Manchester?) is equivalent to c9.8 tonnes of CO2e per year of the contract.  They have proposed 1,410 tonnes which is a huge amount, reflected in the proxy value of £344,928.30 making up most of their proposal.  Also, for this reason, there is a separate measure for reforestation with a different, and more appropriate proxy value.  However, I have little understanding of this theme and can I suggest that the Climate Change team… comments on whether this proposal contributes to the council’s objectives (including the car mileage saved of which I could make sense and seems good)?

“[…]

“Paul.”

 

I am being diplomatic about the electric car leases and I didn’t raise my concerns about where CDW think they will be driving 10,000 miles to with our laptops this year when they get the cars in 2025 (pick your battles), but how did they get to 1,410 tonnes of carbon dioxide from 450 trees?  And in Manchester?!  And the parsimoniousness of not even giving two of our young care leavers a chance is just economic exclusion and elitism dressed up as corporate social responsibility.  If I have to defend anything in social value, it has to be jobs for our residents.  But what is he seeing that he thought to comment to the IT Director that he thought they did “rather well”?  The IT Director replied, “Thank you – that’s useful to know that they’re credible on social value.”  Way to go for managing expectations!  It will make the scores moderation meeting I’m invited to all the more galling.

But why should I bother battling him in the moderation meeting if the whole senior leadership, including my own AD, is dead set against applying social value and lie this badly about how good it is.  Next time they ask me to present to local businesses how good our economic development strategy is to keep the wealth of the council’s large amount of spend in the borough, I will tell them to do it themselves and then go and take a shower.  With that final straw of my AD usurping my role as Social Value Officer to take a more “balanced” approach than I by publishing for the consumption of H&F residents that our suppliers have delivered loads of social value when they haven’t even had the good grace to even lie that they have delivered any, if anyone asks me how did we kill the council’s social value policy, I will use Earnest Hemmingway's words from The Sun Also Rises and tell them, “Two ways: gradually and then suddenly.”

Me on the panel of the Meet the Buyer event for small businesses in Hammersmith & Fulham, 24 January 2023, from right to left: the Head of Business & Enterprise in the Economic Development Team, the Assistant Director of Corporate Procurement, me, a director of the West London Chamber of Commerce and (with the gentleman standing chairing the Q&A) members of the company hired to facilitate the event.