CCTV award ‘highly inappropriate’

THE decision to award a local alarms firm the contract to run Londonderry’s CCTV monitoring system last year was ‘highly inappropriate,’ a new report on the stalled process has claimed.

The award of the tender also followed a site visit to the successful ‘Company A’ by staff members of the City Centre Initative (CCI) and Derry City Council that took place before a tender process was even launched, the report states.

This should not have happened due to the sensitivities surrounding public procurement, the report says.

The company awarded the tender was referred to only as ‘Company A’ in the report, although it was previously revealed in an internal memo to be BHP.

The award was subsequently withdrawn and the procurement process abandoned after flaws were found with the tender process.

The confidential review of the now dead tender process to relocate Londonderry’s city centre CCTV operation concludes: “The Review Panel have established that the Procurement of the Contract relating to the Monitoring and Maintenance of City Centre Cameras conducted by the CCI, was not carried out in accordance with Best Practice Guidelines, CCI and funder procurement procedures.”

The investigation followed complaints from current CCTV operator Ulster Support Employment Ltd (USEL) - who alongside another company, Wired Up Solutions, raised questions about the tender process in the Spring of 2011. Both had complained of being excluded from the tender process

The review has also found failings in the democratic oversight of the sensitive monitoring scheme after the PSNI and Derry City Council were asked by the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) to investigate whether “a proper public procurement process” was followed when CCI tried to re-tender its CCTV contract last year.

Over a decade ago CCI was selected by Derry City Council to establish and maintain the CCTV scheme to create a “safe and secure environment for all those who visit, live, work and do business in Londonderry.”

After much angst over the potential abuse of the system a Code of Practice was compiled in consultation with the wider Londonderry public enshrining the principles of Human Rights legislation and was formally adopted by Derry City Council in September 2001.

To ensure democratic oversight of the powerful ‘big brother’ system the Londonderry Town Clerk and two elected councillors are supposed to sit on a CCI sub-committee and an Independent Inspection Panel is supposed to make an inspection of all the records and procedures on a ‘spot check’ basis at least six times a year.

If this happened it failed to detect a number of flaws in the procurement process. The review concludes that the CCTV Sub Committee has not been consistent over recent years.

It states: “The Panel were however unable to establish when the CCTV Sub Committee had been reconvened and who the members were.

“A list of CCTV members provided by CCI indicated that the Sub Committee was not up to date and indeed that some of those on the list were no longer part of the CCI board.”

Details are also provided for the first time concerning the form of the tender process itself and a number of flaws are revealed.

According to the report questionnaires were sent to the only four companies in Londonderry with a National Security Inspectorate award.

They were all asked if they held a current NSI Gold Certificates; if they could offer CCTV monitoring from a secure building in the Londonderry area that could comply with the BS5979 standard required by CCTV monitoring; and if they could operate from a secured building in the Londonderry area that could comply with BS5979.

If they couldn’t operate from a secure compliant building in the city they were asked if they had plans to build one.

The Review Panel were satisfied that ‘CCTV monitoring should be from a building that can comply with the requirements of BS5979” but they did not understand why the successful company had to have an office in Londonderry.

According to the report CCI explained that there was a need for proximity to the police for evidence collection and emergency surveillance.

But the Review Panel felt all of these issues should have been assessed as part of the tender process.

CCI specified that the successful company would have to have offices within a 25 miles radius of Londonderry.

But the report notes: “At one stage CCI discussed the potential of extending the CCTV to cover the entire G District and beyond yet there is no record of this having been discounted in consideration of the distance issue.”

It also notes the haste with which CCI ruled out wireless and microwave transmission in favour of the more expensive, real time fibre optic option.

“It appears to the Panel that CCI opted for fibre cables very quickly,” it states.

And in March 2011 CCI appeared to be discussing various options “but other options were ruled out and it was decided that it was necessary to restrict the search to a 25 mile radius. CCI have advised that fibre had been specified by the PSNI; however the Panel has no evidence to substantiate this.

“The Panel were advised that beyond 25 miles, and every 25 miles it becomes necessary to boost the signal by supplying a ‘node.’ It was deemed too expensive to locate the monitoring station beyond this limit.

“The Panel were unable to substantiate how this determination had been reached as an options appraisal had not been completed,” the report notes.

Responding to these criticisms and the panel’s view that all of these issues should have been addressed within the tender process, the CCI state that in an Internal Review it carried out with the approval of DCC and the PSNI in 2009: “At the inception of the project it was determined that a site outside the city centre was most effective.

“However, in hindsight this was perhaps not the best idea. This location equates to further expenses related to the project such as longer fibre optic cables.”

Ultimately, Company A was the only one of the four companies invited to tender and the report notes that it was given a different deadline than the other three applicants.

All four companies were provided with Pre-Qualifying Questionnaires on March 15, 2011, but whilst ‘Company A’ was given a deadline of 5.30pm that day, the other firms were told to return the questionnaires by noon on March 16.

“The Review Panel is of the opinion that all Pre-Qualifying Questionnaires should have been returned on the same date and time to ensure openness and transparency.

“The relevance of this is if another company had been able to produce the appropriate documentation after the deadline they could have challenged the decision by the Evaluation Panel,” the report finds.

It also states that the companies should have been given more time to respond.

After submitting its early reply Company A was then invited to submit a tender document which was received and evaluated by a CCI Evaluation Panel and it was agreed to award the contract to Company A.

The report finds that this was ‘highly inappropriate.’

It states: “The Review Panel was unable to determine how the tender was evaluated and scored as relevant documentation had not been retained.

“The Review Panel was advised by the CCI evaluation Panel that the tender was evaluated against the budget that was available to CCI and the fact that company was offering 24 hour coverage.

“Given that the cost was within budget and additional coverage was being provided it was felt appropriate by the Evaluation Panel to award the tender.

“The Review Panel feels that this is highly inappropriate and all tenders must be evaluated and scored in accordance with required procedures.”

The report says that in a ‘one tender scenario’ a minimum “threshold score” should be set and that the tender should be evaluated in consideration of this.

The review was satisfied that CCI were reviewing a number of options to make improvements to the CCTV system but it points out that “the possibility of working with Company A was discussed ‘and seemed to be the best offer so far,’” as early as December 2010.

The report also states that “a visit took place to Company A’s premises in December 2010 with a representative from CCI and DCC.”

“The Panel are of the opinion that given the sensitivities surrounding procurement, a site visit should not have taken place,” the report states.

The report recommends that a review of the CCTV system should be carried out and that fibre optic cable should not be the only option available.

Additional areas of operation and alternative technologies such as microwave connectivity are to be considered.

Following the review a decision should be taken on whether the CCTV contract should be retendered.

DCC and the PSNI will be responsible for making this decision.

It is also recommended that a clear Service Level Agreement be drawn up between both DCC and the PSNI and CCI indicating clearly “what is expected from the CCI in return for the funding provided, specifically referring to the necessity to adhere to Public Sector Procurement Guideline.”

The report also stresses the Importance of reestablishing the CCTV Sub Committee with clear terms of reference and defined membership.

“It is essential to ensure that good governance arrangements exist within the company,” the report states.

CCI accepts all the recommendations but points out that “procurement matters were openly presented at Board meetings where DCC and PSNI advisors were present.

“If these advisors felt that protocol and procedures were not correctly followed, it would have been their duty on behalf of their relevant organisations to raise these issues and offer proper guidance. This did not happen.”

CCI Manager Jim Roddy said the company accepts the recommendations of the review panel with a number of qualifications as outlined above. He said he hoped this will allow CCI to deliver a CCTV system that the city deserves.

He told the Sentinel: “My only motivation is the safety of all the people of the city and that we have a fit for purpose system that befits our city.”

A spokesperson for Derry City Council explained that the audit recommendations have been agreed with the funders and these are currently being discussed with CCI as the next step moving forward.

A spokesperson for Company A told the Sentinel: “Company A has been kept fully aware of the status and we are happy that the report has been completed.”

Related topics: