Issue - meetings

This report updates the Executive on the recent procurement exercise for  the City’s archives services.

RESOLVED: (i)         That it be confirmed that none of the submitted tenders meet the test of affordability and that none can therefore be accepted.

                        (ii)        That Officers be asked to re-examine the specification for the archives service and report back to the Executive, detailing the options for continuing to provide a quality, affordable archives service within the City.

                        (iii)       That Officers also re-appraise any new opportunities that may now be available to continue to provide the service, either ‘in-house’ or with alternative York partners.

REASON:      To try to achieve a satisfactory and affordable solution for procurement of the City archives.

Members considered a report which provided an update on the recent procurement exercise for provision of the City’s archives services.

The procurement process had been undertaken in accordance with the recommendations of the Leisure and Heritage Scrutiny Board, considered by the Executive in January 2006.  Tenders had been received from:

• The University of York Borthwick Institute
• Iron Mountain (UK) Ltd.
• Audata Ltd. and Océ (UK) Ltd.
• Nexus Property Solutions Ltd.

At stage 1 of the process, the tender from Nexus had been rejected as it did not comply with requirements.  The remaining tenders had then been taken forward to Stages 2 and 3 (financial appraisal and quality assessment) and scores awarded.  Under this process, the Borthwick’s bid had attained the highest score.  However, since its annual cost was far in excess of the current budget provision, it was not affordable, so the contract could not be awarded.

The relevant EU procurement regulations did not permit post-tender negotiations.  Therefore the principle options available were as follows:

Option 1 – re-examine the specification of the service and determine whether it was possible to specify a level of service likely to be procured at a lower cost, then to re-tender the service;

Option 2 – develop proposals for a revised in-house service.

Option 1 was recommended, on the basis that an in-house solution had previously been examined and rejected and that it had been a fundamental conclusion of the Scrutiny Board that the vision set out in their report could only be met in partnership with other bodies.

In response to the comments made under Public Participation / Other Speakers, Officers confirmed that the reason for rejecting the in-house solution had been the lack of the capital sum required to bring the existing premises up to standard.  However, the issue could be re-examined in a broader context, and taking into account the Scrutiny Board’s requirement for partnership working.  Members stressed that no additional funding was available from the Council’s budget but that any ideas on how to overcome this problem in order to provide a viable in-house solution would be welcome.

RESOLVED: (i)         That it be confirmed that none of the submitted tenders meet the test of affordability and that none can therefore be accepted.

                        (ii)        That Officers be asked to re-examine the specification for the archives service and report back to the Executive, detailing the options for continuing to provide a quality, affordable archives service within the City.

                        (iii)       That Officers also re-appraise any new opportunities that may now be available to continue to provide the service, either ‘in-house’ or with alternative York partners.

REASON:      To try to achieve a satisfactory and affordable solution for future management and provision of the City archives.