7-1
Item No. 7
TUNBRIDGE WELLS BOROUGH COUNCIL
CABINET – 18 SEPTEMBER 2003
REPORT OF CHAIRMAN OF SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
REVIEW OF CONTRACT MANAGEMENT PARKS, OPEN SPACES AND OUTDOOR SPORTS
FACILITIES
Executive Summary
The Co-ordinating Overview and Scrutiny Committee asked Scrutiny Committee to review the
operation of the contract for “Parks and Open Spaces”, which is due for renewal on 1 January
2004. Tenders were issued on 1 July 2003 and the Cabinet will make a decision at its meeting
on 18 September 2003 (see report 030918/CAB114) .
FOR DECISION
Introduction
Please find attached at Appendix A (030918/CAB118) a copy of the Scrutiny Committee
Chairman’s draft report on the contract for “Parks and Open Spaces. The results of the
questionnaires and recommendations will follow.
COUNCILLOR BALLANTINE
Chairman of Scrutiny Committee
Appendix A – Scrutiny Committee’s Review of Contract Management Parks, Open Spaces
and Outdoor Sports Facilities
7-2
Appendix A
Scrutiny Committee
Review of Contract Management
Parks, Open Spaces and Outdoor Sports Facilities
Final Report: Conclusions
1.
BACKGROUND
1.1.
Introduction
The Co-ordinating Overview and Scrutiny Committee asked Scrutiny Committee to
review the operation of the contract for “Parks and Open Spaces”, which is due for
renewal on 1 January 2004. Tenders were issued on 1 July 2003 and the Cabinet will
make a decision at its meeting on 18 September 2003.
It is hoped that the results of this project will help the Cabinet to make a decision.
It is hoped that the results of the project will also help Leisure Services to operate the
contract more effectively during 2004 et seq.
1.2.
Steering Group
Scrutiny Committee asked Councillors Bruce Ballantine, Simon Bannister; and Sean
Lockhart to lead the project.
The Lead Councillors invited three users to join a Steering Group: Adrian Beaton (West
Kent Sunday League); Nigel Bradburn (Friends of The Grove); and Reg Mackelden
(West Kent Sunday League).
The officers from Leisure Department who were involved in the project were Nigel Bolton;
Jeff Kempster; and Marian Williams.
The first meeting of the Steering Group was held on Tuesday 15 July; and the final
meeting will be held on Wednesday 10 September.
1.3.
TWBC Staff
Discussions were held with:
•
•
•
1.4.
Audit: Ian Cumberworth
Leisure Sevices: Nigel Bolton, Jeff Kempster and Marian Williams
Research: Ellie Broughton and Simon Davies
Contractor
A meeting was held with Graham Cobb, the Contracts Manager for Serviceteam, the
existing contractor.
7-3
1.5.
Questionnaires
Questionnaires were sent to Councillors; Users of Parks and Open Spaces; and Users of
Outdoor Sports Facilities.
The results will be reported verbally to the meeting of the Cabinet on 18 September.
1.6.
Public Consultation
Twenty members of the public attended a meeting on Tuesday 20 August –
representatives of Parks Associations; Residents Associations; and Sports Associations
as well as individual members of the public.
2.
DELIVERABLES
It was agreed that there would be seven principal deliverables from this project:
2.1
•
A report on the extent to which the operation of the contract meets the
requirements of the Council as contained in the relevant contract, the Service
Plan for Leisure Services and the Best Value Report.
•
A report on the extent to which the contract satisfies the requirements of the
users of the service.
•
A list of additional information that could usefully be circulated to tenderers
(before the date of return of tenders).
•
A list of issues that could be included in the final contract (for negotiation with the
preferred contractor before the final contract is signed).
•
A list of issues that could be included in the Continuous Improvement Plan for
Parks and Open Spaces.
•
A list of performance measures that could be used to monitor the new contract at
an operational level.
•
A list of (SMART) performance measures that could be used to monitor the new
contract at CMT level.
Comparison of 2003 Tender with TWBC Policies
A number of issues were identified in the Best Value Review for Parks and Open Spaces
that were not included in the tender. These included a list of “issues that will form the
basis of discussions with potential contractors” (Best Value Report):
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Key role of Park Wardens
Ways of achieving Tunbridge Wells quality standards
Sustainability
Effective lines of communication
Attaining Green Flag status
Viability of achieving capital improvements
Potential for working more closely
Maximising use of IT
Partnership working (e.g. staff training)
Avoidance of duplication
7-4
•
Production of annual service development plan
Most of these issues were not covered in the original tender document.
A number of other initiatives are also relevant for Parks, Open Spaces nd Outdoor Sports
Facilities.
•
•
•
•
•
Plans –Disability Action Plan; Landscape Action Plan; Biodiversity Plan; Parks
Safety Plan; Parks Development and Marketing Plan
Policies -: Dog fouling; graffiti; vandalism; and the environment.
Plans to develop and implement a planned maintenance programme
Plans to restore Dunorlan Park - progress, timetable and implications for tenderer
Plans to produce a Playing Pitches Plan for the Borough, including the
development six new football pitches
Few of these initiatives were covered in the original tender documentation.
2.2.
User views on operation of Contract
Issues raised at the public meeting and by user representatives on the Steering Group
included:
•
Apparent lack of “rolling programmes” for improvement for each facility.
•
Possibility to learn lessons from performance in good facilities (compared with
poor facilities).
¾
Best performance occurs when staff is well trained and permanently
attached to one facility (e.g. Dunorlan, Hawkenbury and the Nevill).
Problems occur when staff are not well trained.
•
Need for policies for “dog-foulers, graffiti artists, litter-louts, and vandals”. Need
to train staff to deal with them.
•
The safer people feel the greater their enjoyment of the facilities.
•
¾
Evening security patrols helped to reduce vandalism/litter (when they were
operating and for some time after they stopped). There was concern that
proposal for eight evening patrols per month is too limited to be effective,
(including Town Centre Parks, Rusthall and Woodbury Park).
¾
Gates and perimeter fencing/hedges that are damaged/missing reduce
security. (e.g. wide gap in Grosvenor Recreation Ground).
Effective communication with users can help to improve the operation of the
contract.
¾
There is better two-way information flow where there are “associations”.
¾
There are few formal mechanisms for feeding-back information from
associations.
¾
Users have no information about the schedule of works included in the
tender/contract (the standards they should expect).
7-5
¾
Users have little information about mechanisms for passing back comments
about facilities.
•
Individual users/groups would like to provide help with the maintenance of Parks
and Open Spaces, but lack of Public Liability Insurance acts as a positive
discouragement/bar to action.
•
Keys to the successful operation of the contract are effective supervision by the
contractor of their own staff and effective monitoring by the contractor and
TWBC.
•
Relationships between Council and contractors are more supportive and
proactive where Councils have “Green Flag Awards”. The contractor in Bexley,
for example, has encouraged staff to take ownership for activities for which they
are responsible. There is a financial bonus for outstanding performance.
Parks and Open Spaces
•
Play areas are generally good; other facilities can often be poor (e.g. Grosvenor
Recreation Ground)
•
There was general agreement that displays in flower-beds and hanging baskets
were good.
Outdoor Sports Facilities
2.3.
•
Lack of fencing around Bowling Green at Grosvenor Recreation Ground
creates risks for other park users.
•
Poor watering system at St John’s creates problems for grounds-men.
•
Bowling Greens are under-prepared at the start of the season (due to lack of
finance for fertiliser). Football (and hockey and rugby?) pitches are also
under-prepared during the close season.
•
Showers at Rusthall did not work for the whole of the season 2002-3. Styles
around playing field are broken.
•
There were occasions when grounds were not available to permit a prompt start
to matches and when pavilions could not be opened during matches.
Additional information for tenderers
Leisure Services agreed to provide the following additional documents to tenderers:
•
•
•
2.4.
Best Value Action Plan;
Specification for Green Flag Status; and
Plans for Restoration of Dunorlan Park
Issues for inclusion in Final Contract
Concern was expressed that a number of issues might not have been effectively
enforced during the period of the existing contract:
7-6
•
Training staff in maintaining sports facilities (and in simple horticultural
activities”).
•
Training staff to deal with “dog-foulers, graffiti artists, litter-louts, and
vandals”.
•
Ensuring that the contractor has adequate supervisory resources and policies.
•
Ensuring that contractor’s staff log/report incidents/comments effectively.
•
Ensuring that arrangements for liaison between the contractor and the Project
Manager are in place for the Restoration Project at Dunorlan Park.
•
Ensuring that grounds are available so that matches can start promptly and that
pavilions are accessible during matches.
Concern was also expressed that:
2.5.
•
The number of evening security patrols (eight times per month) was
inadequate.
•
There is no logging/reporting system for complaints/comments within TWBC.
•
The contractor has insufficient incentive to provide an “outstanding” performance.
Issues for inclusion in (up-dated) Continuous Improvement Plan
The following issues were not included in the existing Continuous Improvement Plan:
•
Encouragement to the formation of “associations” for all Parks and Open
Spaces so that there is better two-way information flow.
•
Improvements in arrangements for feedback from Sports Associations .
•
Development of innovative ways in which individual users/groups could provide
help with the maintenance of Parks and Open Spaces.
7-7
2.6.
Performance Measures
The principal (existing) monitoring mechanisms are:
•
Results of regular inspections
The results are recorded on a standard schedule. However, the scope of these
reports is limited.
•
Monthly reports by the client (TWBC)
The reports now follow a standard format and have, in recent months, become
more quantitative. Information is now available over time for cleanliness.
•
Monthly reports by the contractor
The reports are largely qualitative in nature
•
Monthly meetings.
Minutes are produced, but there is no standard list of contents.
2.7.
SMART Performance Measures
These should focus on “outcomes” rather than “inputs” or “outputs”.
3.
CONCLUSIONS
3.1.
Resources
The total time spent by the officers on this project is eight man-days (compared with a
budget of nine man-days). Total expenditure on market research was less than £100
(compared with a budget of £500).
3.2.
Final Report
The final report, with recommendations, will be circulated to the Cabinet on 12
September, following a final meeting of the Steering Committee on Tuesday 10
September 2003. The CEO and the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Scrutiny
Committee will sign it off.
Bruce Ballantine
5 September 2003