Key information
Executive summary
The MPS is seeking to call-off from a single tender arrangement for the supply of a Police Officer Rail Travel Scheme for the organisation.
The MPS currently has a 4-year contract with the Association of Train Operating Companies (now Rail Delivery Group (RDG)) running from 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2018 that provides travel for MPS officers.
The RDG represents all the Train Operating Companies (TOCS) across the United Kingdom. They are the only entity able to grant travel concessions on behalf of TOCS to the MPS. Accordingly, MOPAC is not under a duty to competitive tender the requirement.
This paper recommends that DMPC approves a single tender award to the RDG.
Recommendation
The DMPC is asked to;
• To award, via a single tender contract award, an agreement for the provision of a police officer rail travel scheme to the Rail Delivery Group (RDG) from 1st April 2018.
• To note the duration of the contract will be 48 months; this is the maximum term for a single tender arrangement and there will be no option to extend.
• To note the final value of this contract will be dependent on the number of officers that join the scheme; it is estimated that the total value of this requirement is likely to be between £50-£60 million which is the value representative of the spend between police officers and the supplier with costs recovered directly from officer’s salaries.
Non-confidential facts and advice to the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime (DMPC)
1. Introduction and background
1.1. The single tender arrangement will provide MPS police officers with access to travel on National Rail services within an agreed area for a monthly contribution. There is no cost to the MPS.
1.2. The RDG will be required to comprehensively manage the delivery of the travel scheme in conjunction with authority payroll providers. The estimated value of the framework is £50-£60 million. This is indicative of the spend by police officers working for the MPS throughout the life of the contract.
2. Issues for consideration
2.1. To mitigate risks around financial viability of the travel scheme going forward for the RDG, the RDG have indicated that the TOCS may look to impose a review of the costs during the 4-year contract. The RDG have stated that there are three options that they will propose to the TOCS at a London Agreement Committee on 23 January 2018, which include; 4 year contract awarded with: no annual review, single review of pricing strategy after Year 1; single review of pricing strategy after Year 2. It should be noted that any additional costs from an overall increase to the scheme contract options outlined above will be absorbed by police officers and not the MPS.
3. Financial Comments
3.1. The final value of this contract will be dependent on the number of officers that join the Scheme. It is estimated that the total value of this requirement is likely to be between £50 -£60 million over the four-year life of the contract. Costs of the Scheme including administration are recovered directly from officers’ salaries via payroll salary sacrifice.
4. Legal Comments
4.1. The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) is a contracting authority as defined in the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (the Regulations). Public contracts for goods and services valued at £164,176 or above must be procured in accordance with MOPAC governance and regulations. This report confirms the value of proposed contract exceeds this threshold and, accordingly, the regulations are engaged.
4.2. This report also confirms the procurement route proposed is a single tender contract award. The RDG represents all TOCs across the UK. They are the only entity able to grant travel concessions on behalf of the TOCs to the MPS. Accordingly, the MOPAC is not under a duty to competitive tender the requirement. This will represent a compliant route to market where the MOPAC is named as an eligible user of the framework and the MOPAC’s requirements are within the framework’s technical and financial scope.
5. Equality Comments
5.1. There are no direct equality or diversity implications arising from this report.
6. Background/supporting papers
6.1. Report.
Signed decision document
PCD 320