Digital Policing Solution Provider Framework

This paper requests approval to award the Solution Provider Framework contract to seven suppliers. The contract will be up to the value of £350m and over a contract period of four years (two years with 2 x 1 year extensions). The framework agreement will be available to the MPS, other police forces in the UK, Police and Crime Commissioners, the GLA and its functional bodies.

The Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime is asked to:

1. Approve the award of a Solution Provider Framework contract to the following suppliers:

• Accenture (UK) Limited
• BAE Systems Applied Intelligence Limited
• Capita Business Services Limited
• IMB United Kingdom Limited
• Informed Solutions Limited
• Leidos Innovations UK Limited
• SCISYS UK Limited

The contract will be up to the value of £350m and over a contract period of four years (2 yearswith 2 x 1 year extensions).

1. Introduction and background

1.1. The implementation of a revised Solution Delivery Model is a component of the Digital Policing Transformation Programme and a key enabler of the One Met Model. The Digital Policing Target Operating Model (DP TOM) and the revised Solution Delivery Model have been designed to deliver improved technology solutions and reduce operating costs.

1.2. The DP TOM also identified the need for a revised delivery structure for business applications. This paper is seeking to implement part of that delivery structure by establishing the Solution Provider Framework for the provision of IT services such as software development, consulting and support.

2. Issues for consideration

2.1. See the Part 2 for details.

3. Financial Comments

3.1 There are ‘one off’ project and procurement costs incurred in setting up the Solution Provider Framework. The costs are part of the funding proposal submitted in the Final Business Case, which was approved in March 2016. This decision is for the award of a framework arrangement. Call offs from the framework incurring cost will be via the usual MOPAC/MPS governance routes, as a result no further funding is being requested in this paper.

3.2 See the Part 2 for further details.

4. Legal Comments

4.1. There are no legal implications arising from this report.

5. Equality Comments

5.1. There are no direct equality or diversity implications arising from this report

6. Background/supporting papers

6.1. None.