Greater London Authority Collaborative Procurement

Reference code: 
DMPCD 2016 14
Date signed: 
01 March 2016
Authorisation name: 
Stephen Greenhalgh (past staff), Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime

Executive summary

This report requests approval to enter into the GLA Collaborative Procurement Function by signing the Joint Arrangements Agreements for forming the GLA Collaborative Procurement Board and the delegation of Procurement Processes to TfL and to contribute towards to the 2015/16 costs of the GLA Collaborative Procurement Team.

Recommendation

•    The request to enter into the GLA Collaborative Procurement Function by signing the Joint Arrangements Agreements for forming the GLA Collaborative Procurement Board and the delegation of Procurement Processes to TfL;
•    The contribution of £122,201 towards the 2015/16 cost of the GLA Collaborative Procurement Function.

 

Non-confidential facts and advice to the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime (DMPC)

Introduction and background

1.    The GLA procurement team is hosted by TfL and provides procurement services to all of the GLA functional bodies with the aim of delivering savings through economies of scale.  The team focus on common categories if spend such as utilities, fuel, printing and office supplies. 

Issues for consideration

2.    MOPAC recognises that savings in 2015/16 have not been realised for MOPAC or the MPS, however, this investment will ensure there is future capability to deliver savings.

Financial Comments

3.    The £122,201 2015/16 contribution will be met from within existing MOPAC resources.

4.    Funding for future years will be based on the level of savings generated with the contributions being met from with existing MPS resources.

Legal Comments

5.    The MOPAC Scheme of Delegation (paragraph 4.8) states the DMPC approval is required for any expenditure proposal of an exceptional nature which is significant as defined in paragraph1.4 which might otherwise be delegated or consented by this Scheme. 

Equality Comments

6.    There is no equality impact.

Background/supporting papers

7.    None