Agenda item

This report provide an update on progress with development of the Procurement Strategy and review.

The Chair introduced the report, commending the quality and detail it provided in relation to the procurement issues faced by the Council. Minesh Patel (Corporate Director, Finance and Resources, Brent Council) further introduced the item on behalf of Procurement colleagues who had sent apologies to the meeting, explaining that some questions may need to be responded to outside of the meeting as a result of their absence. In presenting the Procurement Strategy progress, he highlighted the establishment of the Commissioning, Procurement and Contract Management Assurance Board (CPCMAB) and a Project Management Procurement Board as significant governance developments, which had enabled both members and officers to engage substantively on procurement-related matters, including the Council’s more complex contracts such as its Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs).

In considering the report, the Committee noted the following key areas of progress within the Procurement Improvement Programme:

·            A new interim Head of Procurement had been in post since July 2025, with six new permanent appointments made to previously hard-to-fill vacant roles, addressing the long-standing reliance on agency and interim staff.

·            The Procurement Strategy 2026–2030 had been developed and approved by Cabinet on 9 March 2026, with the strategy due to go live in April 2026. The strategy was based on three key cornerstones: Community Wealth Building; Effective Contract Management and; Leadership, Commercial Capability and Innovation.

·            Good progress had been made on contract management, with over 70 Council contracts reviewed and segmented into tiers to determine the most effective level of contract management. A new Contract Management Framework and Community of Practice had also been established.

·            Savings of 111% year-to-date had been realised, with forecast savings of £214,000 in the current year and £330,000 projected for 2026–27, through the Oxygen Finance Fast Track Payment Initiative.

Having thanked Minesh Patel for the outline provided, the Chair then invited the Committee to raise any questions, with the following issues discussed:

·            Members raised queries regarding a savings figure referenced at paragraph 7.5.2 of the report. Minesh Patel confirmed the saving to be £240,000, representing a 111% increase from the previous year.

·            Members then wished to discuss sole sourcing, and the steps Brent took to avoid procuring by this method, including whether Key Performance Indicators could be used to determine the degree to which the Council was sole sourcing and whether a maximum threshold could be established. In response, Edwin Mensah (Acting Head of Commissioning Contracting and Market Management, Brent Council) advised that this question would need to be taken away for further consideration.

·            Moving to the subject of project management, members wished to understand how Brent handled this aspect of procurement. Questions were raised regarding how strong project management was monitored, whether end-of-project reviews were conducted, whether lessons learned were captured, and whether sufficient resources were available. Minesh Patel responded that the answer depended on the project in question, with capital projects operating under different management arrangements to smaller-scale projects, and with recognised inconsistencies across the organisation. A corporate Project Management Office had been established some years previously to support the whole organisation but had not been consistently maintained, and was now seeing a renewed focus. Post-project reviews were undertaken on the Council’s Capital programme, but officers could not confirm whether this was a universal practice across all procurement and commissioning. Edwin Mensah added that a suite of training designed to bring consistency to project management across Brent was in the process of being launched.

·            Members raised queries over the total fraction of the Council’s turnover represented by procurement spend. Minesh Patel undertook to provide a written response to this query following the meeting.

·            Members noted that the CPCMAB sub-committee, on which the Vice-Chair and other committee members sat, had considered a number of topics at its most recent meeting, including PFI arrangements. Councillor Chan challenged whether PFI contracts of the length referenced – such as that for the Willesden Sports Centre, awarded for 25 years– could be considered competitively structured, and whether newer contracts were being designed to avoid such long durations. Officers were asked whether an estimate could be provided as to the profits gained by One Life over the contract period and what the Council would do upon expiry. In response, Minesh Patel clarified that One Life was a company appointed by the financiers of the PFI contract, rather than the contract holder itself. Under PFI arrangements, the entity awarded the contract set their own sub-contracts for the construction and operation of infrastructure, as well as the day-to-day running of the asset. The Council then had a set of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) assessing whether the PFI was operating the asset in the right way. The exit point for the PFI for Willesden Sports Centre was 2031, at which point the Council would regain operational ownership, meaning how that operated going forward would be within the Council’s control. Brent was noted to be the second local authority in the UK coming to the end of a PFI arrangement, with learning being drawn from Sefton Council (the first authority to conclude such a contract) to ensure a stable transition. The Chair added that the conclusion of PFI arrangements represented a significant and ongoing area of work requiring careful management during the transition period. In considering future contract lengths, officers noted that arrangements would aim to align contract end dates with other leisure contracts in the borough, having regard to the durations of other centres’ remaining terms in order to undertake procurement that ensures all leisure centre contracts had aligning terms. In terms of the profit made over the 25-year term of the PFI, officers advised that this would be complicated to calculate.

·            In relation to the implementation of the new Procurement Strategy, members asked for assurance that officers possessed the necessary skills for effective contract management and negotiation, including project management and KPI engineering, noting a perception that providers were often better resourced and able to secure terms favourable to the contractor. In response, Minesh Patel acknowledged that the Council had historically lacked sufficient procurement capacity, with work underway to fill outstanding vacancies. He further advised that service areas required strengthened capability in contract management and that additional training was planned to support more complex contract negotiations and upskill all departments in terms of contract management. Legal support was also being sought to reduce the inclusion of unfavourable contract clauses and to secure terms more advantageous to the Council. Edwin Mensah added that six new staff members had been appointed within Adult Social Care commissioning to support improved contract design, alongside legal services who were being engaged to develop exit strategies for longer-term contracts. Members reiterated their concern about the limited contract management experience and accountability across the organisation and requested a further update report to hear responses to those concerns. Edwin Mensah acknowledged this and confirmed that contract management training was being delivered at multiple organisational levels.

·            In highlighting the report’s calls for a cultural reset in procurement towards a more commercial approach, members queried the extent to which directors in each department were engaged in this agenda and whether the Committee could assist in driving departmental alignment.. Edwin Mensah advised that social care commissioning was tough on contract management because of the safeguarding risked involved with social care clients. From working with those groups, he advised that there were some knowledge gaps in contract management skills, with work needed to equalise how contract management was approached regardless of the service. To do that, he felt  both a top-down and bottom-up approach would be required to address this deficit. In terms of accountability, Minesh Patel drew members’ attention to paragraph 7.3 of the report, highlighting that that forums had been mandated for programmes and projects across all directorates, with all departments reported to be engaged in the ongoing improvement drive. Each department was on a different journey and had different needs both in terms of training and upskilling and in terms of procurement and commissioning.

·            Members also asked how artificial intelligence and automation were assisting with these efforts and whether tools such as Match My Project had been considered. They heard that AI and automation in procurement was in active exploration, with Procurement speaking with departments about the different systems available. Match My Project was being used to link with the community and how the Council could support the community.

·            Regarding section 13 of the report and the Council’s climate action and sustainability approach in procurement, members requested greater elaboration on the policy. Officers noted this request and confirmed that a written response would be provided following the meeting.

·            Members sought clarification on how risk levels within the contract management tiering framework were defined, particularly the designation of “platinum” contracts. Edwin Mensah explained that the framework had originally comprised gold, silver and bronze tiers but had later been expanded to include a platinum category, reflecting contracts or services for which the Council would face significant difficulty in securing alternative provision if those contracts broke down. He cited the example of NRS, a national equipment provider that had collapsed in summer 2024, noting that there had then been insufficient market capacity to be able to absorb the services previously delivered. Officers identified market buoyancy as a key determinant of the tier rating, alongside the potential impact that contract failure could have on Brent’s service delivery.

·            Members raised concerns regarding the approach of some suppliers towards the public sector and called for greater dynamism in contract management, citing as an example a Council investment in park bins at an estimated £600 per unit. Members also queried whether the Council had specific exit clauses in its contracts and whether such clauses had been exercised in the last five years. In response, Edwin Mensah confirmed that a six-month exit clause existed in all social care contracts and that this provision was currently being utilised to exit an existing contract with a poorly performing provider. Whilst it was in the Council’s gift, without the knowledge, expertise and joint collaboration with Legal services those powers were not being exercised.

·            In concluding the discussion, members sought further assurance on how the Council could avoid over-dependence on a single provider. Edwin Mensah emphasised that effective market segmentation was essential, as it enabled the Council to identify areas where market development was required. Where markets remained insufficiently buoyant, the Procurement Team was engaged in ongoing discussions on how Brent, as a local authority, could stimulate and develop those markets, thereby expanding the options available to each service and rebalancing procurement in Brent’s favour.

With no further comments or questions raised, the Committee RESOLVED to note the progress made in delivering the Procurement Improvement Programme, including the approval of the new Procurement Strategy 2026–2030 by Cabinet. The Chair noted that the Committee would seek to revisit this subject during the next municipal year to ensure comprehensive coverage of the issues identified within the report.

The following were identified as specific actions:

(1)      For the Committee to receive a further progress update at a future meeting addressing the following issues:

 - To expand and provide further explanation on the Council’s sustainability approach in the context of procurement and commissioning within section 13 of the report.

- The strategy for sole sourcing in relation to section 7.5 of the report.

- The total spend on Procurement.

- The work and progress in filling procurement support vacancies.

- Consideration to be given to the inclusion of Social Value & Community Wealth considerations within the Council’s corporate report.