£61m of contracts across eight Kent councils started before they were awarded

An analysis of eight out of twelve Kent Council’s shows that £61,317,807 worth of contracts were started before they were awarded, according to publicly available data. 

Each of the eight councils have an Audit and Governance Committee (A&G Committee). Its function is to provide independent assurance on the adequacy of the risk management framework.  This includes the associated control environment and independent scrutiny of the Council’s financial and non-financial performance to the extent that it affects the Council’s exposure to risk.  The Committee also oversees the financial reporting process. It also has other responsibilities. And then there are Council Officers and external and internal auditors, who too are supposed to do the same as the A&G Committee.

Also all Local Authorities must abide by the Transparency Code 2015; which states at Paragraph 32

Local authorities must also publish details of any contract, commissioned activity, purchase order, framework agreement and any other legally enforceable agreement with a value that exceeds £5,000.

So we decided to look at each of the eight Council’s contract register on the Kent Business Portal. All this data is publicly available. Doing this would allow us to see what Council’s had allowed contracts to start before they were awarded. This would highlight poor controls around procurement practices and highlight the risk to your public pound.

Our analysis showed that £61,317,807 worth of contracts were started before they were awarded, according to the publicly available data.

Ashford, Gravesham, Swale and Tonbridge & Malling do not publish their contract data on the Kent Business Portal. They do though publish it on their websites. As such they are not included in our analysis. Neither Swale or Tonbridge & Malling appear to publish their purchase order data, as they must.

In our analysis we have placed the Councils in alphabetical order.

Canterbury City Council

On the 24/04/23, CCC had 468 contracts on its register with an estimated value of £254,389,678. Of these 468 contracts, 42 of them or 9% were started before they were awarded. With regards the value of these 42 contracts, the estimated value of them was £5,744,986, which is equal to 2.25% of the overall estimated value of all contracts.

The worst case of a contract starting before it was awarded was 1,884 days, or 5 years and two months, according to the publicly available data on the 25/04/23. This contract was with Gas Contract Services Ltd. And CCCs publicly available payment data clearly shows they were paid before the contract was awarded. Of course, this is a breach of CCCs, contract standing orders and financial procedure rules. Just because the company is named, it is NOT intended to suggest or imply that they have engaged in illegal or improper conduct.

It is clear when one looks at CCCs constitution, the procurement rules, the contract standing orders, and the financial procedure rules were broken. This shows a poor internal control environment, and that the CCC public pound is at risk due to these poor controls.

Dartford Borough Council

On the 25/04/23 DBC had 119 contracts on its register with an estimated value of £140,492,485. Of these 119 contracts, 34 of them, or 28.57% were started before they were awarded. With regards the value of these 34 contracts, the estimated value of them was £20,677,314, which is equal to 14.72% of the overall estimated value of all contracts.

It is clear when one looks at DBCs constitution the procurement rules were broken. It also shows the control environment regarding the contracts register is not as effective as it could be.

Dover District Council

On the 25/04/23 DDC had 59 contracts on its register with an estimated value of £67,162,627. Of these 59 contracts, 4 of them, or 6.78% were started before they were awarded. With regards the value of these 4 contracts, the estimated value of them was £4,915,762, which is equal to 7.32% of the overall estimated value of all contracts.

It is clear when one looks at DBCs constitution, the procurement rules were broken. It also shows the control environment regarding the contracts register is not as effective as it could be.

Folkestone & Hythe District Council

We looked at FHDCs Contract register for July 2019 and April 2023. This was because we have previously highlighted contracts starting before being awarded. This led the Council to amend their contract register in late 22 -early 23. However, what they have failed to do when amending their contract data was, abide by the mandatory rules in the Transparency Code 2015. At Paragraph 23 & 24 it states:

Timeliness and errors
23.Data should be as accurate as possible at first publication. While errors may occur, the
publication of information should not be unduly delayed to rectify mistakes. This
concerns errors in data accuracy. The best way to achieve this is by having robust
information management processes in place.

24.Where errors in data are discovered, or files are changed for other reasons (such as
omissions), local authorities should publish revised information making it clear where
and how there has been an amendment. Metadata on data.gov.uk should be amended
accordingly.

We approached this data different due to the amendments made by the Council after the Shepway Vox Team had flagged these many anomalies. We looked at their Contract register in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023.

In July 2019, FHDC had 335 contracts on its register with an estimated value of £234,670,001. Of these 335 contracts, 22 of them, or 6.57% were started before they were awarded. With regards the value of these 22 contracts, the estimated value of them was £6,309,715, which is equal to 2.69% of the overall estimated value of all contracts.

As of the 26/04/23 the FHDC had 413 contracts on its register with an estimated value of £267,872,534. Of these 413 contracts, 9 of them or 2.18% were started before they were awarded. With regards the value of these 9 contracts, the estimated value of them was £418,439, which is equal to 0.15% of the overall estimated value of all contracts.

The worst case of a contract starting before it was awarded was 922 days, or 2 years and seven months, according to the publicly available data on the 26/04/23.

That said, back in Dec 2022, Dr Susan Priest, the Chief Executive of FHDC, said such issues raised above would stop. She said this at the Audit & Governance Committee in Dec 2022. At that meeting she made it clear all staff would receive training in procurement, contract standing orders and financial procedures rules. It is clear the training has not worked, yet people are still allowed to continue in position. We ask you, was she serious, or were the words she spoke at the Audit & Governance Committee hollow? 

Maidstone Borough Council

As of the 25/04/23 the MBC had 66 contracts on its register with an estimated value of £75,371,649. Of these 66 contracts, 6 of them or 9.10% were started before they were awarded. With regards the value of these 6 contracts, the estimated value of them was £128,605 which is equal to 0.17% of the overall estimated value of all contracts.

The worst case of a contract starting before it was awarded was 73 days, or just over 2 months, according to the publicly available data on the 25/04/23.

Sevenoaks District Council

As of the 25/04/2023, SDC had only one contract on its register. It started on the day it was awarded.

We can see that SDC do not publish its contracts above £5,000 (net) on its website either. That said, it has published just one month, that being June 2018. This is in clear breach of the Transparency Code 2015 see Paragraph 32; which states:

Local authorities must also publish details of any contract, commissioned activity,
purchase order, framework agreement and any other legally enforceable agreement
with a value that exceeds £5,000.

SDCs contract rules are set out in thier Contracts Procedure Rules – Appendix E. Nowhere in that document does it mention the Transparency Code 2015 and nowhere does it mention all contracts above £5,000 must be published by law.  As such SDC are not just breaking their Constitution, they are also in clear violation of The Transparency Code 2015.

Thanet District Council

On the 25/04/23, TDC had 34 contracts on its contract register with an estimated value of £40,790,604. According to the register, every contacted started after it was awarded, not before. 

However, on its website it states:

Details of our Contracts for £100,000 and above can be found on the Contracts Register on the Kent Business Portal.

This is wrong, as Paragraph 32 of the Transparency Code 2015 states:

Local authorities must also publish details of any contract, commissioned activity,
purchase order, framework agreement and any other legally enforceable agreement
with a value that exceeds £5,000.

In TDC Constitution Part 4 Rules of Procedure it states at page 125 Paragraph 5.4.6:

5.4.6 that all contracts of a value of £5,000 or more are included on the Council’s
Contract Register, maintained by the Procurement Section to meet
transparency obligations of quarterly publication.

That said TDC do not comply with its own Constitution and as such are breaching its own legal framework.

Tunbridge Wells District Council

On the 25/04/23, TWDC had 24 contracts on its contract register with an estimated value of £132,986,782. Of these 24 contracts, 2 of them, or 8.33% were started before they were awarded. With regards the value of these 2 contracts, the estimated value of them was £219,032 which is equal to 0.16% of the overall estimated value of all contracts.

That said, nowhere in TWDCs Constitution Part 4 – Rules of Procedure does it state that Contract above £5,000 (net) must be published on its website. One also notes TWDC does not publish its purchase order data either. This has been a mandatory requirement since 31/10/2014. 

As Paragraph 32 of the Transparency Code 2015 states:

Local authorities must also publish details of any contract, commissioned activity,
purchase order, framework agreement and any other legally enforceable agreement
with a value that exceeds £5,000

It’s clear TWDC are in breach of the Transparency Code and its Constitution (Legal Framework) is deficient in the requirements it must meet.

So there you have it, Contract Registers, broken procurement rules broken, Constitution’s broken, and the public pound placed in jeopard and at substantial risk. All of this is the responsibility of Cllrs who sit on their respective Audit & Governance Committees, Council Officers, and the external and internal auditors for missing all of this publicly avialble evidence. 

On May 4 you’ll be asked to vote for Cllrs who have sat on their Audit & Governance Committees on each Council. You should truly think about if they be a safe pair of hands to look after your public pound in the future.

The Shepway Vox Team

The Velvet Voices of Voxatiousness