report it parking management system -...

of 24

Environment & Conservation Department

Municipal Offices, 222 Upper Street, N1 1YA

Report of: Lead Member for Sustainability

Report for: Date: Agenda Item Ward(s)

Executive 5 September 2002 F6 All

Report Title:

IT Parking Management System.

Award of Contract (02/035) EXEMPT - NOT FOR PUBLICATION This report is not for publication as it contains exempt information relating to the financial or business affairs of a particular person, not otherwise available under statute and the amount of any expenditure proposed to be incurred by the Authority under a contract for the acquisition of property, or the supply of goods, or services and the identity of the Authority, as well as any other person offering a particular tender for a Contract for the supply of goods, or services in accordance with paragraphs 7, 8 and 10, Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. 1.0 PURPOSE 1.1 This report outlines the rationale for the Council to invest in a new IT

Parking Management System to underpin the necessary improvements’ being made in the service delivery for Islington’s Parking Service.

1.2 The report also sets out the details of a market testing exercise that

has been carried out for the provision of a new IT Parking Management System.

1.3 It details the methodology of the Tender evaluation process and

provides an analysis of the Tenders received as a result of the market test. The report recommends the acceptance of one of the bids

of 24

2.0 RECOMMENDATION 2.1 That the Executive agrees:

a) To accept the Tender submitted by Traffic Support Limited in the sum of £384,000, for supply of computer hardware to be utilised with an ITT Parking Management System.

b) The procurement by the Director of Finance and Property

Services of an operating lease to finance the above amount, provided that such a lease meets criteria that demonstrates that best value for money is secured.

c) To also accept the Tender submitted by Traffic Support Limited

in the sum of £564,550, (inclusive of escrow and bond charges), payable by equal payments of £112,910, for 5 years for the implementation of software and ongoing support for an ITT Parking Management System.

d) The contract to run for a period of 5 years and with a start date

of the 1st October 2002, (subject to Best Value Review after four years) and the option to extend (with the mutual agreement of each of the Parties) for a further period of twelve months.

e) Accept the schedule of rates submitted by Traffic Support

Limited, for the provision of services for additional development work outside the initial implementation costs.

f) That the Contract be entered into in accordance with the

Conditions of Contract issued by the Legal Department and the provisions set out in this report or such other terms and conditions as the Director of Performance Management, Director of Law and Public Services and Director of Finance and Property Services consider to be necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the Council.

g) The Director of Performance Management, Director of Law and

Public Services and Director of Finance and Property Services be authorised to conclude negotiations with Traffic Support Limited and to agree all contract documentation.

h) Agrees to receive further monitoring reports on the performance

of the Council’s contractors as set out in this report.

3.0 BACKGROUND 3.1 The Council carries out parking control in accordance with relevant

legislation, (the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the Road Traffic Act 1991, the Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 1994,

of 24

etc), Traffic Management Orders, Council Policies, the Association of London Government Code of Practice, Government guidance and the terms of the Special Parking Areas.

3.2 In 1994, The Council took over the sole responsibility for enforcing

the parking regulations on yellow line restrictions and permitted parking places. In doing so, the Council procured a computer system for the management of the issue and processing of Penalty Charge Notices and the administration of residents’ permits. This included the provision of a Unix computer server and a number of Hand Held Computers (HHCs’).

3.3 Unfortunately age has taken its toil. The Unix Server is at the end of

its natural life. The Permits administration system never properly worked and did not form any part of the final contract with the supplier. The HHCs concluded their operable lifespan some three years ago and indeed, the hardware still in market supply, ceased being serviceable by the manufacturer two years ago. The PCN processing software is now very dated by today’s standards and is only serviceable by the supplier on an expensive schedule of rates.

3.4 The Council does not currently have a database for handling the

many bay suspensions or waivers, which are arranged on a daily basis. There is no structured permit and voucher database. The Council does not have a dispatch and control system for Immobilisation and removals. Nor does it have a street inventory database. The current IT infrastructure would also not be able to handle the issue of PCNs via closed circuit television (bus lanes).

4.0 RATIONALE FOR A COMPUTER SYSTEM 4.1 Given the background on the current system, there is clearly some

justification for upgrading the system in order to take advantage of the latest technology. By any definition, the parking Service is a multi-million pound business, with a total gross income and expenditure of some £18 million. The parking service has to record and process many thousands of transactions on a daily basis. A comprehensive Parking Management System covering the complete spectrum of the Parking service is required. This includes:

The Issue of PCNs via HHCs Representations, Appeals & Adjudication’s Debt recovery process, Legal Notices and Bailiff Management Permit and Voucher Administration Suspensions, Waivers and Dispensations Street Inventory Management CCTV enforcement software Document Imaging Dispatch & control for Immobilisation and removals Management reports & financial reconciliation’s

of 24

4.2 In financial terms a new computer system such as outlined above will

increase the recoverability of an issued PCN with significant improvement in the debt recovery process. However, there will also be significant improvements in customer focus and service delivery as the various databases will allow greater access to information in dealing with the many any varied enquiries.

4.3 A review of the client requirement began in mid 2001, following the

report to the 30th November 2000 Environment & Conservation Committee, which approved the Parking Improvement Plan that set out a strategic framework for service procurement.

4.4 In determining the requirements for a new computer system and in

recognition of the specialist nature of the service, the Parking service recruited the assistance of an IT consultancy, (COGNETIX), which has a number of years experience in this specialised area.

4.5 A project management team was established, including a

representative from COGNETIX to produce the functional requirements and establish the tender documents. The Council’s Technical Solutions Group, (TSG,) were consulted upon the corporate requirements and functional links. A comprehensive functional requirement document was produced making reference to the following areas:

Prime Objectives

Area / Bay information

PCN Processing & System

Clamping and Removal

Payments

Audit & Security

Appeals

Pay & Display Machines

Bay Suspensions

Permits

Contract Monitoring

Interfaces (both internal and external)

Geographical Information Systems (GIS)

Document Image Processing (D.I.P)

Enforcement Personnel Management 4.6 Officers have worked closely with the Chief Executives Contracts

Administration Unit and with Legal Department and have followed EU rules in procuring these services. Parking Services retained COGNETIX to provide expert advice both on the formulation of the Tender specification and on the evaluation of the Tenderers proposed solutions.

of 24

5.0 TENDER EVALUATION CRITERIA 5.1 Evaluation criteria were initially set by the Parking Services Project

Management Team. The criteria were published in the instructions to Tenderers and used in the evaluation of the submissions.

5.2 A cost analysis breakdown schedule was compiled, requiring

Tenderers to explain their costing methodology for:

Specification and Information Needs Assessment Hardware and Software Solution development Training Security Support and Maintenance Additional Consultancy Other Costs

5.3 A further schedule was appended requiring the Tenderers to list their

rates of daily charging for management, consultancy, training, support, and programming and analysis staff.

5.3 Method Schedules were produced, requiring Tenderers to explain

their alignment to the specification in respect of:

Corporate Standards (Schedule E) Functional requirements (Schedule F) Technical requirements (Schedule H) Security and Audit requirements (Schedule G)

5.4 A summary of the contract specification with method schedules is attached as Appendix (A); the evaluation criteria applied were as follows:

1. Fit to the Council’s functional and technical requirements 2. Fit to the Councils’ E-Government requirements 3. Cost of the solution and the framework provided for the cost of

extending the solution 4. Degree to which proposed solution supports the Council’s

existing technical environment 5. Range of products offered and supported, which meet the

Council’s expected requirements 6. Approach to partnership offered by the Tenderer 7. Approach to the implementation and project management of

the solution 8. Support and maintenance services offered with the solution 9. Conformance with the Councils Standard Terms and

Conditions. 10. Method Schedule compliance.

of 24

6.0 TENDER LETTING AND EVALUATION PROCESS 6.1 A specification for the service was prepared under the Councils open

letting procedure and in accordance with guidance from LBI Legal services and the Contract Administration Unit, (CAU).

6.2 CAU drew up the contract-letting timetable and placed

advertisements, including in OJEC the European Journal, inviting expressions of interest for the supply of services for a five-year period.

6.3 Contract Administration in conjunction with the Parking Manager and

other Parking Service Officers made a preliminary evaluation of the eight companies who returned the pre-qualification questionnaire and a select list was produced.

6.4 Three companies subsequently declined to Tender they were:

1. JAI UK Ltd 2. Langdale Systems Ltd 3. Peek Traffic Ltd

6.5 A further two companies failed to return Tender documents, they

were:

1. Compex 2. GB Corporation 6.6 Three companies returned completed Tender packs by the deadline

of the 15th July 2002, these were:

1. Traffic Support Ltd 2. CIVICA Systems Ltd 3. Spur Information Solutions Ltd 6.7 The Evaluation panel made a preliminary review of the Tenders

submitted and decided to take up references on all 3 companies. 6.8 The panel then carried out its evaluation through the following stages:

1) Tender return analysis 2) Evaluation criteria and Method schedule analysis 3) Presentation, Demonstration Interview and Question

interrogation 4) Award determination

of 24

7.0 TENDER RETURN ANALISYS (Stage One)

7.1 The Parking Services Project Management Panel consisted of the

Parking Manager, Parking Control Manager, Parking I.T Application Manager, Parking Contract Management Officers and the Councils consultants, COGNETIX.

7.2 The panel undertook an initial reading of the Tender returns during

which areas for confirmation or clarification were identified for pursuit within stage three interviewing; in particular attention focused on several key points, as listed below:

Understanding of the Council’s requirements Added value to functionality Implementation Plans Development areas Implementation & recurring costs Transactional logging

7.2 Tenders were evaluated according to the contract specification

criteria as set out in the instructions to Tenderers and the Contract method schedules.

8.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA and METHOD SCHEDULE ANALYSIS

(Stage Two) 8.1 The Tender returns were evaluated, with each evaluation element

given a weighted score as appropriate. The panel then discussed the merits of each award and a reasoned agreement was reached, representing the officers balanced assessment of the Tenderers compliance with the intention of each schedule or criteria. A brief summary for the Master Assessor Grid appears as Table A below indicating the percentage match between the Tenderers proposal and the Councils specification.

Table A: (Overall Evaluation Result Summary)

CIVICA

SPUR

TSL

Max

68%

62%

70%

100%

8.2 Full evaluation of the Tenderers responses to the method schedules

revealed that all three Tenderers displayed areas of non-conformance, requiring further analysis. The panel identified these

of 24

areas, highlighting key points for clarification and addressing these issues at the subsequent stage three interviews.

8.3 Initial analysis of the Tenderers costing schedules also revealed

differences in approach this aspect was explored further during stage three interviews.

8.3.1 Table B (1) below has been produced to compare the Tenderers

solution minus the requirement for Hand Held Computers associated products and licences. Tenderers were not asked to price for a specific Hand Held Computer, (HHC), type and therefore proffered different solutions; further, Tenderers estimated product development costs are included; Thus with these adjustments, a level comparison on price is attained. Table B (1): Comparative Pricing (Ex HHC’s, Inc Upgrade Costs)

CIVICA SPUR TSL

Core Bid

£550, 000

£520, 850

£652, 790

Less HHC’s

(-£158, 475)

£391, 525

(-£230, 000)

£290, 850

(-£420, 000)

£252, 790

System Upgrade Costs

£7, 000

£85, 000

£28, 758

Total

£398, 525

£375, 850

£281, 548

8.3.2 A summary of the Tenderers implementation and subsequent year

annual costs, including HHC provision, but excluding system upgrade costs is shown at Table B (2) below:

Table B (2): Implementation Costs, (Inc HHCs’, Ex Upgrade Costs)

Tenderer

Year 1

Year 2

onwards

CIVICA £550, 000 £65, 000

SPUR £520, 850 £30, 000

TSL £652, 790 £109, 580

of 24

8.4 Tenderers were further requested to provide details of their Schedule

of daily rates for provision of additional services. Table C: (Schedule of Daily Rates Comparison)

Service Type CIVIC SPUR TSL

Project Management £850 £650 £1000

Consultancy £700 £750 £950

Technical Support £700 £650 £950

Senior Programmer £700 £650 £950

Programmer £700 £550 £950

Business Analysis £700 £750 £950

Training £700 £750 £750

Other £900 £0 £450

9 PRESENTATION, DEMONSTRATION INTERVEIW and QUESTION

INTERROGATION (Stage Three)

9.1 Tenderers were invited to attend individual Tender presentation and

demonstration meetings to exemplify their bids. Presentations were arranged for the 30th July and officers of the evaluation panel took the opportunity to further probe the Tenderers bids.

9.2 Tenderers approaches to presentation style differed, but all were

facilitated by provision of audio-visual equipment. 9.3 Tenderers were asked set questions, subsequently formalised in

writing, written response was then required for confirmation. 9.4 The panels’ assessment of the presentations and accompanying

product demonstrations are given form by means of a score rating notated within an evaluation template, summarised within this report by table and notarised within the Tenderers summary in section 13.

9.5 Table D below indicates the comparative score Tenderers achieved

through the panel’s assessment of the presentation and demonstration sessions.

of 24

Table D: (Presentation and Demonstration)

CIVICA SPUR TSL Max Score

80 77 86 100

16

15

17

Score Converted by Divisor

80% 77% 86% Percentage

10 AWARD DETERMINATION 10.1 General 10.1.1 Tenderers Schedule analysis appears below given form by means of

a point ratio and of percentage met. 10.1.2 Points for each segment may follow a range and subsequently where

a maximum score greater than 10 is achievable, a divisor has been used to manage the total within a maximum of 10.

10.1.3 Where a percentage of compliance is registered, the individual

segments actual maximum point score is treated as 100%, with the Tenderers score (pre-divisor rating), shown as a true percentage.

10.2 Schedule E: Corporate Standards 10.2.1 Table E below indicates the Tenderers compliance with the Corporate

Standards Schedule.

Table E: (Corporate Standards)

CIVICA SPUR TSL

Supplied 47 78 58

Qualified 18 1 13

Unmet 14 0 8

Score from 79 56 78 65

Percentage at 100% 71% 99% 81%

of 24

10.2.2 Scores were achieved for matching any of the Councils mandatory criteria, with one half point awarded for any partial match.

10.3 Schedule F: Functional Requirements 10.3.1 Table F below indicates the Tenderers compliance with the

Functional Requirements Schedule. Table F: (Functional Requirements)


2311 638 2293 2567

9.0

2.49

8.93

Score Converted by

Divisor

90% 25% 89% Percentage of 100%

Nb: Spur’s percentage in this category is low due to the paucity of their systems match with the specification.

10.3.2 Each, functional requirement was given a rating of 1 – 5 points, with

scores awarded accordingly where a match occurred. 10.4 Schedule G: Security and Audit Requirements 10.4.1 Table G below indicates the Tenderers compliance with the Security

and Audit requirements Schedule. Table G: (Security and Audit Requirements)


191 186.5 169.5 198

9.65

9.42

8.56

Score Converted by

Divisor


10.4.2 Scores were achieved for matching a Security or Audit requirement,

with one half point for any partial match.

of 24

10.5 Schedule H: Technical Requirements. 10.5.1 Table H below indicates the Tenderers compliance with the Security

and Audit requirements Schedule. Table H: (Technical Requirements)


171.5 176.5 178.5 194

8.75 9.01 9.11 Score Converted by Divisor


10.5.2 Scores were achieved for matching a Technical requirement, with

one half point for any partial match. 11 HAND HELD COMPUTERS AND PRINTERS 11.1 During the last years there has been an explosion in the number of

companies offering handheld devices. This has been prompted to some extent by advances in mobile data technology. Other reasons for the growth in this sector has been the development of both personal and industrial applications relating to data capture. There are now so many devices on the market that it is difficult to make an informed choice. There are several examples of parking applications being run on inappropriate units with disastrous results.

11.2 In assessing our needs and the examples supplied by the Tenderers,

the evaluation panel came to the conclusion that the DAP CE5240 handheld device and Seiko Printer best suit our needs.

11.3 The DAP is amongst the heaviest of such devices on the market but

its longevity and robustness means it is best suited to our operating needs. Aside from the usual HHC attributes of data integrity, date and time stamping, the DAP also operates on Windows CE and can support a PCMCIA modem card for real time downloading of PCNs should the Council decide to use this facility. The DAP also supports IrDA wireless connection for the printer.

11.4 The Seiko DPU3445 printer is a hand held portable printer

incorporating a low-voltage thermal printer mechanism. The quality and clarity of print is excellent and the unit supports IrDA wireless connection protocol.

11.5 In order to avoid conflict to software and equipment supplier it is our

intention to purchase them from the same source.

of 24

12 HEALTH AND SAFETY 12.1 Tenderers submitted their Health and Safety policies and CAU

confirms that as a software contract, a demonstration that this policy is embedded within the organisation meets our requirements.

13 EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES / DIGNITY FOR ALL 13.1 CAU confirms that as a software contract, equalities information

provided by Tenderers is adequate. 14 NON-PREFFERRED CONTRACTORS 14.1 CIVICA and SPUR were deemed by the panel to be non-preferred

Tenderers, the reasons for this assessment are set out against the criteria for selection as listed below:

14.2 CIVICA 14.2.1 CIVICA, as part of the Sanderson Group, has provided managed

software solutions to the public and private sector since 1983.

14.2.2 Currently CIVICA’s London Local Authority clients include; City of London, LB Redbridge, LB Harrow, LB Barking and Dagenham, LB Camden, LB Hounslow, LB Barnet, LB Wandsworth, LB Tower Hamlets, LB Haringey, LB Southwark and LB Bromley, with recent acquisitions to their corporate client list including five NHS trusts, three Police forces and Euro Tunnel.

14.2.3 CIVICA systems bill £2 billion of Local Government revenue each year, with more than 2 million parking tickets handled by CIVICA systems in 2001.

14.2.4 Fit to the Council’s functional and technical requirements CIVICA are compliant with the Councils Prime Functional Objectives, however there system fails to fully match several key elements, including a non-compliance with the requirement to provide a facility to analyse the outcome of appeals with the adjudication service.

14.2.5 Fit to E-Government requirements CIVICA’s tender submission included a reference to their ability to provide an e-commerce solution and cited the London Borough of Wandsworth as an example. However, Officers of the evaluation panel were aware of how long this project took to implement and that other third party solutions have successfully been linked into the CIVICA system.

of 24

14.2.6 Cost of the solution and the framework provided for the cost of

extending the solution CIVICA’s implementation solution is proposed at a cost of £550,000. This sum includes the provision of hand held computers (Husky FS3), but excludes maintenance costs for the devices. CIVICA’S solution offered without taking their option for HHCs’ and associated products is £391, 525 this is the highest bid. It has further proven difficult to obtain from CIVICA a definitive estimate of cost to the Council for product development.

CIVICA state that:

“Our system conforms to the majority of your specification”. However, areas of the specification that are not met by CIVICA are largely merely notated as system non-compliances, without recourse to chargeable enhancement.

14.2.7 Degree to which proposed solution supports the Council’s existing technical environment The panel were concerned that CIVICA’s proposal shows a leaning toward a UNIX system, the Councils chosen environment is NT / SQL based. All Tenderers were asked if their product was completely portable between different ANSI SQL compliant data base platforms, such as MS SQL, Oracle and DB2.

CIVICA’s answer was NO, stating that;

“As part of our planned product development the full CIVICA Parking Enforcement System will be available to operate with ANSI SQL compliant database platforms. Within CIVICA we have a wealth of database expertise. Many other product areas such as Police, Legal, Trading Standards and Environmental Health already use MS SQL Server and ORACLE databases; the entire CIVICA Parking Enforcement System will be available thereafter”.

14.2.8 Range of products offered and supported, which meet the Council’s expected requirements

Tenderers were asked if the application used transaction based SQL for all database updates and if no, the extent, cost to the client and availability of an SQL upgrade.

of 24

CIVICA’s answer was evasive and self serving; as follows:

“Whilst transaction logging is available, we have not implemented it in any of our existing installations and this has had no detrimental effect on the operation of those sites”. “In the event that the Authority decide to move to database independence, facilities of that database will be available”. The panel was concerned that CIVICA’s solution does not immediately offer a transaction-logging environment. Whilst they state this has had no detrimental effect on the operation of other sites, at least two members of the evaluation panel were aware of the substantial amount of downtime generated by the CIVICA system as a result of not having transactional logging.

14.2.9 Approach to partnering offered by the Tenderer CIVICA stated that they would like to develop a partnership approach with the local authority, as did all the Tenderers. Indeed, there was a good dialogue between the evaluation panel and CIVICA with regard to partnering. However, it was noticeable that CIVICA’s approach to their partnership is that there is little tailoring on their system and that we are expected to operate and conform to their system. In many respects this is understandable with the number of clients that CIVICA has. However, while this does minimise the support it does restrict the system to a generic approach.

14.2.10 Approach to the implementation and project management of the solution

CIVICA stated that their implementation and project management would be to Prince 2 standards. The implementation timetable was comparable to the other Tenderers.

14.2.11 Support and maintenance services offered with the solution The evaluation panel was satisfied with the level of support and maintenance offered by CIVICA within their solution.

14.2.12 Conformance with the Councils Standard Terms and Conditions CIVICA’s submission requires negotiation with the Council regarding Terms and Conditions; in particular CIVICA is unable to provide a Parent Company Guarantee or Contract Guarantee Bond.

of 24

14.2.13 Method Schedule compliance CIVICA rated second in evaluation with an overall rating of 68% for

method criteria met. Summary tables appear in the body of this report.

14.2.14 Summary

The evaluation panel assessed that although CIVICA appear to offer a tried and tested solution its product roots were of a previous era.

With so many current clients using an outmoded infrastructure environment the panel defined that any innovative or progressive work would be carried out on the back of this Council’s contract. It was further opined that CIVICA’s heavy client list would impact upon its ability to fully meet the support service requirements Islington would demand.

14.3 SPUR

14.3.1 The SPUR group was formed in 1982, SPUR Electron provides

engineering and consultancy to the space industry, and they build and test satellites. Spur Information Solutions Ltd, (S.I.S), the specialist I.T arm is nine years old.

14.3.2 S.I.S produce assurance systems for the European Space Agency and NASA, Internet Web systems and bespoke databases for Finance, Banking and Manufacturing sectors and commercial software for Local Authorities.

14.3.3 S.I.S distributed Parking Office for Windows with Langdale Systems Ltd prior to selling the rights in March 2002. Hence the launch of a new product “SI-DEM”

14.3.4 Fit to the Council’s functional and technical requirements SPUR are compliant with the Councils Prime Functional Objectives, however there system fails to align with much of the functionality aspect, requiring SPUR to suggest at least 159 chargeable days of project development at an estimated additional charge of £85, 000. Technical requirements are also not sufficiently aligned and will require further chargeable development.

14.3.5 Fit to E-Government requirements SPUR’s tender submission included a reference to their ability to provide an e-commerce solution. However, this was one of the areas that would need further development.

of 24

14.3.6 Cost of the solution and the framework provided for the cost of

extending the solution SPUR’s implementation costs were the lowest, £520, 850 including HHCs’, and the second lowest excluding HHCs’ £375, 850. However there is much unmatched system functionality requiring extensive development. Although a framework exists for extending the solution it would appear that time and money would be initially used in the alignment work required to fit the solution to the specification.

14.3.7 Degree to which proposed solution supports the Council’s existing technical environment The Councils chosen environment is NT / SQL based, all Tenderers were asked if their product was completely portable between different ANSI SQL compliant data base platforms, such as MS SQL, Oracle and DB2.

SPUR’s response provides only a partial match. “Si-Dem requires a SQL Server 2000 back-end database and is not guaranteed to be portable between Oracle and DB2. Portability for Si-Dem is not planned for the product”.

14.3.8 Range of products offered and supported, which meet the Council’s expected requirements Tenderers were asked if the application used transaction based SQL for all database updates and if no, the extent, cost to the client and availability of an SQL upgrade.

SPUR’s response was affirmative. “Yes, Si-Dem employs transaction based SQL for all database updates”.

14.3.9 Approach to partnering offered by the Tenderer There was a good dialogue between the evaluation panel and SPUR with regard to partnering. Indeed, the degree of development required on their system makes a partnership approach essential in order to ensure that a new bespoke system operates properly.

of 24

14.3.10 Approach to the implementation and project management of the solution SPUR’s methodology statement for project management was acceptable. The implementation timetable was comparable to the other Tenderers, although the areas for development do inevitably lengthen the whole implementation process.

14.3.11 Support and maintenance services offered with the solution The evaluation panel was satisfied with the level of support and maintenance offered by SPUR within their solution.

14.3.12 Conformance with the Councils Standard Terms and Conditions SPUR will comply with the Council’s Terms and Conditions

14.3.13 Method Schedule compliance SPUR rated third in evaluation with an overall rating of 62% for

method criteria met. Summary tables appear in the body of this report.

14.3.14 Summary The evaluation panel assessed that SPUR with their new ”SI-Dem”

product were a relatively new contractor to the parking industry. Their product had not been thoroughly field tested with a Local London Authority, nor did the product full fill enough of the Council’s specification criteria to warrant confidence in its suitability to operate effectively for this borough.

15 PREFERRED CONTRACTOR 15.1 Traffic Support Ltd is the panels preferred Tenderer with the reason

for this resolution is set out within the terms of the selection criteria listed below:

15.2 Traffic Support Ltd

15.2.1 Traffic Support Limited is a company established specifically to service the needs of the decriminalised parking services. Traffic Support’s ICPS product is developed specifically for RTA 91 services, is Microsoft Windows based and runs on industrial strength data base technology.

15.2.2 The ICPS solution offers a logical workflow, generates all outgoing

correspondence in Crystal Reports, allows system backup whilst still allowing system usability, will restore to the last input record, will

of 24

prepare case history reports for appeals or internal review automatically.

15.2.3 Traffic Support are further involved in embedded technology

development groups including Bluetooth and GPS.

15.2.4 Fit to the Council’s functional and technical requirements Traffic Support Ltd is compliant with the Councils Prime Functional Requirements. Where functional requirements are not met their approach is broadly to offer free upgrades with some limited chargeable events.

15.2.5 Fit to E-Government requirements TSL’s tender submission included a reference to their ability to provide an e-commerce solution they had clearly researched Islington and have made references to linking their system to Islington Eyes, Abandon Vehicles, Street Wardens and Street Management.

15.2.6 Cost of the solution and the framework provided for the cost of extending the solution Traffic Supports implementation costs at first, with the inclusion of HHCs’ and associated products, appear high £652, 790, however, much of this cost is attributed to the high grade choice of HHC (DAP CE5240), thus an analysis of the pricing schedule minus the cost of the DAP reveals Traffic Supports bid to be the lowest at £282, 548. Chargeable development work has been sensibly appraised and presented at a cost of £28, 758.

15.2.7 Degree to which proposed solution supports the Council’s existing technical environment The Councils chosen environment is NT / SQL based. All Tenderers were asked if their product was completely portable between different ANSI SQL compliant data base platforms, such as MS SQL, Oracle and DB2.

Traffic Supports reply supports this environment. “Yes it is, though all current sites have preferred to use SQL Server. We have ported and load tested the software on several platforms including Oracle and DB2. The DB2 port was specifically for the London Borough of Lambeth though they ultimately have mobilised using SQL. The Oracle porting and load testing has been done for another potential London client and we are happy to demonstrate this database to you”.

of 24

15.2.8 Range of products offered and supported, which meet the

Council’s expected requirements Tenderers were asked if the application used transaction based SQL for all database updates and if no, the extent, cost to the client and availability of an SQL upgrade.

Traffic Supports response was precluded by their compliance to the requirements of the previous section.

“Not applicable”

15.2.9 Approach to partnering offered by the Tenderer There was a good dialogue between the evaluation panel and TSL with regard to partnering. More importantly, TSL have taken the innovative approach of suggesting that we annualise the costs for the software and licences at no additional costs in order to ensure that we receive maximum support. It is also clear that TSL are looking for a London reference site and is prepared to provide added value in the installation.

15.2.10 Approach to the implementation and project management of the solution TSL gave a methodology statement on their implementation and project management. They will establish a project board with the Council to drive the implementation and to proactively review the project as installation proceeds. The implementation timetable was comparable to the other Tenderers. Of note is the pragmatic view expressed by TSL that the end users be given sufficient time for the system implementation.

15.2.11 Support and maintenance services offered with the solution The evaluation panel was satisfied with the level of support and maintenance offered by SPUR within their solution.

15.2.12 Conformance with the Councils Standard Terms and Conditions

Traffic Support cannot accept any term or condition that exposes it to unlimited consequential loss, however, a negotiated mutually agreeable position can be achieved.

15.2.13 Method Schedule compliance Traffic Support Limited rated first in the overall evaluation

assessment with a 70% rating for evaluation criteria met. Summary tables appear in the body of this report.

of 24

15.2.14 Summary The evaluation panel notes that Traffic Support operates a London

based, (Kentish Town, Camden); help desk and maintenance support office, within a short distance from Upper Street.

New version releases are fully compatible with existing ICPS

systems, are free to upgrade, subject to client acceptance and are available every 18 – 24 months.

The evaluation panel notes that Traffic Support is eager to offer

added value by interfacing the ICPS system with other initiatives, such as ‘Eyes for Islington’.

Traffic Support do not champion any third party involvement above

procurement of hardware and licences, offering ownership for development, support, maintenance and training for ICPS products.

The evaluation panel notes that Traffic Support offer to recover the

value of the contract over the five- year term of the contract, allowing the Council confidence in their commitment to providing on-going support for their product.

The evaluation panel is aware that the ICPS product is being used,

under RTA conditions, with the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham and with Stoke-on-Trent City Council and is currently being implemented in the LB of Lambeth.

15.2.15 Conclusion The evaluation panel conclude that of the three applicants Traffic

Support and Civica come closest to meeting the requirements of the Specification, with Spur falling someway short of the other Tenderers.

When closely comparing the TSL and Civica bids it is apparent that TSL offer the Council the best value for money and are the best choice to supply and maintain a Parking Management System, particularly in the following areas.

Civica’s system does not currently offer the ability to interface with

other services, such as the adjudication service. TSL’s system can do this and further offers added value by offering to interface with Council initiatives such as Eyes for Islington.

Civica solution does not provide transaction logging, as this

requirement has not been implemented at any of their other sites. TSL ‘s solution provides transaction logging.

of 24

The Council’s require an MS SQL, Oracle or DB2 supported environment, Civica do not comply with this requirement, and TSL does.

TSL’s solution for software and support services is more than £100,00

keener then the cost of £391,525, proffered by Civica.

Civica do not wish to comply with the requirement for a performance bond, TSL have.

16 Financial Implications

16.1 Provision has already been made in the recent on-street enforcement

contract report whereby the enforcement contractor is supplying the necessary hand held devices for the parking attendants in the north area. Based on this evaluation report the recently appointed enforcement contractor will be required to purchase the same HHCs for use on their contract.

16.2 TSL has offered to annualise the costs of software and licenses over

the period of the contract at no additional cost to the Council. This report is further seeking to purchase a number of HHCs for the in-house enforcement team in the South Area.

Traffic Support Limited Year 1 Years 2-5

Total 5yr cost

Smoothed out Pricing

Annual 5yr cost

Cost Categories £ £ £ £ £

TSL Internal Costs

ICPS Back Office System – License Fees 138,000 3,450 151,800 30,360 151,800

ICPS Back Office System – Maint. & Support Fees 31,050 31,050 155,250 31,050 155,250

HHC Software – License, Maint. & Support Fees 36,000 36,000 180,000 36,000 180,000

205,050 70,500 487,050 97,410 487,050

Implementation

Training 31,500 0 31,500 6,300 31,500

Installation 19,800 0 19,800 3,960 19,800

Implementation 9,000 0 9,000 1,800 9,000

265,350 70,500 547,350 12,060 60,300

547,350

Other costs: Escrow / Bond charges 17,200 3,440 17,200

Smoothed out Costs 112,910 564,550

External Costs Hardware

HHC’s 324,000

Mobile Printers 60,000

Hardware Purchase 384,000

of 24

16.4 The annual costs of licences and maintenance etc. will be met from the Parking Account. Costs in the current year can be met within the existing net budget. It is expected that full year costs (£112,910) will be covered by additional income provided that income targets are met.

16.5 It is proposed that the Hand Held Computers (Purchase cost £384,000)

be obtained via an operational lease, which is likely to cost some £85,000 per annum for five years. These costs will also be met from the Parking Account. Details of the leasing proposals will be the subject of a separate report.

17 Legal Implications

17.1 The Council has power to enter into the Contract for Parking

Management Services with Traffic Support Limited (“TSL”) under Section 1 of the Local Government (Contracts) Act 1977. TSL will supply Goods and perform Services as specified in the Tender documents in order to run the Parking Management System. The Services and Supplies are properly required for the purposes of discharging the Council’s statutory functions for the management of parking services in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (as amended), the Road Traffic Acts 1988 and 1991, the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994 and additional codes of practice, policies and regulations.

17.2 The procurement has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements’ of the Council’s Procurement Code and the European Procurement Regulations. 17.3 The three Tenders, which have been received by the Council, have

been evaluated in accordance with the criteria in the tender evaluation model. Overall the Tender received from TSL has been evaluated as the most economically advantageous to the Council.

17.4 The Council has issued the Tender using the open procedure in order to ensure that value for money is obtained for the Council by securing the ultimate balance between service obligations and the Suppliers pricing for those obligations. 17.5 The Legal Department has been informed that the Conditions of

Contract containing (a) terms for sale and maintenance of Software and (b) terms for sale and maintenance of Hardware, each of which were proposed by the Council, have been qualified by TSL. As a consequence, the Legal Department recommends the Tender from TSL be accepted subject to negotiation of the said Conditions of Contract to a standard acceptable to the Council prior to the Council accepting the Tender submitted by TSL on an unconditional basis.

17.6 In deciding whether to award the Contract to TSL, the Council must

comply with the principles of administrative law including taking into

of 24

account all relevant considerations, the outcome of the evaluation and financial implications. In particular, in order to comply with the Council’s fiduciary duty and the duty to ensure Best Value, the Executive must be satisfied that the Tender represents value for money for the Council.

Background papers- Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 Road Traffic Act 1991 (As amended) Traffic Management & Parking Guidance for London Parking Committee for London – Code of Practice on Parking Enforcement ITT Parking Management System Tender Documents ITT Parking Management System Evaluation Template Tenderers Responses Tenderers Response Stage Three Interview Questionnaire Document holder Steve Shaw Designation Parking Contract Management Team Tel 020 7 527 7635 Mob 07773 289 050 E-mail steven.shaw@islington. gov.uk Final Report Clearance Signed by

Executive Member for Sustainability Date

Received by

Head of Scrutiny and Democratic Services Date Report author Gary Griffiths Designation Parking Manager Tel 020 7527 2825 Fax 020 7527 2729 E-mail [email protected]

mailto:steven.shaw@islington