Contact your Parish Council
Appendix 1 – Risk Management – Mid Kent Waste Contract Award
Vulnerability/Risk |
Trigger |
Consequences |
Current Rating |
Contract Award |
- One or more authorities do not agree the award - Bid is not compliant so cannot be awarded - Bidder withdraws from process |
Contract cannot be awarded Reputational risk to the Council Unable to deliver statutory duties Legal costs
|
Likelihood: 2 Impact: 4
Rating:8 |
Deliverability |
- Resource plan is not robust - Mobilisation plan not adequate - Insufficient experience - Data provided is inaccurate - Specification unclear or misinterpreted |
Service failures Reputational risk to the Council Unable to deliver statutory duties
|
Likelihood: 3 Impact: 4
Rating: 12 |
Vehicle availability |
- Lead-times become prolonged - Order books closed - Hire market limited |
Service failures Unable to deliver statutory duties Reputational risk to the Council |
Likelihood: 2 Impact: 4
Rating: 8 |
Financial |
- TUPE information incorrect - Indexation increases significantly |
Contract cost exceeds the budget within MTFS Service reductions required to meet budget Savings required elsewhere to offset costs |
Likelihood: 3 Impact:3
Rating: 9 |
Challenge |
- Contract extension - Non-compliant bid accepted - Process unfair |
Delay to contract award Contract cannot be awarded |
Likelihood: 2 Impact:3
Rating: 6 |
No. |
Current Rating |
Target Rating |
Risk |
|||||
1 |
8 |
6 |
Contract Award |
|||||
Control in place |
Adequacy of controls |
Required action/control |
Responsible Officer |
Success Factors |
Date for Review |
|||
Regular and ongoing engagement with decision makers Decision already taken by Members to pursue this route Maidstone has depot and resources available to offer alternative service if required Business continuity plans Extension option available with incumbent |
Good |
Joint meeting of Cabinet / Executive / Committee if decision is not agreed in December to consider options |
Jennifer Stevens |
Contract Award Decision taken by each authority Letter of Comfort issued |
Weekly until end Jan 2023 |
|||
No. |
Current Rating |
Target Rating |
Risk |
|||||
2 |
12 |
8 |
Deliverability of Service |
|||||
Control in place |
Adequacy of controls |
Required action/control |
Responsible Officer |
Success Factors |
Date for Review |
|||
Competitive Dialogue process to refine solution and issue clarifications Consultant support to review resource plans and submissions Bidder CVs and experience captured in submission Client officers reviewing resourcing and submission and seek clarification Contractual protections in place |
Good |
References followed up Regular mobilisation meetings to identify risks Risk register to be created for mobilisation
|
Jennifer Stevens |
Mobilisation Plan in place and delivered
|
Monthly |
|||
No. |
Current Rating |
Target Rating |
Risk |
|||||
3 |
8 |
6 |
Vehicle Availability |
|||||
Control in place |
Adequacy of controls |
Required action/control |
Responsible Officer |
Success Factors |
Date for Review |
|||
Quotes obtained from vehicle manufacturers with lead-times Contract commencement delayed enabling longer mobilisation period Further extensions of current contract available Vehicle specifications simplified where possible Vehicle hire arrangements in place Reassurance from Fleet Director |
Good |
Regular mobilisation meetings Contingency plans developed Depot to be in place to take delivery of vehicles before contract start
|
Jennifer Stevens |
Vehicles delivered Contract commencement |
Monthly |
|||
No. |
Current Rating |
Target Rating |
Risk |
|||||
4 |
9 |
6 |
Financial |
|||||
Control in place |
Adequacy of controls |
Required action/control |
Responsible Officer |
Success Factors |
Date for Review |
|||
Three-staged process has refined costs Risks have been identified and eliminated from the pricing MTFS based on higher initial cost estimations Local Authority comparator used to ensure costs realistic Section 151 Officer engagement through the process Indexation matched to the actual cost profile of bidders |
Fair |
Projections of indexation factored into costs Review of position on staff pay rates to project increases |
Jennifer Stevens |
Contract cost as of April 2024 is within MTFS budget
|
Monthly |
|||
No. |
Current Rating |
Target Rating |
Risk |
|||||
5 |
6 |
3 |
Challenge |
|||||
Control in place |
Adequacy of controls |
Required action/control |
Responsible Officer |
Success Factors |
Date for Review |
|||
Contract extension within 50% of contract value Agreed early in process before final tender Legal advice sought throughout procurement Consultants advise sought throughout procurement Bid checked for compliance Procurement oversight throughout |
Good |
Extension to be advertised Ongoing dialogue with incumbent to manage process
|
Jennifer Stevens |
Contract Awarded No challenge received |
Weekly until Feb 2023 |
|||