Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
Shared Services Post Brent-v-RMC Supreme Court Judgment. Guardian Public Procurement Show 14 th June 2011. Commercial expertise driving value and efficiency in local public services. Who are Local Partnerships?. Jointly owned by HM Treasury & LGA
Guardian Public Procurement Show 14th June 2011
Commercial expertise driving value and efficiency in local public services
Jointly owned by HM Treasury & LGA
Uniquely placed to act as a bridge between central and local government
Focus on achieving servicetransformation and efficiencies e.g. asset management reviews, skills development, training in contract management and project management.
It comprises of public sector and commercial expertise
Entrenched Public Sector Mission
Board of Directors
Delivers long term value by strengthening client side capability
Freely share our intellectual capital
1.Carbon reduction programme
Waste (WIDP, WAG)
Support to Superfast Broadband UK
New Models of Service Delivery (Mutuals)
Place based investment and regeneration
Local Infrastructure support to deliver major capital projects
Assurance (Gateway reviews)
Compliance (support on EU and UK legislative requirements)
Brent initially went out to competition for insurance suppliers but abandoned the competition when agreement reached to pursue LAML route with other LBCs
Risk Management Partners challenged on 2 grounds – 1) no vires to set up LAML and 2) awarding service contracts to LAML amounted to a breach of 2006 PCRs
Scope of dispute had narrowed by Supreme Court stage
Vires issue resolved by new powers expressly permitting mutual insurance arrangements under a 2009 Act.
Brent and RMP settled their differences
Harrow pursued an appeal against the CA ruling below arguing local authorities would effectively be prohibited from using the new powers if they had to go out to competitive tender first because of EU law.1. Brent-v-RMC (2011) – the facts
The case of Teckal SrL v Comune Di Viano (1999) established the Directive only applied to contracts between a public authority and an entity which was formally distinct from it and independent of it in regard to decision making.
In other words – The procurement rules do not apply to ‘in-house’ arrangements such as awarding work to an internal department or DSO which is effectively part of the authority;
Under Teckal, there are two limbs to the ‘in-house’ test: a contracting authority must exercise
“over the person concerned a control which is similar to that which it exercises over its own departments and, at the same time, that person carries out the essential part of its activitieswith the controlling authority or authorities”
Intended to cover in-house services or services provided by a “captive” subsidiary/entity2. The Teckal Exemption