National Police and Emergency Services Framework Agreement for Electronic Security, Control Room Systems and Audio-Visual Systems

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.21.021593

I note you seek access to the following information:

National Police and Emergency Services Framework Agreement for Electronic Security, Control Room Systems and Audio-Visual Systems.

The details we require are:
• Suppliers who applied for inclusion on each framework/contract and were successful & not successful at the PQQ & ITT stages
• Actual spend on this contract/framework (and any sub lots), from the start of the contract to the current date
• Start date & duration of framework/contract?
• Could you please provide a copy of the service/product specification given to all bidders for when this contract was last advertised?
• Is there an extension clause in the framework(s)/contract(s) and, if so, the duration of the extension?
• Has a decision been made yet on whether the framework(s)/contract(s) are being either extended or renewed?
• Who is the senior officer (outside of procurement) responsible for this contract?

Decision

I have today decided to disclose some of the requested information. Some data has been withheld as it is exempt from disclosure and therefore this response serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 24(1) National Security;
Section 31(1) Law enforcement;
Section 40(2) - Personal Information
Section 43(2) Commercial Interests

Reason for decision

Before I explain the reasons for the decisions I have made in relation to your request, I thought that it would be helpful if I outline the parameters set out by the Act within which a request for information can be answered. The Act creates a statutory right of access to information held by public authorities. A public authority in receipt of a request must, if permitted, confirm if the requested information is held by that public authority and, if so, then communicate that information to the applicant.

The right of access to information is not without exception and is subject to a number of exemptions which are designed to enable public authorities to withhold information that is not suitable for release. Importantly, the Act is designed to place information into the public domain, that is, once access to information is granted to one person under the Act, it is then considered public information and must be communicated to any individual should a request be received.

Section 24 National Security - By providing Annex B, MPS requirements for the Building Technology Systems and Services framework agreement, lots 1, 2 and 3 could render Security measures less effective. This could lead to the compromise of ongoing or future operations to protect the security or infra-structure of the UK and increase the risk of harm to the public

Section 31 Law Enforcement - By providing Annex B, MPS requirements for the Building Technology Systems and Services framework agreement, lots 1, 2 and 3 would compromise law enforcement tactics and undermine the partnership approach which would hinder the prevention or detection of crime. This would impact on police resources, more crime would then be committed and individuals placed at risk.

The security of the country is of paramount importance and the MPS will not release information if to do so could undermine National Security or compromise law enforcement. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and in this case providing assurance that the police service is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat posed by the criminal fraternity, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding both national security and the integrity of police investigations and operations in this area.

As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced in matters of national security and Law enforcement this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances. Full disclosure of Annex B would render security measures less effective and would be of use to those with a nefarious purpose in mind, to use that information to disrupt ongoing or future operations to MPS services. Transparency of our policies and the way we manage resources should be provided where necessary unless the negative effect of doing so would cause an unreasonable and unjustified risk to the public. I believe the non-disclosure of Annex B would be the greater good and in the public interest.

Section 40 – Personal Information - Details of an investigation could cause an individual to be identified and is therefore exempted in this case.

Section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018 confirms that information which relates to an identified or identifiable living individual is Personal Data.
The Freedom of Information Act provides an exemption for Personal Data and this is known as the section 40 exemption.

Some of the information sought under your Freedom of Information request includes the following which we consider to be Personal Data

• Names within the data, that could, if disclosed, identify an individual.

Where the request is seeking access to third party personal data the section 40(2) exemption may be engaged.
In order to apply the Section 40(2) exemption the disclosure of the requested information must satisfy either the first, second or third conditions as defined by subsections 3A, 3B and 4A of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (as amended by Section 58 of the Data Protection Act 2018).

The first condition ensures that the exemption would apply in circumstances where the disclosure of the information would breach any of the Data Protection Act 2018 principles.

There are six Data Protection principles set out in the 2018 act and these can be found at section 34.
In this instance I have decided that the disclosure of the Personal Data would be incompatible with the first Data Protection principle which states that the processing (in this case the disclosure) of the data must be both lawful and fair.

When considering identifiability it should be assumed that the MPS are not looking just at the means reasonably likely to be used by the ordinary person in the street, but also the means that are likely to be used by a determined person with a particular reason to want to identify individuals.

Identified’ does not necessarily mean ‘named’. It can be enough to be able to establish a reliable connection between particular information and a known individual.’

Section 43 Commercial Interests - By disclosing the information requested would damage ongoing selection contract processes and undermine business relationships. To disclose the requested information would be contractually sensitive.
By placing this information in the public domain would give an unfair advantage to future candidates for the contract tenure process and may lead to the most suitable candidates not being selected, thus rendering the process ineffective. The suppliers of current contracts would not be under the expectation that this information would be placed into the public domain.

Having considered your request, I can see no public interest in disclosing the requested information. On balance and having reviewed the requested information, I have found that the public interest lies in favour of protecting the commercial interests of those who provide products and services to the MPS for selection processes.

You asked for: • could you please provide a copy of the service/product specification given to all bidders for when this contract was last advertised.

The SSQ ITT Contract awards Annex B documents are marked as Restricted, however the Annex B’s were included in the published SSQ/ITT packs and made available to the respective Candidates/Bidders during the tender stages. They contain a lot of information from which could be gleaned some MPS security practices. Whilst they are released to bidders as part of procurements typically this is under NDA or other confidentiality agreement.

Disclosure

• Suppliers who applied for inclusion on each framework/contract and were successful & not successful at the PQQ & ITT stages.

Please see attachment Annex A

• Actual spend on this contract/framework (and any sub lots), from the start of the contract to the current date

MPS response: please see attachment Annex A

• Start date & duration of framework/contract? MPS response.

Start date: 2013 – End date: 2022. The exact date is exempt under Section 31, as IT systems / networks are more vulnerable to attack at contract changeover times.

• Is there an extension clause in the framework(s)/contract(s) and, if so, the duration of the extension?

The Framework does not include an extension provision.

• Has a decision been made yet on whether the framework(s)/contract(s) are being either extended or renewed?

It is not our intention to extend/renew the Framework.

• Who is the senior officer (outside of procurement) responsible for this contract?

MPS Commercial manage the Framework on behalf of Digital Policing and Specialist depts.

Regarding Question 4, Could you please provide a copy of the service/product specification given to all bidders for when this contract was last advertised?

The MPS refuses access to Annex B, the requested information, by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 24(1) National Security;
Section 31(1) Law enforcement;
Section 40(2) - Personal Information
Section 43(2) Commercial Interests