BRS and National Framework for provision of Emergency Boarding Up and Locksmith Services
Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.025153
I note you seek access to the following information:
Please note that this decision letter replaces the previous MPS response sent to you on the 6 July 2022.
I note you seek access to the following information:
The Metropolitan Police entered in to The National Framework for the provision of Emergency Boarding Up and Locksmith Services with a number of different forces. Please provide the following:
1. An unredacted copy of all pages of the full contract between Boing Rapid Secure (BRS) and all forces in the framework. For avoidance of doubt and to empathise what I am requesting, I do not want a link to a website with just a start date and end date of the contract, but I actually want to see the agreement that was entered in to and signed by the Metropolitan Police and BRS. If you are not sure, please ask for clarification.
2. Details of how BRS was appointed and what the criteria was for BRS to be granted this public contract.
3. What payment details were negotiated and how this was deemed value for money. Was there a fixed sun paid to BRS for being awarded the contract.
4. Who were the other bidders that forwarded a tender offer
5. Herts Police have advised that there is no fixed price for what is charged. Please confirm the minimum amount that has been charged, the maximum amount that has been charged and what is the average amount charged each time the Police request their services. Please provide a list of charges they apply based on the work that's needed.
6. Is there a minimum amount of times that you are required to call out BRS. What incentives are given each time BRS are called out.
7. Does anyone with the joint framework have any financial incentives given by BRS or did/does anyone personally know the directors/employees of BRS.
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 43 (2) - Commercial Interests
Section 40(2) and 40(3A)(a) – Personal information
Reason for decision
With regards to your questions around pricing information, the MPS has exempted the details as we are likely to start the next procurement process later this year.
Section 43(2) – Commercial Interests - A Freedom of Information Act request is not a private transaction. Both the request itself, and any information disclosed, are considered suitable for open publication. This is because, under the Act, any information disclosed is released into the wider public domain, effectively to the world, not just to an individual. Whilst not questioning the motives of the applicant any information disclosed in relation to this request could be of use to those who seek to cause harm to the relationship with our suppliers.
The information relates to the National Framework for the provision of Emergency Boarding Up and Locksmith Services. The MPS has exempted the pricing details as we are likely to start the next procurement process later this year. This is provided solely to the MPS during the procurement process. Our suppliers do not have the expectation that this information will be shared with competing companies. By disclosing this information under the Act, it becomes public and thereby could be used by competitors to inform future business decisions, which would significantly impact the market position of our suppliers. This is because costs may include discounts, package pricing, services, and other elements that could be of a competitive / strategic advantage during future tenders. It is predominantly the companies who hold the commercial interests for this business area and therefore would be directly prejudiced by the disclosure of the information sought in this request. Ultimately the disclosure of the information would damage their business confidence. Therefore it is possible that the release of this information could prejudice the future commercial interests of our services.
It would be harmful to the commercial interests of the MPS to disclose the requested information as this would prove detrimental to the relationship between the MPS and our suppliers and as a result damage the bargaining position of the MPS. This may in turn impact the procurement of similar products in the future, as companies would be less willing to share details with the MPS through fear of disclosure under the Act. The MPS has previously consulted with companies on this subject and they have evidenced an expectation of non-disclosure, specifically due to concerns regarding commercial interests.
The perceived harm in disclosing tender information is not associated with the financial interest of the services supplier, but more so with their ability to engage in a competitive manner within the marketplace.
Furthermore, exposing the discounted cost at which these services are supplied to the MPS could potentially provide an indication of manufacturer profit margin when studied in parallel to list prices.
As the ICO Freedom of Information Awareness Guidance states, "there is a public interest in ensuring that companies are able to compete fairly". The level of competition within the procurement process would be directly affected by the release of the requested information. If commercially sensitive information relating to current suppliers were to be placed into the public domain, then the MPS would not be able to easily obtain aggregated public sector discounts in their future commercial activities. Potential details surrounding these discounted costs would be exposed to the wider market for such services and could result in increased costs. This would be of detriment to the public purse.
It is not in the public interest for the relationship between the MPS and suppliers to be negatively affected. This is due to the fact that harm to, or termination of, these relationships may result in the MPS being unable to procure our preferred choice of services; which we require to facilitate effective policing. In the event that our current suppliers terminate their relationship with the MPS, we would have to seek out new suppliers and renegotiate terms. By narrowing the range of manufacturers that will supply to us, we would restrict our access to certain services and it may force us to use less preferable suppliers. This could subsequently lead to us having to procure less suitable services or utilise public funds in a less efficient manner.
Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing resources and providing reassurance that the MPS is appropriately and effectively procuring equipment and services, there is also a strong public interest in knowing that policing activity with regard to the delivery of law enforcement is operationally effective.
With regard to commercial interest, we have considered whether the public interest lies in favour of releasing the requested information into the public domain or whether there is sufficient reason to support withholding the requested information. Having considered your request and having examined the associated risk in release, we have found there is a risk to the commercial interests of our suppliers.
Section 40(2)&(3) – Personal Information - I consider that Section 40(2) and 40(3A)(a) is applicable in this case, as disclosure at this level of detail, as would be contained with the requested information, would breach the 1st data protection principle that requires personal data to be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to individuals.
There is no presumption of disclosure in relation to ‘personal data’ which is defined as: ‘any information relating to an identified or identifiable living individual’
“Identifiable living individual” means a living individual who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to—
(a) an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data or an online identifier, or
(b) one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of the individual.’
For such disclosure to be lawful, it would be necessary to satisfy a condition within Article 6 of the UK GDPR. Article 6 sets out the six lawful bases for processing applying to all processing; one of which must be in place in every case of disclosure of personal data under FOIA, in accordance with the First Data Protection Principle.
I am satisfied that the disclosure of personal data as would be contained within the requested information would be unwarranted in the circumstances of this request. This is because the disclosure of this personal data is not necessary to satisfy the legitimate public interest and in relation to personal data, there is no presumption of disclosure. Furthermore, none of the conditions specified within Article 6 of the UK GDPR would be met.
Disclosure
Q1 - An unredacted copy of all pages of the full contract between Boing Rapid Secure (BRS) and all forces in the framework. For avoidance of doubt and to empathise what I am requesting, I do not want a link to a website with just a start date and end date of the contract, but I actually want to see the agreement that was entered in to and signed by the Metropolitan Police and BRS. If you are not sure, please ask for clarification.
A1. Please see attached documents titled
‘Contract Document (Part 1 of 2)’ – pages 1 -80
‘Contract Document (Part 2 of 2)’ – pages 81 – 156
The following redactions are applicable:
Section 40 (personal information) – pages 118, 132 and 151.
Section 43 (commercial interests) – pages 131, 133 and 134
Q2 - Details of how BRS was appointed and what the criteria was for BRS to be granted this public contract.
A2. BRS responded to an invitation to tender that was published on Bluelight Tender Portal 23rd July 2019 and 2 bidders responded.
The award criteria was set as the bid that offered the Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT). OJEU contract notice reference number TEDB8-OGC2019-55025.
Q3 - What payment details were negotiated and how this was deemed value for money.
A3. See Specification Schedule.
Q3a - Was there a fixed sun paid to BRS for being awarded the contract.
A. NO
Q4 - Who were the other bidders that forwarded a tender offer
A4. GRG Public Resources Ltd
Q5 - Herts Police have advised that there is no fixed price for what is charged.
Q5a - Please confirm the minimum amount that has been charged,
A. this depends on the task carried out but will be in line with the pricing schedule.
Q5b - the maximum amount that has been charged
A. as above
Q5c - and what is the average amount charged each time the Police request their services.
A. Exempted s43
Q5d - Please provide a list of charges they apply based on the work that's needed.
A. Exempted s43
Q6 - Is there a minimum amount of times that you are required to call out BRS.
A6. NO
Q6a - What incentives are given each time BRS are called out.
A. NONE, costs are in line with the contract prices
Q7 - Does anyone with the joint framework have any financial incentives given by BRS
A. NO but this question is better asked directly to the framework users. Please note the Framework users did not take part in the tendering process. This contract was tendered and awarded by the MPS.
Q7a - or did/does anyone personally know the directors/employees of BRS.
A. See response above.