Committee meeting technology used in the MPS

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.027145

I note you seek access to the following information:

I hope all is well. I am currently researching the digitalisation of the UK’s public sector – with a focus on committee meeting technology.

I wanted to ask a few questions regarding this:

1. How do you manage your meetings (organise agenda, minutes etc)? Do you use a committee meeting management software such as a board portal (CMIS, Modern.Gov, iBabs etc) or just emails etc?
2. If yes, what is the name of the supplier?
3. If yes, what is the contract expiry and contract review date?
4. How many users are on the board portal/management solution, and how much do you spend on this?
5. What is your cost per user?

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

Reason for decision

The exemption provided by Section 43 has been utilised, in that to provide costing/
pricing information would be detrimental to the commercial interests of our suppliers and the MPS, and would reduce the level of competition within the procurement process.

Section 43(2) - Commercial Interests - (2) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding it).

In order for the exemption provided under Section 43(2) to be engaged in
this case, the MPS must show that disclosure under the Act would, or would
be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including
the public authority holding it).

In this case, this exemption has been applied as disclosure of pricing
information relating to such technology would prejudice the commercial
interest of the MPS and suppliers.

The information relates to pricing and is provided solely to the MPS during the procurement process. 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 pricing may include discounts, package pricing, services, and other elements that could be of a competitive / strategic advantage during future tenders. It is predominantly the suppliers 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 pricing information would damage their business confidence. Therefore it is possible that the release of this information could prejudice the future commercial interests of the suppliers.

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 suppliers on this subject and
they have evidenced an expectation of non-disclosure, specifically due to
concerns regarding commercial interests.

The perceived harm in disclosing pricing information is not associated with the financial interest of the suppliers, but more so with their ability to engage in a competitive manner within the marketplace.

Furthermore, exposing the discounted cost 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 fleet 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 products; 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 suppliers would restrict our access to certain products and it may force us to use less preferable suppliers. This could subsequently lead to us having to procure less suitable models 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, we have considered whether the public interest lies in favour of releasing pricing 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. We believe this risk, as outlined above, is both real and likely.

Disclosure

Please see below answer to Q1 – Q4.

Q1 - How do you manage your meetings (organise agenda, minutes etc)? Do you use a committee meeting management software such as a board portal (CMIS, Modern.Gov, iBabs etc) or just emails etc?
Q2 - If yes, what is the name of the supplier?
Q3 - If yes, what is the contract expiry and contract review date?
Q4 - How many users are on the board portal/management solution, and how much do you spend on this?

Description: Digital document sharing system used by MPS Management Board and Strategic Secretariat
Supplier: Board Intelligence Transformative Business Reporting - Board Intelligence
Contract Expiry: 11/3/2023
Contract review: All application contracts are subject to regularly review by the Application Lifecycle Manager at a minimum of every two months with a further review carried out annually by the relevant Application Portfolio Mangere in conjunction with MPS Commercial.
Users: 100