Information on Translation and Interpretation Services

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.030968

I note you seek access to the following information:

I am writing to you regarding the translation and interpreting services, including BSL, used by the force. Please could you provide the following information:

1. Name of service provider or providers
2. Copy of successful tender.
3. Final pricing of successful bidder.
4. Where was this opportunity advertised?
5. Expiry date of the current contract.
6. What was the contract value of all interpreting and translation services in 2022?
7. What proportion of your interpretation services were delivered through telephone in 2022?
8. What proportion of your interpretation services were delivered through video in 2022?
9. What were all the languages requested in 2022?
10. What languages were your suppliers not able to provide in 2022?

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

These searches successfully located information relevant to your request. I will disclose some of the requested information. Question 1 and 4 – 10 will be disclosed under the section titled Information Disclosed. However, I will not disclose a copy of the successful tender or the final pricing of the successful bidder, which is requested in questions 2 and 3

Section 43(2) – Commercial Interests - Section 43(2) allows public authorities to withhold information if it is likely to or would prejudice the commercial interests of the public authority. A commercial interest relates to a public authorities ability to participate competitively in a commercial activity.

The supplier’s tender response and pricing has been used as part of commercial competition and discussions, making this data commercially sensitive. To release this into the public domain would prejudice and thus damage the MPS’ bargaining and negotiating power with suppliers in relation to future competition for this contract. The ICO states that ‘revealing information such as a pricing mechanism can be detrimental to your negotiations on other contracts and procurements’. It is therefore relevant to consider that if an individual or organisation knows how much the MPS pay for an item or service they could use the winning suppliers bid and pricing to their advantage.

In addition to this, the release of the requested data could harm relationships with existing suppliers. The National Police Chiefs Council argues that ‘companies compete by offering something different from their rivals. The difference will often be reflected in their price and may also relate to the quality or specification of the product or service they offer’. The release of the requested data would indeed supply the specifics of the service offered, and provide an advantage to one company over another.

It is worth noting that information that is made available under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is published by the MPS via the publication scheme, making it readily available to the public, and not just the individual making the request. This is significant, as even if there is a public interest that would be satisfied by the release of the requested data this must be balanced against any identified risk. I have identified that the release of the requested data would illuminate two areas, firstly it provides a better understanding of the decision making process and secondly, it provides a better understanding of how public funds are spent. This is a very important factor that I have considered in this balancing test.

Conversely, I have found that the release of the requested data would damage the MPS’ negotiating power with suppliers in future. One of the public interest arguments against disclosure is to ensure a competitive process with no commercial bias. Ultimately, the MPS would not want to provide data that would have a negative impact upon the MPS’s ability to achieve best value in future procurement processes in this area. I find this to be the significant factor in refusing to disclose this part of your request.

Disclosure

Data Caveats
The Met police does not have a contract for interpreting and translating including BSL. It uses its own vetted and qualified self-employed resources, who are contracted on a job by job basis, however it does contract for telephone interpreting only.

Q1 - Name of service provider or providers

We use Language Line for telephoning interpreting ONLY

Q2 - Copy of successful tender

The successful tender has been withheld, please see the legal annex for a full explanation as to why.

Q3 - Final pricing of successful bidder.

The pricing of the successful bidder has been withheld, please see the legal annex for a full explanation as to why.

Q4 - Where was this opportunity advertised?

It was via the Leicestershire Police Language Services Dynamic Purchasing System.

Q5 - Expiry date of the current contract

Initial period ends 31 August 2024 with a 12 month optional extension.

Q6 - What was the contract value of all interpreting and translation services in 2022?

Around £0.75m

Q7 - What proportion of your interpretation services were delivered through telephone in 2022?

107,730

Q8 - What proportion of your interpretation services were delivered through video in 2022?

380

Q9 - What were all the languages requested in 2022?

Please find attached an excel document with the answers to questions 9 and 10.

Q10 - What languages were your suppliers not able to provide in 2022?

Please find attached an excel document with the answers to questions 9 and 10.