Environment Agency Awards Fisheries Contract to the Angling Trust

[bennygesserit]

Peter I’m neither arguing it’s right or wrong, here just that that’s the way it’s done in officialdom circles right across the board from local councils to Government. The term used for this is “Approved Contractors List.” To become a AC and get on the list you, the applicant, fill in the pre-qualification questionnaire, which then shows you have the capacity to deliver the services you may be asked to tendering for.
It’s designed to weed out those who don’t have the capacity to deliver the services and are making a speculative bid, only for it to go tits up 12 + months later.
And this happens more often than you’d expect. Two recent cases I can think of is Kids Company and an ATOS contract with DWP.

I guess you call it in your field, doing due diligence on the contractors.

The pre-qualification questionnaire would have many questions on it designed to show those assessing it X meets the standards the body is looking for.
Also given the monetary value to this contract it would have to be advertised and offered right across the EU under the rules of the EU for public contracts.

As it’s now a signed deal all the documents related to it should be open to public scrutiny if asked for. Failure on the part of the EA to reveal those documents to anybody asking for them should be challenged under FOI Act.

I'd be surprised if there was anything at all wrong with the procurement given how much scrutiny is given to public spending these days

---------- Post added at 07:31 ---------- Previous post was at 07:27 ----------

Sorry Benny I cant see anything in that piece that says that Sport England will match whatever the AT are getting from the EA.

As part of The Whole Sports Plan angling will get 1.8 million from Sport England for the period 2013--- 2017, as we are now into 2015 some of that cash must already have been paid to the AT.

This is the EA ducking its responsibilities by farming them out to the AT at the expense of anglers because sure as eggs are eggs after the consultations between the EA and the AT licence fees are set to rise with anglers getting a poorer service than they should because of cutbacks.

Will the AT be putting more bailiffs on the bank to control fish thefts? I doubt it other than the volunteer scheme which the AT is already involved with. What else is likely to improve due to this contract that isn't part of the EA and AT mandate already?

In short I believe that between them both they have stitched anglers up with this passing the buck.

you are right I may have misinterpreted this https://www.gov.uk/government/news/environment-agency-awards-fisheries-contract

I tell you what would be good if we had a statement from Martin Salter on here be qute a coup for FM

 

[bennygesserit]

Of course the fear is that our license money has now become one step removed from the democratic process and the AT are not quite so obliged to tell us what they are spending it on.

 

[The bad one]

Of course the fear is that our license money has now become one step removed from the democratic process and the AT are not quite so obliged to tell us what they are spending it on.

Not quite so Benny, if you take public money as in grants or for contracts, you as a body are bound by the obligations the EA would be, it's usually explicit in the T&C of the contract. You're also bound by the FOI Act as well

 

[Graham Elliott 1]

I was truly hoping the A.T. would at sometime demand the stripping out of hormonal disharges into the riverine environment.

I think its pretty much accepted that this is the major cause of lack of recruitment.


A miniscule amount of the money spent on the inexact science of global warming/greenhouse gases etc would enable this.

I guess the teeth of the potential saviour have been pulled out and the rest bought off.

 

[bennygesserit]

Not quite so Benny, if you take public money as in grants or for contracts, you as a body are bound by the obligations the EA would be, it's usually explicit in the T&C of the contract. You're also bound by the FOI Act as well

Yes you are right.
But the manner in which the aims of the project can be achieved is now , partly interpreted by the AT and there is no an additional layer in the way of total transparency. Not that you get that anyway but with the EA spending the money an FOI can be applied against that spend.
Correct me if I am wrong but you cannot foi the AT spending for instance.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Correct me if I am wrong but you cannot foi the AT spending for instance. Share Share this post on Twitter Share on Facebook | Like

That is correct as the Angling Trust is a privately owned Company (Private, limited by guarantee, no share capital) and not an offical public sector organisation.

That said, as a company they are obliged to publish their annual accounts for open scrutiny the same as all other companies. The next accounts are due 31/12-2105

Info' on how to make an FoI is found here: https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-information-request/organisations-you-can-ask-for-information

 

[bennygesserit]

I don't automatically assume the AT will spend the money badly but I don't assume they will spend it well either. Grants are notorious fur producing non sustainable results and for being expensive as the Sharks ( suppliers ) sense the chum.

 

[The bad one]

With respect to both of you, you can for the money they take for the public contract work. It form part of the T&C of the contract and is explicitly stated in them. I know because I've done it under FOI regarding a large Envo Charity and the money it was getting from a particular Council.

In sort if you take on a contract for a public body you are subject to everything under FOI that that body would have been if they were running it themselves.
And yes they have to keep separate accounting systems for each public contract they have is the answer to the next question you were going to ask.

When making an FOI request for this arm-length service contract you make your initial request to the contract issuer, in this case the EA. Who then passes it on to the contractor, who may deal with it direct to you or pass it on back to the EA for them to supply you with the info requested.
Neither have any scope from the 20 working days compliance because it's being delivered by a second party. If they need more time to comply with the FOI they must write to you with an explanation why it's needed. Its then up to you to decide whether you accept that explanation and give them more time. Or you progress it to the next sage, which is a complaint to the Information Commissioners for wilfully withholding information you are entitled to under the FOI Act.
One rouse to short circuit this feet dragging, is write to them saying, if within 7 days (you’ve shown reasonableness then) you have not got the information you requested you will cease all correspondence with them and make a direct complaint to the IC for wilful refusal to supply.
In the many tens of requests I’ve made, I’ve never had to wait 7 days for the information I was entitled too. The quickest I got it was within 2 hours of the threat to go to the IC.

BTW always ask for it electronically as they can’t cost it this way and charge you for printing it out in hardcopy format.
Oh and Benny there should be no scope for interpretation on anything in the contract by the AT if it’s written correctly. It will all be stated in T&C, Schedules and Specifications and subject to at a minimum, a quarterly monitoring system. I’d think this will perhaps be less than a quarter and monitored quite carefully being the first of its kind.
Again for those with concerns, you could ask for the spec from the EA on how it will be done?

 

[bennygesserit]

With respect to both of you, you can for the money they take for the public contract work. It form part of the T&C of the contract and is explicitly stated in them. I know because I've done it under FOI regarding a large Envo Charity and the money it was getting from a particular Council.

In sort if you take on a contract for a public body you are subject to everything under FOI that that body would have been if they were running it themselves.
And yes they have to keep separate accounting systems for each public contract they have is the answer to the next question you were going to ask.

When making an FOI request for this arm-length service contract you make your initial request to the contract issuer, in this case the EA. Who then passes it on to the contractor, who may deal with it direct to you or pass it on back to the EA for them to supply you with the info requested.
Neither have any scope from the 20 working days compliance because it's being delivered by a second party. If they need more time to comply with the FOI they must write to you with an explanation why it's needed. Its then up to you to decide whether you accept that explanation and give them more time. Or you progress it to the next sage, which is a complaint to the Information Commissioners for wilfully withholding information you are entitled to under the FOI Act.
One rouse to short circuit this feet dragging, is write to them saying, if within 7 days (you’ve shown reasonableness then) you have not got the information you requested you will cease all correspondence with them and make a direct complaint to the IC for wilful refusal to supply.
In the many tens of requests I’ve made, I’ve never had to wait 7 days for the information I was entitled too. The quickest I got it was within 2 hours of the threat to go to the IC.

BTW always ask for it electronically as they can’t cost it this way and charge you for printing it out in hardcopy format.
Oh and Benny there should be no scope for interpretation on anything in the contract by the AT if it’s written correctly. It will all be stated in T&C, Schedules and Specifications and subject to at a minimum, a quarterly monitoring system. I’d think this will perhaps be less than a quarter and monitored quite carefully being the first of its kind.
Again for those with concerns, you could ask for the spec from the EA on how it will be done?

That is really informative and helpful - thank you.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Can someone provide the details behind this please?

I can offer some additional detail following on from my FoI request, as follows:

The original Request for Interest attracted 13 applications of which 3 were Short listed to tender for the Contract as being suitable (?) candidates:

1. The Angling Trust
2. Angling Trades Association Limited (ATAL)
3. The Colour Hub (Bravedog) . . . Who?

Given the short list one can only wonder at who the other 10 were that didn't even make it to the short list

Now, of these 3 it is interesting to note that, Bravedog is basically an marketing agency who's only connection with angling is restricted to advertising assistance for the Carp Society and Korda . . . .
Bravedog : Find out about us and meet the team

The Angling Trades Association Limited doesn't even have a current website:
Bravedog : Find out about us and meet the team
So, how they made the Short list is rather strange.

Even more strange is the criteria upon which the "contract" (that to my mind is far more of a Grant than a Contract) could only have been met by the Angling Trust . . . . a more cynical mind might suggest that the Criteria was actually compiled in order to ensure that no other organization stood a chance of winning . . . . . .

Notwithstanding however, the Angling Trust "Bid" contains several Deliverables which are tied to schedules time-frames and detailed criteria, again, (criteria that no one other than the Angling Trust could possibly meet) so it will be interesting to follow up on the status and successes over the coming months.

If anyone is interested in reading the full FoI response form the EA then let me know and I will mail it to you.

 

[stu_the_blank]

If anyone is interested in reading the full FoI response form the EA then let me know and I will mail it to you.

If it's not too much trouble Peter.

This is Public Sector procurement I'm afraid! The only questions that don't get asked are the ones relating to how good you might be at doing the job!

Stu