|
|
 |
|
| |
Top e-government news, updated daily, and regular features from the top people in the public sector.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
| Northumberland nears decision on PFI contract |
|
Council officers in Northumberland are to make recommendations to county councillors next week regarding whether to appoint SITA UK as preferred bidder for a new PFI waste contract.
SITA UK was left as the only remaining bidder for the 28-year waste disposal contract after two other bidders voluntarily withdrew from the running (see letsrecycle.com story).
The contract, which is backed by £34 million in government funding through the Private Finance Initiative, is due to start in April 2007.
In the light of the absence of competition for Northumberland's PFI contract, SITA was told to revise its bid. But council officers still faced the problem of how to assess whether the company could provide the best value for money with no other bid to compare it against.
However, the council has told letsrecycle.com it has devised a method of comparing SITA's revised bid against similar contract arrangements within other local authorities.
Paul Jones, waste PFI project manager and head of waste management, explained: "We have consulted with technical advisors that have worked on other PFI contracts, as well as speaking to other local authorities that have gone down the PFI route. We have been able to benchmark what the proposed bid should look like."
SITA UK already works with Northumberland county council as its incumbent waste contractor, and has had its contract extended an extra year until the end of 2006/07 as a result of the delay to the procurement process.
After recommending a decision on the PFI contract on April 3, council officers are hoping to have some kind of contract in place by October in time for an operational start in April 2007.
The county has been considering withdrawing from the PFI process completely, and Northumberland could still take a "fall back option" of entirely different contract arrangements, officers said.
Mr Jones explained that the pushing back of the start date should not effect the actual implementation of new waste services and plans for a new waste treatment plant for 2009. |
|
|
|
