1

Cabinet Member Report

Cabinet Member for Children and Young People - Cllr Chalkley

20 January 2016

Report title (decision subject)

School Meals Contract award for the City of Westminster

Reporting officer

Annabel Saunders, Head of Commissioning and Business Development.

Key decision Yes (ID number: 1008087)

Access to information classification

Public (Part A) with Confidential/Exempt (Part B) information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information) and paragraph 5 (as amended) information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval to award a service contract, to the contractor detailed within Part B of this report, for the delivery of school meals for Westminster City Council (WCC) following competitive ‘call-off’ from the School Meals Framework. Part A of this report provides background information in relation to the rationale behind the recommendations being made and the procurement process undertaken. Part B of this report provides exempt information in relation to the named contractor’s scores and associated commercial and budgetary implications.

1.2. The procurement exercise outlined within this report has been a carefully designed and robustly managed process designed to deliver the best possible outcome for Westminster schools from both a quality and financial perspective. The procurement process has been extremely competitive resulting in strong bids. Officers are confident that the key objectives of the school meal procurement have been met, in that the new service will provide consistently high quality meals and maximise value for money to achieve efficiencies. There has been active involvement from schools throughout the commissioning process to ensure that local priorities shape the outcome and subsequent service delivery.

2

1.3. On June 11th 2015 the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) approved the award to the School Meals Framework Agreement for the six highest scoring contractors bidding to provide the service to Nursery, Primary and Special Schools (Lot 1) and the four highest scoring contractors bidding to provide the service to Secondary Establishments (Lot 2). The Framework includes provision for Westminster City Council (WCC) in Lot 1 only and the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (LBHF) in Lots 1 and 2, to access school meals services via a competitive ‘call-off’. WCC secondary schools have chosen not to access the framework at this point. It is possible for schools that are not currently accessing the framework to join at a later stage.

1.4. The final stage of the school meals procurement is via a competitive ‘call-off’ from the Framework, which is being conducted sequentially for each borough. WCC is the second borough to ‘call-off’ from the Framework with the contract expected to start 11th April 2016.

1.5. In relation to the bidder being recommended for award there has been a 7% reduction in price from the Framework to the final ‘call-off’ whilst maintaining a strong quality score.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1. It is recommended that the Cabinet member for Children and Young People:

2.1.1. Approves the contract award to the contractor as set out in Part B paragraph 2.1.1, which is attached as appendix 3 for the provision of school meals for Lot 1 (nurseries, primary schools and special schools), for a period of three years, with the option to extend for a further two years, for a value detailed in Part B paragraph 2.1.1

2.1.2. Allows for an increase or decrease to the annual school meals contract value where fluctuation relates directly to school meal take-up.

2.1.3. Allows for Appendix 3, Part B to be exempt from disclosure by virtue of the Local Government Act 1972, Schedule 12A, Part 1, paragraph 3, in that it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

3. REASONS FOR DECISION

3.1. The provision of free school meals is a statutory provision within the Education Act 2003. Each governing body has a duty to provide free lunches for eligible pupils and to provide the opportunity for other pupils to buy lunch.

3.2. Due to the robust nature of the procurement, the ‘call-off’ has resulted in extremely strong quality submissions and notable contract savings, as detailed in part B of this report.

3

3.3. Schools within WCC have indicated a strong preference for the Council to procure a sovereign borough contract on their behalf for the delivery of school meals. Schools will have the opportunity to opt into the borough-wide contract or to make their own arrangements. Currently 37 schools in WCC want to be part of the school meals contract.

3.4. Schools have been actively involved in the procurement exercise and shaping the specification and evaluation requirements to ensure that the borough's specific local requirements are met. A list of the schools involved in the commissioning process is outlined in Appendix 1.

4. BACKGROUND

4.1. An opportunity was recognised when the Children’s Commissioning Directorate was formed, to undertake a shared approach to procurement for school meals across the three boroughs. By aligning the procurement process relating to the Framework award it maximises the opportunity of achieving greater financial efficiencies and savings relating to contract spend and delivery for each borough whilst still ensuring sovereign contracts. Borough-specific contracts are being achieved by holding three separate call-offs from the Framework Agreement. Additional efficiencies are also possible if two or more of the Boroughs decide to award their contract to the same provider.

4.2. Schools in WCC were given the opportunity to shape the specification and

tailor the technical quality evaluation questions and presentation topics to best reflect local priorities.

4.3. Following consultation with the Schools Heads Forum and Heads Executive Group it was agreed that RBKC would be first to call-off from the Framework Agreement, followed by WCC and then LBHF. The call-off and contract start dates are outlined below.

Borough Call-off start date Contract award Contract start date

RBKC 15th September 2015 December 2015 22nd February 2016

WCC 3rd November 2015 27th January 2016 11th April 2016

LBHF January 2016 April 2016 June 2016

4.4. In the summer of 2014, schools were asked whether they wanted to be part of

the schools meals procurement and in December 2014 they were asked who they would like to hold and manage the contracts. A total of 40 schools in Westminster indicated that they would be interested in accessing the school meals contract with a strong preference for a Council held and managed contract on behalf of schools. Schools were again written to in July 2015 with indicative prices, based on those submitted by Contractors at the Framework stage and were asked to re-affirmation of their interest in being part of the School Meals Procurement. Out of the original 40 schools, 3 decided to opt out, one formed part of an academy and the other two decided to procure a service directly. Therefore a total of 37 schools are likely to access the

4

centrally held contract. A list of these schools is detailed in Part B, appendix 1 of this report.

4.5. The commitment from schools will be formalised following the outcome of the

procurement and subject to the formal approval of recommendations within this paper.

5. PROPOSAL AND ISSUES

5.1. The procurement of the Framework Agreement was subject to the Council’s Procurement and Financial Procedure Rules. As the procurement commenced before 26 February 2015, it was executed as a Part B Service under Directive 2004/18/EC and the Public Contracts Regulations 2006, conforming to the Treaty principles of non-discrimination, equal treatment and transparency. The tender opportunity was advertised on CapitalESourcing, the Council’s E-Sourcing system (reference RBKC 4697).

5.2. Due to the level of market interest, the likely number of tenderers and the complexity of the tender, a restricted tendering process was adopted. This included three competitive phases: Prequalification (PQQ), Invitation to Tender for appointment to the Framework Agreement (ITT), and a call-off (further competition) by each borough from the framework.

5.3. The award of the Lots was on the basis of the most economically

advantageous tenders (MEAT) received, taking into account both quality and price.

Lot Award Criteria Weighting

1 Price 60%

2 Quality 40%

Total 100%

Evaluation against the 40% quality has been based on meeting the specification and service outcomes to ensure that the catering provision is of the highest quality.

5.4. The tender opportunity (PQQ) was advertised on 25 November 2014.

5

5.5. In line with the Council’s aim to promote a vibrant and sustainable economy, the procurement was open to a wide market and the advertisement made it explicit that organisations were welcome to collaborate to form a Group, either as a separate legal entity or an unincorporated grouping should they wish. The minimum standards for economic and financial standing and professional and technical ability were tailored so that small and medium-sized enterprises1 (SME) were not excluded.

5.6. The Framework Agreement term will be for four years starting from 14th September 2015. Contracts awarded as a result of a Call-Off from this Framework will be in place for 3 years with extension provision for up to a further 2 years.

Pre-qualification – Tender evaluation phase 1 5.7. Ten companies submitted a Pre-Qualification Questionnaire (PQQ). Following

the pre-qualification moderation process in January 2015, eight organisations were invited to tender to be part of the school meals framework.

5.8. The PQQ process achieved the highest score of “Full Assurance” in a recent Internal Audit review.

Invitation to Tender (ITT) – Tender evaluation phase 2

5.9. Seven of the eight invited contractors submitted Tenders (seven for Lot 1 and five for Lot 2) by the prescribed date in March 2015.

5.10. The Tender Evaluation Team consisted of procurement officers, subject matter experts from the service team, representatives from schools (including head teachers and governors) and Finance staff within the Children’s Services Department.

5.11. The pricing submissions were evaluated based on the weighted scoring of three volume band scenarios across the three boroughs. The purpose of these bands was to incentivise suppliers to provide discounts for economies of scale in the event that they win more than one of the Borough contracts at call off stage. Additional savings will not be known until the final call-off in March 2016, and prices will be adjusted at the point of contract start if the contractor were to be successful in a subsequent borough(s).

5.12. Within the pricing submission suppliers were asked to provide detailed supporting information to substantiate their staffing structures and overhead costs.

5.13. The quality factors were weighted according to their importance, with greater percentage of the allocated 40% being based on meeting the specification and service outcomes, to ensure that the catering provision was of the highest quality and to mitigate any risks associated with health and safety, food

1 SME as defined by s 33(2) of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015

6

hygiene and nutritional quality. The process of evaluating the food and quality from a nutritional point of view and to ensure adherence to nutritional guidelines and food quality was highly emphasised and reflected by the weightings.

5.14. As a result of the evaluation 6 contractors were successfully appointed to the Framework for Lot 1 and 4 for Lot 2. The following contractors were successful:

Caterlink (LOT 1 and 2)

AIP (LOT 1 and 2)

Interserve / Eden (LOT 1 and 2)

Chartwells (LOT 1 and 2)

Waterfall (LOT 1 only)**

ISS (LOT 1 only)

**Waterfall withdrew from the procurement exercise following the Framework Award.

Call-off from the Framework – Phase 3 Contract Award

5.15. The call-off is the final competitive stage and while bespoke to each borough was conducted under the terms the framework agreement. The call-off was published on the 3rd November 2015 via Capital Esourcing and closed 4th December 2015.

5.16. The weighting of the commercial and technical envelopes for the call-off process are the same as those used in the ITT – 60% price and 40% quality.

5.17. Quality for the call-off was assessed on the basis of a bidder’s written submissions in response to the questions in the Technical Envelope, practical food preparation, verbal presentation and visits to bidders’ service provision sites.

5.18. Quality breakdown (see appendix 2 for a detailed breakdown of evaluation criteria):

Description of Quality Criteria Weightings

1 Technical Ability Questions 14%

2 Verbal Presentation 5%

3 Food Preparation and Presentation (cook-off) 14%

4 Visits to Bidder Sites 7%

Total 40%

7

5.19. Schools within WCC formed a borough specific working group to shape the technical evaluation questions and presentation criteria to ensure that local requirements were addressed and met. The Framework tested the providers’ ability to deliver the contract and the call-off enabled borough specific contracts to be held.

5.20. Schools representatives were involved in the evaluation of the following areas:

.1. Technical questions relating to local priorities

.2. Supplier presentations

.3. Sample and scoring set meals produced by suppliers at the ‘cook-off’ session

5.21. The evaluation of the call-off involved the School Meals Contract Team, finance colleagues and school representatives, see Appendix 1 for the full list of evaluators including schools representatives.

5.22. Bidders were evaluated against three technical ability questions which built on areas already assessed at the Framework award stage but were tailored to the needs and priorities of the borough. Within Westminster, schools were particularly keen that suppliers were evaluated in relation to their ability to bespoke menus and their offer to dining centres, which is reflected in the technical evaluation questions against which bidders were assessed (see appendix 2, section 1 for detail on the technical evaluation criteria). The verbal presentation evaluated bidders approach to managing halal and non-halal production, again reflecting particular priorities for schools.

5.23. The ‘cook-off’ (appendix 2, section 2) was an opportunity for the School Meals Contract Team to evaluate the suppliers’ approach to food preparation as well as inviting school representatives (including pupils) to evaluate the taste, texture and aroma of the food. This was given a high weighting of 14% due to the focus on areas such as food sourcing, the recipe used in terms of healthy eating, how the meal was prepared and the taste and appearance of the meal.

5.24. The final stage of the quality evaluation was visiting suppliers’ sites (appendix 2, sections 3 and 4) to see how they worked in practice, testing areas such as appropriate food storage, ensuring staff training needs were met, cleanliness of the kitchens and how the provider complied with standards to avoid cross-contamination.

5.25. Mobilisation and contract management

5.26. All contractors appointed to the Framework supplied robust mobilisation plans; this was tested again at call-off to ensure they were borough specific and reflected the individual timescales and needs of schools within Westminster. The recommended bidder supplied a detailed plan reflecting their experience in mobilising contracts of a similar nature. The contract team have developed a mobilisation plan focusing on key milestones and school engagement. A series of events and meetings will be offered to schools by

8

the successful contractor directly to find out what they can expect from the new contract and giving them an opportunity to ask any questions.

5.27. The Key Performance Indicators issued specify the elements of the service that will be monitored by the Children’s Commissioning Directorate’s School Meals Contract Team (SMCT), on behalf of schools. These include areas such as compliance with the food for life standard within the menu offer, supply chain management and staff development / awareness. The SMCT will make unannounced visits, measure user and school satisfaction and conduct rigorous monitoring against the specification and the Food for Life Standard. Robust performance management and continuous improvement procedures are specified within the contract to ensure a clear and consistent approach to monitoring and managing service delivery. Reporting requirements and approaches should corrective measures be required are also contained within the Contract.

6. OPTIONS AND ANALYSIS

6.1. Option 1 The Cabinet Member accepts the recommendation to appoint the highest scoring Contractor as set out in Part B, paragraph 2.1.1the provision of school meals within the City of Westminster.

6.2. Option 2 The Cabinet Member declines to enter into the contract with the preferred bidder. This will mean that the current contracts in 37 schools will require extensions and new contracts will need to be (re)procured by schools or on behalf of schools.

6.3. Option 1 is the recommended option.

7. CONSULTATION

7.1. Consultation, engagement and partnership working with stakeholders throughout the commissioning process have been crucial in successfully reviewing and redesigning the services.

7.2. All schools and nurseries were invited to participate in a School Meals

Working Group at the outset of the project. Since January 2014, 10 school representatives from across 10 schools within the borough, including governors, head teachers, teachers and business managers have actively contributed to designing the specification, determining the weighting of the selection and award criteria and the evaluation and moderation of the submissions at each evaluation stage.

7.3. To date, seven bulletins have been produced by the School Meals Working Group, for schools (December 2013 to December 2015). In addition, pamphlets providing more detailed questions and answers have been produced to enable schools to make informed decisions.

7.4. The SMCT have also kept key stakeholders informed by attending Schools Forums, Governing Body meetings, the Governor Forum, various head teacher networks and Scrutiny Committees.

9

8. EQUALITY IMPLICATIONS

8.1. An initial Equalities Impact Assessment (EIA) was carried out by project officers and an Equalities Manager when the project was initiated in 2013 and has been updated at regular intervals, most recently in September 2015. In summary, there are no equalities implications given that a high quality school meal will continue to be provided (as the legislation demands) with very few changes to the service.

8.2. In developing the specification, consideration has been given to food preparation and storage, provision of halal and non-halal meat within menu choices, and promotion of festival days and the appropriate regulations are in place. There is quality control criteria included in the specification to ensure halal meat has not been contaminated. Sample menus provided reflect the racial and cultural mix of pupils, including the requirement to provide a vegetarian option every day.

9. CHILD PROTECTION AND SAFEGUARDING

9.1. The Conditions of Contract require contractors to undertake appropriate safer recruitment practices, including but not limited to ensure that staff obtain appropriate DBS certificates and that appropriate records are maintained.

9.2. The Contractor (s) shall comply with statutory safeguarding legislation and

guidance from the Department for Education and the Department of Health (including any new policy and practice developments or changes during the course of the contract) for both children and adults.

9.3. Paragraph 47 of the contract specification and clause 18 in the condition of contract provides further details.

10. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

10.1. The legal responsibility for the provision of school meals transferred to the governing bodies of schools with the delegation of school meals funding. The provision of free school meals is a statutory provision within the Education Act 2003 (as amended) and the Children and Families Act 2014. Each governing body has a duty to provide free lunches for eligible pupils and the opportunity for other pupils to buy a lunch each day. Services are funded by schools. Savings achieved through this process will be retained by schools.

10.2. These were Part B services under the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 as amended and not subject to full rigour of those Regulations. Nevertheless it was essential to fulfil transparency duties under EU public procurement law in the procurement of the Framework Agreement.

10.3. Having established the Framework Agreement, the Council has held a mini-competition (as provided for in that agreement), inviting all appointed providers for each lot to submit their specific bids to provide the services to the Council.

10

Comments provided by Gareth Rees, Associate, Sharpe Prichard

11. FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

11.1. The financial objective of this procurement was to achieve savings of £160,000 to schools across the three authorities. It is anticipated that savings will exceed this figure, see Part B for savings figures.

11.2. If the same contractor is appointed in a subsequent borough call-off then there is the possibility of further reductions to the price per meal as a result of volume discounts. As such, the full realisation of the savings will not be fully known until the final call-off in March 2016. See part B of the report for the indicative savings allocated for Westminster schools only.

11.3. Approximately 202 catering staff and management are currently involved in the provision of the services within WCC. The level of staffing and the number of meals served at each school will dictate the price paid by the school. All bidders are willing to transfer incumbent catering staff on their current pay, terms, conditions, and pension entitlements under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (“TUPE”) should it apply.

11.4. Under current arrangements, some elements of the borough-wide traded service cost of the school meals is averaged and split across each school within Westminster (for those accessing the one borough-wide contract). Under the new arrangement each school will pay the actual cost of the service based on the level of staff, overheads and meal price for their school. This model ensures that each school only pays for their own service costs and also benefit from the economies of scale of being in a large volume contract.

11.5. Suppliers will invoice Schools directly and these invoices will be paid for by the Schools from their Dedicated Schools Grant. There are no cost implications for the Local Authorities.

11.6. The invoices raised by the Contractors will be broken up into two types of charges:

i. Fixed Charges: A monthly fixed charge that covers supplier staffing and overhead costs.

ii. Plate Charges: A monthly plate cost that is calculated by multiplying the tendered plate price by the number of meals served in the period.

Comments provided by Michael Hallick, Education Business Partner

12. RISK 12.1. Throughout the project the risks associated have been recorded on a risk

register, reported at an Operational and Strategic Board and mitigated as

11

appropriate. Risks were discussed at Shared Services Board (SSB) in January and September 2015.

12.2. If required, the decommissioning of the current arrangements and the

mobilisation of the new arrangements will be carefully phased in to allow for managed transitions and handovers from the current providers and will be overseen by a dedicated and pre-established School Meals Contract Team.

12.3. Continuity of service is key since the provision of free school meals is a

statutory provision within the Education Act 2003. New service provision arrangements will be required to be noted in the departments’ business continuity plans. Continuity and Statutory services are strategic risks also noted on the register.

Risks reviewed by Mick Sloniowski, Shared Services Risk Manager

Andrew Christie Tri-borough Executive Director for Children’s Services

Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) – Background papers used in the preparation of this report

1 Framework Award Report – June 11th 2 RBKC Award Report

Contact officer(s):

Annabel Saunders, Head of Commercial Development, Children’s Services

12

For completion by the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People Declaration of Interest I have <no interest to declare / to declare an interest> in respect of this report

Signed: Date:

NAME:

State nature of interest if any …………………………………………………………..…… ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. (N.B: If you have an interest you should seek advice as to whether it is appropriate to make a

decision in relation to this matter) For the reasons set out above, I agree the recommendation(s) in the report entitled School Meals Contract award for the City of Westminster and reject any alternative options which are referred to but not recommended. Signed ……………………………………………… Cabinet Member for Children and Young People Date ………………………………………………… If you have any additional comment which you would want actioned in connection with your decision you should discuss this with the report author and then set out your comment below before the report and this pro-forma is returned to the Secretariat for processing. Additional comment: …………………………………….…………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………..…………………………… …………………………………………………………………….……………………………. If you do not wish to approve the recommendations, or wish to make an alternative decision, it is important that you consult the report author, the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, Strategic Director Finance and Performance and, if there are resources implications, the Strategic Director of Resources (or their representatives) so that (1) you can be made aware of any further relevant considerations that you should take into account before making the decision and (2) your reasons for the decision can be properly identified and recorded, as required by law. Note to Cabinet Member: Your decision will now be published and copied to the Members of the relevant Policy & Scrutiny Committee. If the decision falls within the criteria for call-in, it will not be implemented until five working days have elapsed from publication to allow the Policy and Scrutiny Committee to decide whether it wishes to call the matter in.

13

Appendix 1 – School and Officer Representatives involved in the procurement

14

Activity School Representatives

1 Working Group - Marina Coleman – St Vincents RC Primary ( Initial term)

- Lucy Cohen – St Stephens CE Primary

- Scott Pickard – QE11 Special School

- Jackie Braithwaite – College Park Special School

- Jonathan Smith – Queens Park Primary (Intermittent)

2 WCC Evaluators of ITT quality questions - Lucy Cohen – St Stephens CE – lot 1

3 Lot 1 Cooking Sessions - Bruce Russell – St Stephens CE Primary

- 2 pupils from St Stephens CE Primary

4 Lot 2 Cooking Sessions No requirements for representatives from WCC only Lot being procured.

5 Development of questions for call-off - Allison Yeomans – WCC

- Jonathan Smith – Queens Park Primary

6 Evaluators of WCC Verbal Presentations

- Sandra Tyrell – Christ Church Bentinck CE Primary

- Valerie de Angelis – St James and St Johns CE Primary

7 Evaluators of the WCC quality questions

- Angela Abrahams – St Clement Danes CE Primary

- Lindsey Woodford – St Saviour’s CE Primary

Officer Representatives

Position Area

Lynne Richardson School Meals Contract Manager

- PQQ Lot 1 & 2 - Lot 1 & Lot 2 overarching responses - Lot 1 specific responses - Lot 2 specific responses - Food preparation and food presentations Lot

1 & 2 - Verbal Presentations - Quality questions

Allison Yeomans School Meals Contracts Officer

- PQQ Lot 1 & 2 - Lot 1 & Lot 2 overarching responses - Lot 1 specific responses - Lot 2 specific responses - Food preparation and food presentation Lot

1& 2

15

- Site visits to bidding contracts sites for Lot 1& 2

- WCC site visits from bidding contractors - Verbal Presentation - Quality questions

Suzanne Kent School Meals Contracts Officer

- PQQ Lot 1 & 2 - Lot 1 & Lot 2 overarching responses - Lot 1 specific responses - Lot 2 specific responses - Food preparation and food presentation Lot

1& 2 - Site visits to bidding contracts sites for Lot 1&

2 - Verbal Presentation - Quality questions

Tim Harvey

Lucy Nutt

School Meals Contracts Officer

Principal Lead Adviser

Tri-borough Education Services

Lot 1 & Lot 2 cooking sessions WCC Verbal presentation Lot 1 & Lot 2 overarching responses only

16

Appendix 2 – Call-off evaluation criteria

SECTION Ia: TECHNICAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS

QUALITY AND SERVICE DELIVERY Weighting = 7% QUESTION: Please can you outline how you would maximise school meal take up to ensure that it continues to remain high within, nursery, primary and special schools, whilst also achieving strong satisfaction amongst pupils, parents and school staff. Your response should include (but not limited to) the following: - Engagement with pupils, head teachers, governing bodies and parents to meet the needs of

all school communities - Management and tailoring of site specific changes to the menus within agreed time frames

between contractor and schools. Ensuring that there is a continuously high uptake of school meals

- Provide the highest quality school meal service achieving and maintaining all contract requirements and standards

DINING CENTRES BESPOKE PROVISION Weighting = 3% QUESTION: Demonstrate how you will manage the service within the 11 dining centres and continue to provide these schools with the high standards and varied choice of meal provision. Your response should include (but not limited to) the following: - Providing an innovative solution to dining centres: four use an alternative solution (which is

the incumbents patented method of meal provision ) , Six are fully transported and one where meals are wheeled in hot cupboards to the dining centre .

- Ensure that the school receives the quality of service they are accustomed to, continuing to maintain the high uptake within the dining centres

- The service meets the needs of the school without disruption to the school day and lunchtime service working within the current facilities available and space restraints in each school.

CONTRACT MOBILISATION Weighting = 4% QUESTION: Recognising that you have already provided a generic mobilisation plan at ITT stage; please can you now submit a detailed Westminster City Council specific plan and method statement (including a demobilisation plan if you are an incumbent). Areas should include (but not limited to) the following: - How you would manage the transition from the existing to new arrangements without

disruption to the service and minimising the impact to stakeholders - workforce requirements - financial planning and appropriate budgeting - risks in implementing the new service and how they will be mitigated, monitored and

controlled - Methods of communicating / marketing the new service to parents, schools and pupils - The first month following contract commencement

17

SECTION Ib: VERBAL PRESENTATION

Weighting

TOPIC: In order to meet the diverse needs of individual schools within the Borough of Westminster there are currently schools requiring halal meal offer only and non halal offer only. Demonstrate how you will manage this process from supply chain through to delivery of service providing evidence of full traceability and audit trail? The evaluation of this topic will look at the following;

Compliance with all required standards (1%)

Engaging and giving confidence to all the stakeholder groups, including WCC communications team (all coms that impact a large group needs to be agreed by internal coms) 2%

Proposing a service where schools and whole school community would be confident to have the option to provide both halal and non halal on one school site if this provision is required in the future (2%)

5%

SECTION II: FOOD PREPARATION AND PRESENTATION

Criteria Weighting

1 Recipe for a two-course meal

Achieve the Gold FFL standards

Complies with School Food Plan

Complies with Nutritional Guidelines

Complies with required Food Specifications

4%

2 Sourcing of food items

Sourcing according to Food for Life local sourcing criteria

Use of seasonal fresh ingredients

Compliant audit trail from invoice(s)

3%

3 Cost of items for both

Not more than the plate price provided at Framework – pass or fail

1%

4 Working practice whilst preparing the meals

Working practices (health & safety, organisational skills, )

Food hygiene (cross contamination, temperature control

Cleanliness (personal hygiene, sanitising during food preparation,

3%

5 Taste/Texture/Consistency/Appearance/Aroma

Taste of the dish

Texture and consistency

Appearance

Aroma

3%

SECTION III (a): VISITS TO BIDDERS’ SITES – PRODUCTION KITCHEN (LOT 1) The scores for these criteria will be used for evaluations for Lot 1 only.

Criteria Weightings

1 Quality of Food 1.00%

18

Quality and quantity standards for various foods (Meat, Vegetarian dishes, Carbohydrates, Salads, hot and cold desserts, etc.)

2 Food preparation

Times of food preparation

Compliance with procedures to avoid cross-contamination

Consideration of specific requirements e.g. medical, cultural, etc.

Health and Safety requirements

0.75%

3 Food service

Taste of food

Customer focus – interaction with pupils

Presentation

Management of the service - sales mix, speed of service, organisation,

Equipment

1.00%

4 Cleaning (could be combined with personal hygiene)

Cleaning schedule

Cleanliness of all areas

Deep cleaning

0.25%

5 Food storage areas

Cleanliness

Routine Practices for dried food, etc.

Stock rotation

Correct storage of food items

Temperature records for various storage areas

0.25%

6 Personal hygiene (see 4 above)

Uniforms

Observation of personal hygiene

0.25%

SECTION III (b): VISITS TO BIDDERS’ SITES – DINING CENTRE (LOT 1) The scores for these criteria will be used for evaluations for Lot 1 only.

Criteria Weighting

1 Quality of Food

Quality and quantity standards for various foods (Meat, Vegetarian dishes, Carbohydrates, Salads, hot and cold desserts, etc.)

1.25%

2 Transported Food – Processes and Procedures

How the food was delivered to the dining centre

How the food was decanted and stored at site

What paper work accompanied the food (e.g. temperature sheets, etc.)

0.50%

3 Food service

Customer focus – interaction with pupils

Taste of food

Presentation

Management of the service - sales mix, speed of service, organisation,

1.00%

19

Equipment

4 Cleaning

Cleaning schedule

Cleanliness of vehicles

Cleanliness of all areas

0.25%

5 Food storage areas

Cleanliness

Stock rotation

Correct storage of food items

Temperature controls

0.25%

6 Personal hygiene

Uniforms

Observation of personal hygiene

0.25%