5 comments on “JV or nothing: well, apart from the dozen other options

  1. Andrew, Many thanks for keeping us informed of developments – interesting as always. Re the shared services savings of £600,000, if 90% of the budget is staffing then this actually means lots of redundancies and you seem happy with this and think that more could be saved which would mean even more redundancies rather than a chink of light hope that some of this could be solved by increasing jobs in the partnership. Can you confirm you are happy about this and also where you think the additional savings could come from if more work was done as you seem pretty confident? Regards Mick

  2. No I am not happy with many job losses. But today was the first day in which a in-house option had some credibility. The service could save money next year without job losses. However, if more is asked (which I believe is a threat) then something has to give.

  3. The somewhat blinkered development of the JV proposal has taken the best part of two years to reach its current status where we now have a heavily caveated presentation by a single supplier (BT) containing guarantees which BT stress are “non-binding” and subject to T&Cs. Against this the Council have apparently produced a comparison Options Analysis in less than two months covering the other 5 alternatives. I fail to see how these can have been researched properly in the time given and certainly one of the Health Partners hasn’t been much engaged during this period. So it seems a reasonable concern that the advocates of the JV may just see the presentation of Options as a irritant and having ticked that box (rather ineffectually), will press on. There are many issues with this approach and any outcome which settles on a JV with only one bidder. I suspect it would be difficult to stay within the limits of Competitive Dialogue now there is only one potential private partner involved, if any of the components of the deal scoped so far were to change. Therefore if a JV proceeds it is reasonable conjecture that it will be as currently scoped – procurement services included etc. So in summary I consider that Cornwall is in the position where a Council led initiative has split the Cabinet, divided the Council, generated serious voter opposition, embarrassed its Health Partners, left us with a single supplier before any Invitation to Tender, and set the JV scope in stone lest we contravene procurement regulations. Given this sorry history, I’m not sure I have a great deal of faith in Cornwall Council’s ability to negotiate a bullet proof contract in which BT’s caveated guarantees become contractual ones.

  4. thanks for replying andrew – the service can save hundreds of thousands of pounds without redundancies – do they have a money tree or magic wand or werent you paying attention?!?!? Jude Robinsons latest blog on the subject is excellent by the way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook

+ 9 = 17

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>