URL: https://democracy.adur-worthing.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=1228

Decision Maker: Assistant Director for People & Change

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: Yes

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose:

Content: Following the call-in by the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee (JOSC), and in accordance with the Councils’ Constitution and the Call-In Procedure, I have reconsidered the decision to award the Community Catalyst infrastructure support contract to Question Factory (Decision Ref: ADforP&C/071/24-25) and re-consulted with Cabinet Members having regard to the referrals made by JOSC.  This reconsideration included a review of the concerns raised by scrutiny Members, a full assessment in line with the principles of decision-making outlined in Article 12 of the Constitution, and further consultation with Procurement colleagues and Cabinet Members for Communities. Having considered the JOSC referrals against the procurement documentation, evaluation records and our strategic goals for community participation and support, I have resolved to reaffirm the original decision. This decision continues to support a fair, open, and inclusive approach to delivering infrastructure support to community groups and organisations across Adur and Worthing.   Response to Scrutiny concerns 1.      Transparency as a result of a single lead contractor being contracted, when it was scored as a consortia. The procurement process was explicitly designed to allow bids from single organisations or consortia, with clear expectations set out in the tender documents and further clarified during the process. Question Factory described their response as a  consortium bid, partnering with New Citizenship Project and other experienced contributors. Their roles, responsibilities and delivery model were transparently outlined and clarified that Question Factory were the legal entity bidding for the contract which in procurement terms would not be defined as a consortium bid but a traditional contract with named sub-contractors. In these instances the lead organisation would be responsible for meeting the council's minimum criteria, the delivery of the contract, and management of sub-contractors. Councils are not obliged to require consortia to meet different criteria to those of single entity bids beyond describing how the end contract will be entered into and in this case we did not define any alternative requirements in the delivery elements. Therefore the scored elements of the bid were scored using the same criteria regardless of the legal entity we are contracting with.  This model reflects common and acceptable practice and was assessed using the same evaluation criteria applied to all bidders, consistent with Cabinet Office guidance (PPN 03/24) and the relevant procurement legislation at the time the procurement exercise began (The Public Contract Regulations 2015). I have noted that scrutiny has raised concerns on this point and we will ensure that we don’t use the term ‘consortia’ to describe the successful bidders going forward. 2.         Concern over capacity/ability of successful bidder to deliver on the tender given  they are the single legal entity being awarded the contract On the question of capacity, the successful bidder passed all due diligence checks on finance and organisational capacity. The guidance from the cabinet office on how this due diligence and capacity check is completed can be found at PPN 03/24 and the amended version for this tender can be found at the stage one selection questionnaire document.  In terms of assessing ability, the delivery model draws on a multi-partner team with a strong track record in supporting communities and enabling democratic participation. This is outlined in Section 1 of Appendix 3 of the Call In Report. The successful bidder demonstrated an ability to support community groups with practical tools and tested methods that empower local action and leadership that are outlined below. The annual contract value of £60,000.00 roughly the equivalent of a single directly employed staff member with on-costs is not considered a high risk contract in terms of value.      3.            Concern around robustness of corporate governance of successful bidder While Question Factory is a small organisation, the quality element of the bid was evaluated as a whole, including the contribution of New Citizenship Project and other partners. The wider team brings mature governance systems and significant experience. Governance of the programme itself will be strengthened by: A participatory steering group made up of community stakeholders. This would guide and create the new ways of working outlined in the Types of support provided by Question Factory & New Citizenship Project section in Appendix 1 below. We plan to test with our Community Leaders group the best way of enabling people to join this group. We would create a network of people who participate in and help shape the support. This would take place through collaborative sessions to make sense of key lessons learned to help guide improvements to the support provided.  Monthly performance reviews and monitoring by Council officers to review progress of the project and ensure connections are made between insights coming through the activities supported and work the Councils are doing. Transparent delivery reporting through regular monthly updates to local groups on the delivery of the work. This structure reflects a blended model of delivery and governance that is appropriate for a contract of this type and size. Concerns were raised regarding the relationship between directors of Question Factory, the directors of Question Factory are related as is the case with many small, medium enterprises. It is the duty of the procurement team to consider whether additional due diligence is required where it is considered that the status or actions of directors / persons of significant control are considered to implicate any conflicts of interest. The resource plan proposed by Question Factory only indicates a single directors input, given the low value of this contract we consider this feasible and therefore we do not consider there is any further due diligence required.  4.            Concerns about rigour of compliance check process The procurement process followed the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules and reflected UK public procurement best practice, including: A two-stage process with clear thresholds for financial and quality standards Evaluation by trained officers across different teams Moderated scoring and scenario-based clarification interviews Robust scrutiny of financial information, insurance and references The winning bid scored highest in the second-stage evaluation and showed strong alignment with the outcomes sought by the Council, including supporting local groups to grow, adapt, and lead. This model reflects common and acceptable practice and was assessed using the same evaluation criteria applied to all bidders, consistent with Cabinet Office guidance (PPN 03/24). Final decision This commission forms part of our commitment as councils for the community to invest in supporting local groups, creating opportunities for people to shape the places they live in, and enabling groups to build lasting capability and resilience.  We consider our approach to community wealth building in procurement on a case by case basis, in this process we ensured the widest possible appeal to local organisations but unfortunately we did not receive a full compliant bid from any local organisations to consider. Whilst the award of this contract will not result directly in new council expenditure in the local area the offer from the successful bidder will deliver a wide range of community wealth building initiatives shown in Appendix 1. Appendix 1 outlines the different types of support that local groups and organisations will benefit from. 11% (£18k) of the overall budget (£165k) will also be made directly available to community groups to support them in their communities. Section 4 of the “Call-In of Decision ADforP&C/071/24-25- Contract Award for a delivery partner for the Community Catalyst commission outlines the purpose of the tender, and details the engagement and procurement process. Appendix 3 of the above report provided further context and how the winning provider stood out across all the criteria in the tender specification. Appendix 1 Types of support provided by Question Factory & New Citizenship Project The support is designed to help residents, local groups, emerging organisations, and the council work together to build inclusive and resilient neighbourhoods. Below is an overview of this support that shows our commitment to supporting our local groups and organisations: 1. General support Outreach & relationship building Proactive engagement with both long-established and new or underrepresented groups One-to-one conversations and follow-up for informal and place-based groups Specific outreach to smaller, less formal groups who may not usually engage with infrastructure support Guidance and navigation Signposting and brokering connections between groups, councillors, officers and partners Helping groups understand how to access community spaces, funding, or digital tools Supporting groups to explore practical routes to sustain or grow their activity Peer support and mentoring Facilitating peer-to-peer networks between local groups and individuals Supporting mentoring relationships and shared problem-solving between more experienced and newer groups Turning ideas into action Helping groups shape ideas into practical experiments (e.g. youth-led panels, digital noticeboards) Support to develop, test and refine ideas through prototyping, coaching, and reflection Capability building Building group skills in areas like facilitation, storytelling, co-design, digital engagement Developing leadership and succession planning for group regeneration Helping groups adapt to diverse lived experiences  2. Support through Neighbourhood Participation Accelerators (see below) Facilitation and design Creative workshops including developing ideas, testing, and storytelling Techniques like collective visioning, empathy mapping, and group coaching Support for groups to try ideas out quickly, safely and visibly Tools and methods Resources developed with local groups to support idea generation, user journeys (putting ourselves in the eyes of people using services), and project planning Participatory tools adapted to local needs and access barriers Regular rhythm of sessions Held in-person with digital follow-ups and access to materials Accessible to people with different needs WhatsApp peer groups and digital spaces to support in-between moments 3. Support to work together across local groups, council staff and councillors Training and reflection spaces Joint sessions with residents to build relational practice and shared accountability Support for councillors to engage with co-design while managing expectations Agile planning and learning Structured reflection sessions every 2–4 weeks and every 3 months Use of agile sprint planning and retrospectives to adapt and learn as a system Strategic check-ins linking neighbourhood insight to wider council priorities between communities and leaders Narrative support Co-developing new stories of neighbourhood democracy with staff and councillors Supporting political leadership to connect the work to their local priorities 4 Digital support Digital participation tools Design and testing of low-barrier tools such as WhatsApp noticeboards, online maps, and digital story trails Support from a dedicated Tech Lead to identify community needs in terms of digital Matching groups with digital solutions (mainstream or bespoke tools) Access and inclusion Creating a digital resource library for groups and residents Supporting digital reach while keeping trust through in-person connection Helping the council embed new digital approaches in its long-term strategy 5. Evaluation, learning and legacy support Learning and evidence Embedded data collection through light-touch feedback tools and session reflections Six-monthly “learning and stock-take” days with the local groups, staff, councillors and wider organisations to review and showcase progress Participatory evaluation to track outcomes in line with council missions and community priorities Sustainability and legacy Identifying local leaders and groups to take ownership of the work over time Testing “team around the place” models to support neighbourhood leadership Supporters’ network to bring in time, funding and expertise from businesses and institutions   We also provide an extract from the selection questionnaire of specific case studies: 1. Participation  Case Study 1:  Kirklees Active Citizenship  Focused on inclusive engagement through participatory workshops, storytelling, and collective sensemaking. The team co-designed engagement activities with voluntary sector partners and incorporated perspectives from underrepresented groups, aligning with the requirement for expert facilitation of participatory spaces.  Case Study 2: Liverpool OPSI  Facilitated joint ideation workshops, user needs gathering, and sprint sessions to ensure participation at multiple levels.  Case Study 3: Thrive – Doncaster  Used appreciative inquiry with local communities to identify priorities and developed roles for community anchor organizations, ensuring broad participation across sectors.  2. Learning and Evaluation  Case Study 1: Kirklees Active Citizenship Built peer-to-peer learning networks and ran training sessions to develop facilitation skills within the council, fostering ongoing learning and capacity building.  Case Study 2: Liverpool OPSI Convened IT and governance leaders to share best practices, creating dashboards to identify learning opportunities.  Case Study 3: Thrive – Doncaster Defined system level success measures including improved outcomes and reduced costs to the public sector.  3. Social Innovation  Case Study 1: Kirklees Active Citizenship  The “Shaped by People” initiative was designed to measure and promote citizen-led innovation, ensuring that new ideas were recognised and scaled.  Case Study 2: Liverpool OPSI  Used test-and-learn methods, releasing findings in iterative cycles to allow feedback-driven adjustments.  Case Study 3: Thrive – Doncaster The Children and Family Zone initiative was inspired by the Harlem Children’s Zone, applying a proven model in a new context to drive social change.  4. Digital and Data  Case Study 1: Kirklees Active Citizenship  Integrated digital deliberation tools to analyse citizen input and enhance participation. Case Study 2: Liverpool OPSI  Conducted a deep tech landscape review, advised on data-sharing solutions, and worked on digital strategies to improve public service coordination.  Case Study 3: Thrive – Doncaster  Used multi-agency data analysis to identify priority neighbourhoods and guide decision-making.  5. Political Nous  Case Study 1: Kirklees Active Citizenship Helped council officers navigate internal resistance, shifting them from a service-provider mindset to an enabler role.  Case Study 2: Liverpool OPSI  Engaged Chief Executives and senior leaders in a devolved Mayoral Combined Authority, and advised on situating the project in the new government’s political priorities.  Case Study 3: Thrive – Doncaster  Considered political sensitivities and engaged MPs, ward members, and town councils, demonstrating a strong understanding of governance dynamics.  6. Community Power  Case Study 1: Kirklees Active Citizenship Shifted council thinking towards Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD), fostering longterm citizen-led initiatives.  Case Study 3: Thrive – Doncaster  Worked with local community strengths to drive change and develop collaborative governance   Reduce or stop funding for infrastructure support for the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector.  

Date of Decision: June 18, 2025