Scarborough Council 'spent more than £500,000 on contracts without public tender process'

In the previous financial year more than £580,000 was spent by Scarborough Council on purchases – including services and products – without the use of the standard public tendering process.

The spending dates back to the past financial year starting March 2021.

Examples of the spending include £44,000 on the installation of WiFi for Armed Forces Day because it was required “so urgently as not to permit compliance with the requirements of competition”.

The council used various exemptions that allowed it to legally bypass the normal contract procedure rules.

These usually require public procurement opportunities and awards over £25,000 to be shared on the publicly available Contracts Finder website.

The two types of exemptions used by the council relate to rules where an exemption is either granted by the council’s cabinet – in urgent cases by a single cabinet member – and where an exemption can be granted in writing by the council’s monitoring officer.

The spending has been detailed in a report presented to Scarborough Council’s Audit Committee.

Members of the committee will review the spending at an upcoming meeting on Thursday 21 July.

Other spending detailed in the report reveals that the council sought expert legal advice on its constitution at least twice.

Wilkin Chapman LLP Solicitors charged Scarborough Council £11,000 on both occasions.

The report states that an exemption was used because it required “the supply of services of a specialised nature which in the opinion of the director are carried out by one contractor and where no reasonable satisfactory alternative is available”.

The same exemption was used to sign a £90,000 contract for the provision of an ice rink from IS8 Cool Attractions.

The council also purchased the provision of a digital information screen from Digital Media Systems for £30,500, while £36,000 was spent on re-signing a contract for a seagull property proofing scheme from East Coast Pest Control.

In both of the above cases, the exemption was approved on the basis that the council required the “purchase of a named product required to be compatible with an existing installation”.