The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council allegedly breaching its procurement process when awarding a contract for a public art mural project. This is because we are unlikely to find sufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.
The complaint
Mr X alleges fault by the Council in the procurement process to award a contract for a public art mural project. He also complains of failings in the Council’s handling of the complaints and freedom of information (FOI) processes.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council’s responses to Mr X’s complaint.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
In short, Mr X complains the Council did not adhere to its own Procurement Code when awarding a contract for a public art mural project. He complains the winning bidder was unfairly awarded high scores for experience and a sub-contractor’s experience was not confirmed. Mr X was an unsuccessful bidder for the project.
Mr X also highlights delays by the Council when responding to his complaint. And he considers it has unfairly withheld public information by relying on section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act when he sought information on its decisions. Mr X considers this indicates general poor governance by the Council.
The Council has investigated Mr X’s concerns. It says its evaluation was conducted independently, moderated appropriately and accords with the Council’s Procurement Code.
In response to Mr X’s continuing concerns, the Council arranged for an audit review, of its actions under the procurement process, by a Senior Auditor. The Auditor emailed Mr X directly to share their review outcome. They informed Mr X they had reviewed the process including the receipt and opening of tenders, bid evaluation, moderation and tendering of the award. The Senior Auditor said it found no breach of the Council’s Procurement Code.
We will not investigate. The complaints information and the response from the Senior Auditor review indicates we are unlikely to find sufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s procurement process to justify investigating.
With respect to Mr X’s concerns about the FOI matters, these are better dealt with by the Information Commissioner as the regulator for information rights. And we will not investigate complaints about the complaints process, when we are not investigating the substantive complaint, as that is not a proportionate use of public resources.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find sufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman