Disclosure Log
Disclosure Log Search
Use this part of the site for filtering the search results.
Use this part of the site to view the Authorities disclosure log Database.
Record Ref : FOI 8591
Date Received : 13/04/2021
Date Completed : 13/05/2021
Organisation : Private Individual
Application Type : Private Individual
Category : Parking
Question
You recently chose a supplier to provide new Pay and Display Parking Terminals. I would like to know which other suppliers did you evaluate? What Criteria did you use to choose the successful supplier? How specifically did IPS compare against the others in this process, if they were evaluated? If IPS was not considered can I ask why? If answering all of the detailed points above means that the request is deemed to exceed the limits outlined under S12 of the act, could you please provide details for each point in the order outlined above, until the limit has been reached. I
Answer
We engaged the ESPO (Eastern Shires Purchasing Organisation) framework for pay and display machines as the preferred solution to obtaining our upgraded pay and display machines. The following is the instruction to buyers regarding accessing the Lot1 suppliers Customers can do a direct call-off for the purchase/supply/delivery/installation/maintenance of pay & display machines, back office systems and additional items and services using the prices detailed in the suppliers’ framework price schedules. Customers will normally call-off the products/services from one of the supplier awarded on Lot 1 who is suitable to meet the customers specific needs. The evaluation was based upon framework pricing as per the statement above. The unit prices per machine and annual maintenance packages/backoffice software were examined in accordance with the call off provisions of the framework. Suppliers evaluated were • Cale Access UK Ltd • International Parking Systems • Parkare Ltd • Flowbird Smart City UK Ltd • Metric Group • ParkingEye Ltd • Sagoss Ltd • Smart Parking Ltd The chosen provider was lowest priced, overall IPS were 2nd this is based upon the unit price of the machine, maintenance and annual fee for back office system. IPS were considered along with every other company on the framework as part of the desktop exercise to determine who to select. IPS were not lowest priced so were not selected.