Non-confidential facts and advice to the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime (DMPC)
1. Introduction and background
1.1. HOLMES is a national system mandated for all forces to use for homicide investigation. The HOLMES Enterprise Agreement is a four year contract established in 2014 to maintain an efficient, effective and compliant route to market to source the requirements for the provision of HOLMES to the Metropolitan Police Service.
1.2. The Enterprise Agreement is near to reaching its current value limit and therefore there is a need to extend the value.
1.3. The contract for delivery of both the Metropolitan Police HOLMES systems (MetHolmes and CT Holmes) expires in December 2018 therefore it is recommended extending the framework to co-terminate with this delivery contract.
2. Issues for consideration
2.1. The incumbent supplier, Unisys Limited, is the sole supplier of the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in HOLMES and will not assign or license that IPR to a third party. There are therefore no alternative sources of supply.
2.2. The Enterprise Agreement has previously been extended in value under delegated approval by the Director, Commercial Services.
2.3. This extension will avoid a number of single tender actions and Value Added Reseller mark-up charges.
3. Financial Comments
3.1 All spend approvals will follow standard Metropolitan Police governance under the scheme of delegation and are within existing budgets. Detail is included in part 2.
4. Legal Comments
4.1. Paragraph 4.13 of the MOPAC Scheme of Delegation and Consent provides that the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime (DMPC) has delegated authority to approve all unforeseen variations or extensions to contracts with an original value of £500,000 or above, when the variation or extension is greater than 10% of the original value and/or is for a period of more than 12 months. This report confirms the value of the proposed extension is greater than 10% of the original contract value. Approval by the DPMC must be sought.
5. Equality Comments
5.1. There are no direct equality or diversity implications arising from this report
6. Background/supporting papers