Fiasco: Sydenham: Kirkdale: Forest Hill

[art4]

The original post of this thread was a protest at what we felt was
unfairness in tendering for the position of project managing the SEE3 Shop
Revolution. We regret the tone of the post and have therefore
deleted it.

However do still feel that there is something unfair about a
process in which a contract was quickly awarded to someone who had been
closely involved in setting up the process in the first place.

Perhaps we should have known that something like this would happen, and that the
putting out to tender was just a formality. If so, it was a shame, not
just for us, but for the Portas Pilot Project, since a good tendering
process should get the best, not just the initial ideas of those working on
the project.

We are as local as others on this Forum, but like most people living here,
we haven't been 'in the loop'. We are sorry that we will not be able to
help here with the Portas Pilot project, because we think we had much to
offer.

In fact, when we were interviewed lots of notes were being taken by the
panel, so something may yet come of our ideas.

Finally, we are shocked that a private email address seems to have been
passed around leading to a torrent of abuse, and hope that enquiries will
be made as to how this happened.

[leenewham]

Just to clarify, the SEE3 website and portas project has been widely publicised locally, thousands of posters have gone out, hundreds of people attended the launch event, thousands of people have seen the video, the websites, the posts on these and other forums, thousands of leaflets have gone out.

I'm not sure where JP Consultancy and London Art are based, a quick search seems to imply that JP Consultancy are based in Cheshire and London Art based in Se5. (I may be wrong, please correct me if I am). I know lewisham have a local procurement policy, normally within the borough.

I have no idea why you weren't successful, whether it was anything to do with this or not. But posting a letter like this on a forum, possibly casting doubts on the local Portas bid is NOT the way to go about it and, frankly, smacks a little of sour grapes. Bids are very often last minute affairs in reality and often take a week, are time consuming and frustrating when you don't win (we tender for jobs too and no, we haven't won a tender for the local Portas project).

I don't believe it was a stich up at all. I'm sure there are many very good reasons why the people who won the tender did so and I'm sure that our local Cllrs will soon tell us why.

Regards

Lee

[Rachael]

And Lee

This paragraph below you wrote is hardly accurate. please don't try and convey dilligence, because this has NOT happened
Joanne


'Just to clarify, the SEE3 website and portas project has been widely publicised locally, thousands of posters have gone out, hundreds of people attended the launch event, thousands of people have seen the video, the websites, the posts on these and other forums, thousands of leaflets have gone out'

Can you be more specific? What exactly is inaccurate about this statement?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[leenewham]

Ok Joanne, I don't want to get into an internet spat, but what wasn't true?

Over 200 people attended the launch of the SEE3 project at the Horniman. Fact. I was there. People were standing outside. The clicker on the door was over 200.

I actually delivered some of the leaflets and posters to local shops. I don't know the exact numbers that were printed, but it was more than a few hundred! Many local people delivered these, so it is true. They were delivered to every shop in the area and I remember seeing them in many of them.

The Portas video has had 2790 views. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKoDqF2uioI

I don't have exact figures for the website, but I'm sure someone can clarify if you want to see some.

Posts on these forums both here and in se23 have had 1000's of hits in total.

Most tenders we have been involved with we have to subscribe to internet portals to hear about and you get email notifications, they aren't exactly advertised in the local press. I live locally and I didn't know about the tender for the Horniman Museum branding. It's my loss, my fault, I don't blame the Horniman for not seeking me out and asking me to tender months in advance. We have been invited to tender for stuff a few days before a ender deadline. It's what happens, it's what you do.

Honestly, you need to get over this and move on.

[dickp]

Especially because taxpayers’ money is involved, it’s vital that the tender process is as open and wide-ranging as possible. Whoever gets appointed to these positions may well already be involved in community action – but equally, they may be a newcomer, with fresh insights. This is, after all, a paid role, with personnel employed to deliver commercial objectives.

While I appreciate Lee’s point about the need for suppliers to pro-actively hunt down opportunities, I confess be being surprised that these positions were not initially advertised on here - it’s an obvious, free, and quick, resource to use. I only heard about the vacancies after being alerted to it - and I like to think I’ve relatively switched about local issues.

With that in mind, I’ll be keeping my beady eye on the See3 website on a daily basis, because two other Portas roles are due to be advertised. As soon as the vacancies go live, I’ll be posting them on here, Virtual Norwood, the East Dulwich forum, and every other local forum I can think of.

I want Sydenham to improve, and I want my taxes to yield tangible benefits. That requires the very best people to be appointed, whoever they are.

[dartl]

The Council will be responding directly to the complainant but since it has been brought into the public domain I would like to say a few things to alleviate any concerns.

Currently the council, as the accountable body for the funding, are leading on this project and so the hiring of this consultant had to adhere to council procedures for tendering in the same way that we will be required to do for the other three consultants needed to deliver the SEE3 Portas Pilot.

The opportunity was advertised on the SEE3 website, sent to the SEE3 mailing list of approx 160 recipients and via social media channels. Applicants were required to submit a tender proposal, and then interviewed by a panel, which had a Council representative (Petra Marshall) and SEE3 representative (Cllr Chris Best) on it; and the role was awarded to the strongest candidate, Louise Brooks. The process was fair, open and transparent. Many different people gave their time and energy in putting together the bid for the Portas Pilot. The appointment of consultants is being led by the council and it would be unfair to bar local volunteers from applying, in the same way that we would not bar internal candidates from applying for vacancies in the council. We will continue to operate an open process for the remaining three consultancies which will be advertised through the SEE3 website and other social media channels.

We have a lot of exciting plans for the SEE3 Portas Pilot over the coming months, please keep an eye on the SEE3 website for details or register for our e-bulletin at www.see3.co.uk
Liz Dart
Head of Community & Neighbourhood Development
Lewisham Council

[art4]

Thank you to all responses: both on this thread, the many emails and phone calls.

I appreciate really hearing the different views. What has struck me perhaps is the great enthusiasm, the united desire by the local community to want to make this project work so well.

Speaking up is not neccesarily a comfortable move to do, particuarly since I have taken my concerns in to the public domain.

But did so acknowledging that I risked a mixed reaction and certainly did achieve that: allied responses: defences: explanations: critisism: advice

And we wish the project the best of luck and look forward to seeing our local high streets revitalised.

Joanne

[leenewham]

There is a job coming up for a creative artist that seems right up your street (so to speak) to be part of as you have so many artists on your books. If you want to make a difference locally, perhaps you can help with that.

But seriously, I think your conduct and total lack of professionalism in this thread, either by your totally unfathomable posts and awful use of language has harmed your business rather than helped.

I'd suggest that's a better route to getting new work than telling potential employers that they oversaw 'a fiasco' and that you have complained to the figurehead of the fund supplying the money, the government and national press on an open forum.

If this is how you carry on when you don't get your own way, then thank god Lewisham made the decision they did.

After all your posts, I have no idea what you do, what your experience is, your understanding of the problems or any idea of the solutions. Any of these things would have been useful to the Portas Team and given people an idea of what they missed out on, but instead you have turned your complaint into a fiasco:

"fiasco (fɪˈæskəʊ)"
a complete failure, esp one that is ignominious or humiliating

[Rachael]

I'm inclined to agree with Lee. If you have a genuine complaint with evidence to back it up, you should pursue it through the proper channels. If I were a prospective client and I did an online search as due diligence to decide whether or not to employ you and found this thread, I might well be put off. I'm not commenting here on the validity of your complaint, but on the wisdom of continuing to post here in an increasingly bizarre way. Out of context quotes just seem odd.

[Deep Sigh]

I'm with Lee here, completely. I imagine there probably are issues of vested interests and pulling of strings related to the regeneration projects (there always are in local politics!) but the OP's monomaniacal, barely coherent axe-grinding in this thread simply makes me think that those making the decisions did extremely well to steer well clear of their bid.

[art4]

To all those following, we have deleted our first post and replaced with a summary, which is below too:

'The original post of this thread was a protest at what we felt was
unfairness in tendering for the position of project managing the SEE3 Shop
Revolution. We regret the tone of the post and have therefore
deleted it.

However do still feel that there is something unfair about a
process in which a contract was quickly awarded to someone who had been
closely involved in setting up the process in the first place.

Perhaps we should have known that something like this would happen, and that the
putting out to tender was just a formality. If so, it was a shame, not
just for us, but for the Portas Pilot Project, since a good tendering
process should get the best, not just the initial ideas of those working on
the project.

We are as local as others on this Forum, but like most people living here,
we haven't been 'in the loop'. We are sorry that we will not be able to
help here with the Portas Pilot project, because we think we had much to
offer.

In fact, when we were interviewed lots of notes were being taken by the
panel, so something may yet come of our ideas.

Finally, we are shocked that a private email address seems to have been
passed around leading to a torrent of abuse, and hope that enquiries will
be made as to how this happened'.

J & P

[leenewham]

Reading through this thread, it now makes no sense at all!

I'm glad Joanne has changed her tack.

I think we need some balance here:

•What if they had made lots of contacts already as an orignal member of the bid with landlords and possible businesses, new exciting, different businesses?
• What if the winning bidder had impressed by brining in expert consultants with a long track record of doing this sort of work to work with local people.
• What if the winning bidder has vast experience working with major brands but has recently started up on their own, so while the new company is young, as Joanne did state in her now missing posts, it isn't wet behind the ears.
• What if the winning bidder was the best of everyone who tendered for everything?
• What if the winning bidder had the same amount of time to tender as everyone else, found out they would have to tender at the same time as everyone else despite having put in loads of work and time already for the Portas Pilot, for free.

I'm not saying this IS the case, but fact is, we just don't know. People seem to be thinking that there is a conspiracy. But what if it isn't?

Would it have been right if the people who designed the WINNING bid originally were told that they weren't allowed to be part of the the actual scheme because of procurement rules, even if they were best placed to carry out the work (or even if they weren't?).

I hope people will get behind the our portas pilot, especially in Sydenham, and offer to help and discus the benefits of it rather than shaking fists because of something that may or may not have happened.

What matters here is the development of Sydenham Road and how we can make it better. I hope we can move on from this distraction and make this happen.

[Tim Lund]

Lee is right to bat away the idea that there has been any kind of conspiracy, and I have little doubt that we have a decent Portas Pilot bid, and one involving open minded people who will listen to new ideas.

It is a problem that Council rules requiring the open tendering of this position led to an outcome that seemed unfair to art4, but we're not going to sort out the question of procurement in the time scale of the Portas Pilot bid. There is a chance, however, that people all round learn how to use this Forum better, which clearly does reach places other local media do not.

[louisecbrooks]

Dear Admin

Can I request that the response from Liz Dart from the council remains also, in the interests of balance. Otherwise as Lee rightly points out we are left with accusations of conspiracy and bad practice which go unanswered and undefended in the public domain.

Thanks

Louise Brooks

[admin]

I am going to lock the thread now. What I will do is try and strip it down to a few posts that contain the gist of the discussion and make narrative sense.

It'll probably be tomorrow before you see the edit.

Admin

----------------
Edit now done. Hope I haven't upset too many too much but with the deletions and stuff much of what was left was confusing and open to misinterpretation.