Key information
Executive summary
This paper requests approval to extend the ICT Service Integration and Management (SIAM) contract with Atos for 48 months from December 2016 to allow implementation of a security services solution and approve funding of £6.24m (£438k capital plus £5.76m revenue) over the extended contract period.
Recommendation
The DMPC is asked to:
1. Approve additional funding of £6.24m (£438k capital plus £5.76m revenue).
2. Approve the extension of the SIAM contract with Atos for 48 months.
Non-confidential facts and advice to the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime (DMPC)
1. Introduction and background
1.1. In 2015, Atos was appointed as the new SIAM partner. Cap Gemini had been providing an interim ICT security service for the MPS. The contract with Cap Gemini expired on the 31st October 2016, however it has been extended on a month by month basis to enable the service to continue. The current monthly service cost with Cap Gemini is £116,833. The proposal from Atos is for a monthly cost of £120,000 per month with additional functionality.
1.2. This is a foreseen extension of the SIAM/Towers arrangement as stated in Schedule 1 of the SIAM/Tower contract.
2. Issues for consideration
2.1. These are discussed in Part 2 of the attached decision.
3. Financial Comments
3.1. The revenue costs are unfunded in the current financial year and also in future years. The MPS is proposing to use potential savings from the fixed line telecoms contract which are estimated to be in excess of £1m a year to fund the 2016/17 revenue costs of £480,000. For future years costs from 2017/18, these will be funded from a combination of ongoing savings in the fixed line telecoms costs and rationalisation of applications resulting in a total estimated saving of £2m per annum.
3.2. Further details regarding the revenue funding is contained in the Part 2 of the attached decision.
3.3. The capital costs of £483,000 can be met from existing budget provision.
4. Legal Comments
4.1. These are discussed in Part 2 – Commercial section of the attached decision.
5. Equality Comments
5.1. There are no direct equality or diversity implications arising from this report
Signed decision document
PCD 108