³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾

Today, Port Phillip Council released two independent reports investigating why some residents’ kerbside bins weren’t collected after Citywide took over as the kerbside waste and recycling contractor on 1 July, 2023. This initiative underscores our commitment to transparency and accountability, especially concerning the challenges encountered during the transition of our waste collection services.

I must first express my sincere apologies for the inconvenience and disruption this transition has caused. The level of service disruption was entirely unacceptable, and for that, we are deeply sorry.

The release of these independent reports marks a crucial step towards rebuilding trust and moving forward. One report scrutinises some of the potential reasons for the missed bin collections, while the other evaluates the procurement process for engaging the new contractor, alongside our adherence to proper probity processes.

From these investigations, we’ve gained significant insights critical for the continuous improvement of our council and organisation. Among the key findings, it was identified that Citywide was not adequately prepared to deliver the services at the expected levels, notably failing to meet the route mapping requirements.

Moreover, the reports offered valuable feedback on how the Council might better manage transitions and planning phases when introducing new contractors, aiming to diminish the risk or severity of service delivery failures.

It’s noteworthy that in response to these challenges, Citywide and the Council collaborated diligently to resolve the disruption. This effort included mobilising additional resources, such as council staff and vehicles, to address the missed collections, which played a pivotal role in stabilising and ultimately rectifying the situation.

I’d like the community to know CEO Chris Carroll has already implemented some organisational changes along with enhanced procurement and contract management governance and practices, saying:

“There have been several changes to responsibilities, personnel, and resourcing. There were things we should have done better throughout the process, but critically we should have better interrogated Citywide’s assurances that they were good to go. All staff involved with this process have taken these learnings very seriously and will use this knowledge to avoid any future potential service issues. I apologise for the impact on our community and commit to the timely implementation of more measures in response to each of the recommendations”, Mr Carroll said.

We promised transparency by releasing these external reports, acknowledging our community’s right to understand what went wrong and why. Acknowledging the implementation of some recommendations by our CEO already, the Council has set a firm expectation for the prompt action on the remaining recommendations. This is to ensure that our community receives the high-quality services it expects and deserves.

Furthermore, the Council’s Audit and Risk Committee will closely monitor the implementation of these actions, with service performance continuing to be transparently reported in the monthly CEO Reports.

The findings in these reports suggest several oversights by both the Council and Citywide, leading to substandard service delivery. I am committed to ensuring that such issues do not recur and to significantly enhancing our operational capability and compliance. We will work with our contractor to ensure they meet expected service standards but we must also thoroughly review and improve our own processes. This commitment to action reflects our dedication to our community and the standard of service they rightfully expect.

I look forward to hearing your feedback and insights on these important reports.

Independent reports

The only information redacted relates to the identities of the other waste tenderers as this is not appropriate to share publicly.

• What caused the missed kerbside bin collections?

  The route maps Citywide was required to create under the contract did not include all streets and bin locations. This meant the collection trucks missed many bins, and sometimes entire streets.

  Key findings include Citywide not being fully prepared to perform the service at expected service levels and route mapping requirements not being met.

  Feedback was also provided in the reports on how Council could have more effectively managed the procurement and particularly the transition phases for a new contractor to reduce the risk or impact of services not being delivered as committed.

• What could Council have done better?

  The report outlines a range of things that Council could have done better including data management, project management, governance, and probity. A key finding related to how we managed the transition process. Critically we should have better interrogated Citywide’s assurances that they were good to go, including ensuring the route maps were accurate and complete.

• How are you responding to the independent reports?

  The CEO has commenced implementing the report recommendations and there have already been changes to responsibilities, personnel, and resourcing. He is developing a comprehensive action plan that will address the recommendations and embed the learnings. Council’s Audit and Risk Committee will closely monitor the implementation and service performance will continue to be reported publicly in monthly CEO Reports.

• Were your probity requirements adhered to?

  The independent probity advisor on the procurement concluded that ‘the procurement process was, in all material respects, developed, managed and completed in accordance with relevant documented procedures and probity principles’.

  However, the auditors conducting the review made several significant findings. Despite these findings the auditors did not consider these to compromise the tender outcome in a material manner. We will use the findings of the audit to further strengthen our procurement and probity practices.

• Why was an employee of the City of Melbourne allowed on the panel?

  At the time of the tender, several long-standing Council staff in the waste team had left the organisation. To ensure that we had the right mix of expertise on the tender evaluation panel, we drew upon the support of an officer with extensive waste sector experience from the City of Melbourne (CoM). This person was also a former employee of Council in the waste area.

  The potential for a conflict-of-interest was considered and the relationship was declared and subject to review by the probity advisor. It was determined that no material or general conflict-of-interest under the Local Government Act arose. Controls were put in place on the advice of the probity advisor and the CoM staff member participated in the tender evaluation alongside four other voting members. The probity advisor concluded in their final report that they ‘did not observe any impact to the probity of the process’ in relation to the CoM officer’s participation.

  However, we acknowledge the finding of the auditor that while no material conflict of interest under the Local Government Act took place, in their view the person should not have been allowed to be a voting member of the panel and that their expertise could have been applied as a non-voting member. This finding will be considered further with a view to taking a more conservative approach to managing perceptions of conflicts-of-interest.

  Based on the findings of the probity audit, Council officers have discussed the situation with a representative from the Local Government Inspectorate (LGI) and they have advised that based on the information provided the approach appeared reasonable. However, they did note that perceptions of conflict of interest can be difficult to manage, and that this could be an area of further work for the City of Port Phillip and that the LGI would be happy to provide input into Council’s review of policies and process.