Questions over Norfolk waste contract lead to review

A meeting of the county's cabinet scrutiny committee launched the review on Tuesday, after a complaint that councillors had not received enough information about bidders prior to the decision being made.

” The NEWS bid has been incorrectly assessed and evaluated, and as a consequence it was too easily dismissed by officers. “
– Cllr Tim East, Norfolk CC
The review was called by Councillor Tim East, who represents Costessey, the site proposed for a new energy-from-waste incinerator under WRG's plans for Norfolk's “Phase One” residual waste contract.

The contract covers the treatment of around half of the household waste produced in Norfolk once recycling and composting has been carried out.

Bids
Waste Recycling Group was named as preferred bidder with a proposal for a materials recycling facility and 150,000 tonne-capacity incinerator. A bid from council-owned Norfolk Environmental Waste Services (NEWS), involving a mechanical biological treatment plant, was left as reserve bidder.

A review panel held before the WRG proposal was confirmed as preferred option by Norfolk county council's cabinet saw cross-party councillors voting only narrowly in favour of appointing WRG – by nine votes to eight.

“Flawed”
Speaking to letsrecycle.com today, Cllr East said he had even called for the decision to be overturned, having said council officers were “either unwilling or unable” to answer questions concerning the two bids.

He said: “The recommendation to appoint WRG as preferred bidder at Review Panel and Cabinet is flawed. It should not have been made to members given the nature and seriousness of the questions being raised against it.”

“Accepted”
However, Joel Hull, project manager for Norfolk's waste contract, said the decision would stand.

Mr Hull said: “It is important to recognise that the procurement process for waste was accepted. In the review, we will see what we can learn from it to make future procurement better.”

The reasons given by council officers to recommend WRG's proposal was that it would be more cost effective than the MBT system suggested by NEWS, and would provide more certainty for meeting government-set landfill diversion targets.

But Cllr East claimed council officers “do not seem to understand” the new technology bid from NEWS. He said: “The NEWS bid has been incorrectly assessed and evaluated, and as a consequence it was too easily dismissed by officers.”

Opposition
Cllr East warned that public opposition to the incinerator would mean the project could take up to seven years to get underway, leaving the county struggling to meet its landfill limits under Defra's Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme.

He said: “The pressure from the public is enormous, and it is likely to take five to seven years to get an incinerator built. This will not be ready in time to meet our landfill diversion targets. I believe that the MBT plant proposed by NEWS would not face the same sort of problems and would be built in time to avoid being fined.

“This is a 25-year contract, which is going to cost 500 million. We need to make sure we make the right decision, it would be better for the council if it admitted mistakes were made and reviewed the whole process. I believe that the roles of preferred bidder and reserve bidder would then be reversed,” he added.