NFRS 2024 61 - Mobile data terminal

You asked for

I would like to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for information regarding the Mobile Data Terminal (MDT) systems used by your service, as well as related technologies. To ensure I receive as comprehensive a response as possible, I kindly request the following details:

1. Supplier and Contract Information:
   1. The name of the current supplier for your MDT software (e.g., Airbus, 3tc,or others).
   2. The start and end dates of the contract.
   3. The total value of the contract, as well as the number of licenses currentlyin use.
   4. The annual contract value, if available.
   5. If the solution was sourced through another organisation (e.g., the councilor a consortium), please provide details of that organisation.
2. Contractual and Procurement Details:
   1. A copy of the original technical specification and tender documents used in the procurement of the MDT solution.
   2. The names of any suppliers who bid for the contract, along with how they scored across each evaluation domain (e.g., quality, cost, and overall score).
   3. A summary of the procurement process used, including the weighting of different evaluation criteria.
3. Contact Information:
   1. The name, email address, and phone number of the system owner or key contact responsible for the MDT software within your service.
   2. The department in which the system owner is based.
4. Fleet and Deployment Information:
   1. The total number of operational vehicles equipped with MDTs, and the types of vehicles (e.g., fire appliances, command vehicles, etc.).
5. Related Technology Systems:
   1. Please provide details of any additional technology systems integrated with or complementing your MDTs, such as:
      1. Incident management systems
      2. Mobile communications platforms
      3. Vehicle tracking or telematics systems
      4. Command and control systems
      5. Mapping and Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
   2. For each system, please provide the supplier name, contract start and end dates, contract value, and renewal date.
6. Collaborative or Shared Procurement:
   1. If your service participates in any shared or collaborative purchasing frameworks for technology (e.g., with other authorities or consortia), please provide details of these frameworks or partnerships, and the contracts awarded through them.

Our Response

1. Supplier and Contract Information:
   1. The name of the current supplier for your MDT software (e.g., Airbus, 3tc, or others).
      Answer: - Systel. This is for Tri-Service of Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and Derbyshire. Please note Leicestershire has withdrawn from the Tri-Service arrangement as of 2023.
   2. The start and end dates of the contract.
      Answer: - Start: 10/10/2015 End: 31/10/2025
   3. The total value of the contract, as well as the number of licenses currently in use.
      Answer: - Approximate £1,877,406.23, 153 licences via Derbyshire.
   4. The annual contract value, if available.
      Answer: - Forecasts for Financial
      • 2023-2024 - £141,922.95
      • 2024-2025 - £204,514.04
      • 2025-2026 - £216,784.88
   5. If the solution was sourced through another organisation (e.g., the council or a consortium), please provide details of that organisation.
      Answer: - Partnership with Derbyshire and Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Services.
2. Contractual and Procurement Details:
   1. A copy of the original technical specification and tender documents used in the procurement of the MDT solution.
      Answer: - Exempt by virtue of Section 43(2) Commercial interests of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
   2. The names of any suppliers who bid for the contract, along with how they scored across each evaluation domain (e.g., quality, cost, and overall score).
      Answer: - Exempt by virtue of Section 43(2) Commercial interests of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
   3. A summary of the procurement process used, including the weighting of different evaluation criteria.
      Answer: - Exempt by virtue of Section 43(2) Commercial interests of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
3. Contact Information:
   1. The name, email address, and phone number of the system owner or key contact responsible for the MDT software within your service.
      Answer: - Exempt by virtue of Section 40(2) Personal Information of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
   2. The department in which the system owner is based.
      Answer: - Resources
4. Fleet and Deployment Information:
   1. The total number of operational vehicles equipped with MDTs, and the types of vehicles (e.g., fire appliances, command vehicles, etc.).
      Answer: - All operational vehicles are equipped with MDTs
5. Related Technology Systems:
   1. Please provide details of any additional technology systems integrated with or complementing your MDTs, such as:
      1. Incident management systems
         Answer: - 3TC Software, Fire & Rescue - Incident Recording (IRS). Start: 01/04/2024 End: 31/03/2025 Value: £ 19034.83
      2. Mobile communications platforms
         Answer: - EE Mobile SIMS, Airwave. Start: 01/01/2023 End: 31/12/2026 Value: £33,177.76
      3. Vehicle tracking or telematics systems
         Answer: - Civica UK LTD, Tranman Fleet Management. Start: 01/04/2024 End: 31/03/2025 Value: £12,218.37
      4. Command and control systems
         Answer: - Handled via Derbyshire Fire and Rescue Service as part of Joint Control Partnership
      5. Mapping and Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
         Answer: - Esri, GIS Software for Mapping and Spatial Analytics, Start: 01/04/2024 End: 31/03/2025 Value: £11,125
   2. For each system, please provide the supplier’s name, contract start and end dates, contract value, and renewal date.
      Answer: - Refer to part (a) of question 5.
6. Collaborative or Shared Procurement:
   1. If your service participates in any shared or collaborative purchasing frameworks for technology (e.g., with other authorities or consortia), please provide details of these frameworks or partnerships, and the contracts awarded through them.
      Answer: - Nottinghamshire works closely with Derbyshire Fire and Rescue Service. Including the purchase of the new Mobilising System solution.

Section 40: - Personal Information

(2) Any information to which a request for information relates is also exempt information if—

1. it constitutes personal data which does not fall within subsection (1), and
2. the first, second or third condition below is satisfied.

(3A) The first condition is that the disclosure of the information to a member of the public otherwise than under this Act—

1. would contravene any of the data protection principles, or
2. would do so if the exemptions in section 24(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (manual unstructured data held by public authorities) were disregarded.

(3B) The second condition is that the disclosure of the information to a member of the public otherwise than under this Act would contravene Article 21 of the GDPR (general processing: right to object to processing).

(4A) The third condition is that—

1. on a request under Article 15(1) of the GDPR (general processing: right of access by the data subject) for access to personal data, the information would be withheld in reliance on provision made by or under section 15, 16 or 26 of, or Schedule 2, 3 or 4 to, the Data Protection Act 2018, or
2. (b) on a request under section 45(1)(b) of that Act (law enforcement processing: right of access by the data subject), the information would be withheld in reliance on subsection (4) of that section.

Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is categorised as an Absolute and Class Based type exemption and therefore does not require a public interest test to be carried nor must Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service articulate the harm in disclosure.

Section 43: - Commercial interests

(2). Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding it).

Harm Test Under Section 43(2) FOIA – Commercial Interests

The release of the requested information, including the names of the bidders and their scores across each evaluation domain, would likely prejudice the commercial interests of the suppliers who participated in the tender process. Disclosing the individual scoring information, particularly in relation to cost and quality, could compromise the suppliers' competitive position in future procurement processes. Competitors may use this information to adjust their own bidding strategies, thereby undermining the integrity of the competitive procurement process.

Additionally, the disclosure of the original technical specifications and tender documents could provide potential suppliers with insight into the evaluation criteria and decision-making processes, enabling them to tailor their future bids in a way that may not reflect genuine competition, but rather an exploitation of publicly available information. This could distort the competitive dynamic and reduce the likelihood of achieving the best value for public money.

The public authority may also be harmed by the release of this information, as it could result in a loss of confidence among suppliers, with a potential reduction in the number of bids received in future procurement exercises. Suppliers may perceive that commercially sensitive information about their bids will be disclosed, discouraging them from participating in the process and, in turn, limiting the authority’s ability to secure competitive and high-quality solutions.

In favour of disclosure of the requested information:

Transparency in the awarding of contracts fosters public trust in government and public bodies, particularly in relation to decisions that affect taxpayers’ money. It is in the public interest to ensure that procurement processes are not only legally compliant but also conducted in a way that maximises value for money and promotes competition. Disclosure would also provide reassurance to future bidders that the process is being conducted fairly and without favouritism, encouraging greater participation and competition in future tenders.

Furthermore, the risk of harm to commercial interests is mitigated by the fact that the information in question relates to a past procurement process, reducing the potential for ongoing competitive disadvantage.

In favour of nondisclosure of the requested information:

While the public interest in transparency is important, the harm to the commercial interests of the suppliers involved in the procurement process and the public authority itself significantly outweighs the benefits of disclosure in this case. The requested information such as the names of the suppliers, their individual evaluation scores, and the detailed tender documents contains commercially sensitive data that, if disclosed, would likely prejudice the suppliers' competitive positions in future procurements. Releasing the names of bidders alongside their scores across different evaluation domains (e.g., cost, quality) would provide competitors with an unfair advantage in future tenders by revealing pricing strategies, strengths and weaknesses in proposals, and areas of focus in the technical aspects of their bids.

This could undermine the competitive process in subsequent procurement exercises, resulting in fewer bids and reduced competition, which ultimately reduces the value for money for taxpayers. Suppliers may become reluctant to bid in future public procurement exercises if they perceive that their commercially sensitive information will be made public, which could result in a less competitive pool of bidders and potentially higher costs to the public sector.

Additionally, the disclosure of detailed procurement documents, including the technical specifications and evaluation criteria, could give future bidders the opportunity to tailor their proposals in ways that circumvent the fair and rigorous evaluation process, leading to the potential for suboptimal outcomes in future procurement decisions. This could also undermine the integrity of the procurement process itself, where competitive tensions may be weakened.

Balance Test

A commercial interest relates to a legal person’s ability to participate competitively in a commercial activity. The underlying aim will usually be to make a profit. However, it could also be to cover costs or to simply remain solvent. In legal terms, the word ‘prejudice’ is commonly understood to mean harm. To say that disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice someone’s commercial interests implies that it would (or would be likely to) harm those interests.

This can include:

• information provided during a tendering process about both successful and unsuccessful bids;
• details of the contract agreed with the successful bidder;
• future procurement plans; and
• performance information about a contractor.

Having considered both the benefits and potential impacts of disclosing the requested information, I have concluded the release of the requested would prejudice the commercial interests of both Nottinghamshire Police and past competitors in this case. I therefore consider the information exempt under Section 43(2) of the FOIA.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please write or contact the Executive Support via e-mail or letter quoting the above reference number.