suppliers for TfL's analysis framework and the consultation process
Request ID: FOI-1637-2223 Date published: 24 October 2022
You asked
Follow-up to: 1411-2223
Dear Sir/Madam,
Further to your response to my earlier request, I would like to submit another request, please.
Also, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
I note public responses to consultations are reviewed and analysed by either TfL's in-house consultation team, or, in some cases, the work may be outsourced to an external supplier procured through TfL's analysis framework.
1. Please name the organisations and solo individuals listed as possible suppliers for TfL's analysis framework.
In the specific context of responses to the recent consultation over ULEZ expansion, fines and road user charging.
2.Were responses processed by TfL's in-house consultation team and/or one or more outsourced suppliers?
3.Who is the designated Strategic Consultation Lead, and which organisation do they work for?
4. If processing was outsourced for the recent consultation:
which organisations and solo individuals were awarded a contract?
which organisations and solo individuals were shortlisted but not awarded a contract?
what criteria were used in awarding a contract?
what were the specification of work (e.g. terms of reference) and timescale for the work outsourced to a supplier?
please supply me with all releasable supplier selection and commissioning documents; I do not need to know the sums of money involved.
Many thanks indeed
We answered
TfL Ref: 1637-2223
Thank you for your request received by Transport for London (TfL) on 7 October 2022 asking for information about the analysis framework for TfL’s consultation process, following your previous request for information, reference:1411-2223.
Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. I can confirm that we hold the information you require. You asked:
1. Please name the organisations and solo individuals listed as possible suppliers for TfL's analysis framework.
TfL has in place the PSFW294202 – Professional Services Frameworks 2 – Transport Planning and Impact Monitoring (inclusive of Health & Safety & Environmental Services) Framework, which is used for these requirements. Lot 12 Public Consultations has four suppliers that provide these services – Aecom, Steer, WSP UK Limited, and Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions Ltd.
2. In the specific context of responses to the recent consultation over ULEZ expansion, fines and road user charging. Were responses processed by TfL's in-house consultation team and/or one or more outsourced suppliers?
The thematic and statistical analysis of the responses were conducted by Aecom.
3.Who is the designated Strategic Consultation Lead, and which organisation do they work for?
The Strategic Consultation Lead is employed by TfL. However, in accordance with our obligations under Data Protection legislation their name has been withheld from disclosure, as required by section 40(2) of the FOI Act. This is because disclosure of this personal data would be a breach of the legislation, specifically the first principle of Article 5 of the General Data Protection Regulation which requires all processing of personal data to be fair and lawful. It would not be fair to disclose this personal information when the individual has no expectation it would be disclosed and TfL has not satisfied one of the conditions which would make the processing ‘fair’.
This exemption to the right of access to information is an absolute exemption and not subject to an assessment of whether the public interest favours use of the exemption.
4. If processing was outsourced for the recent consultation:
Which organisations and solo individuals were awarded a contract?
The consultation analysis contract was awarded to Aecom.
Which organisations and solo individuals were shortlisted but not awarded a contract?
We conducted a competitive process using Lot 12 - Public Consultation of the PSFW 2 – TPIMHSE Framework. All four suppliers were approached to bid, and two completed the bidding process; these were Aecom and Steer.
What criteria were used in awarding a contract?
The evaluation criteria was Quality 70% and Commercial 30%.
What were the specification of work (e.g. terms of reference) and timescale for the work outsourced to a supplier?
We required our supplier to undertake the following activities:
The analysis of the consultation must include:
Statistical analysis of the responses to closed questions (26) contained within the consultation questionnaire and presentation of the outcomes of this analysis to the format required by TfL. This will be required in charts/graphs with a short written commentary for each question. The outcomes of this analysis should be presented in both excel and also a report format.
Thematic analysis of the responses to the open questions (4) contained within the questionnaire and production of a code frame for each question to describe each of the issues raised by respondents. Each code label must have a unique reference code.
We will require a table of the top issues raised for each open question (this will be determined once the code frame is completed but would typically be top 10 or 20 issues; a separate table showing stakeholder issues; and a written commentary paragraph for each of the top (public) issues which should include any geographical references and example quotes of comments. A copy of the full code frame is required for inclusion in the appendix of the report and access to the code frame in Excel for our records.
In the analysis of the consultation it is important for us to understand how levels of support or possible impacts may differ between different categories of respondents. We wish to be able to understand the different responses by demographic profile – for example whether men and women have different views or if there are any differences by ethnicity. While this is a consultation rather than a social research project, we require the Consultant to inform us where views by demographic profile may differ on a statistically significant basis. This will be discussed at the inception meeting. We will consider this analysis alongside our IIA, for example to consider whether there are any additional impacts identified for groups with protected characteristics under the Equalities Act.
All responses to the open questions must be analysed. Each code included in the code frame should clearly describe the issue raised by respondents and there should be no requirement for readers to refer to the original response(s) comprehensively to understand the meaning of the code.
Any responses which request a change to the code frame must be flagged on a weekly basis to TfL.
The Consultant will provide frequency counts of the coding frame while the consultation is live and shortly after. The purpose of this is to provide approximate counts to help TfL commence drafting our response to the issues raised at the earliest possible stage. The timings of these frequency count will be agreed with the Consultant.
The Consultant must confirm in its bid that it will use no software-based methodology for the analysis of responses to the open questions in the questionnaire. TfL require that all comments must be read and coded by an analyst.
The code frames and statistical analysis must be completed to TfL’s satisfaction to the timing indicated in Section 4. TfL will agree the initial draft code frame and then further codes can only be added once agreed with the Consultant project manager and TfL. Mass coding should not commence until TfL has signed off the initial draft code frame. TfL require weekly updates of the developing code frame during its development so that TfL can be satisfied that it was being developed satisfactorily and that the size of the code frame remains manageable.
The Consultant should identify “campaign responses” which have the same wording as other responses.
If a respondent has clearly made comments within a question which relate to another question (including in error) then these responses should be treated within the correct question.
Written text, for inclusion in the Consultation Report prepared by TfL and published after consultation, must comprehensively explain to the public and other stakeholders the Consultant’s methodology in undertaking the analysis described in this specification.
At TfL’s request, undertake data entry and subsequent analysis of responses received to the consultation in hard-copy or by email. Based on previous consultations, we do not expect to receive many responses in this format. However, we wish to build this into the specification should we receive a large number later in the campaign.
TfL will require the Consultant to produce a map plotting the postcodes of respondents to the consultation to a format to be agreed with TfL (and which likely would be informed by the breadth of responses to the consultation). TfL will also require analysis of the data by postcodes for key questions. This will need to be split by those within and outside of Greater London (and, if responses are from outside Greater London, where from). As well as analysis based on inner vs outer London and where respondents live in reference to schemes i.e. within existing, within proposed outside both.
The Consultant must factor the additional detailed requirements into their bid, and explain how they would meet these in the accompanying documentation:
TfL would discuss and agree with the individual(s) who will develop the draft code frames at project onset and agree the sample size for the draft code frame to be based on. The sample size should be large enough so that no significant number of new codes are identified once coding commences. TfL would wish to agree the coding frame with the Consultant before coding commences, working through examples to ensure common understanding. For the first meeting TfL would wish the Consultant to produce an overview showing the logic and high-level structure behind the suggested code frame.
The Consultant should detail in their methodology how they will manage the size of the code frame should it exceed 100 codes.
The Consultant should make it clear how they would verify and quality-assure the analysis process, specifically the analysis of responses to open questions. TfL would expect to see quality assurance processes for a specified number of the first responses coded by individual staff and then on a sample basis on an ongoing basis. TfL would wish to be able to carry out random spot checks of coding once “mass coding” starts.
Flag proactively any new codes proposed to be added to the Code Frame at least weekly, and most particularly any codes which relate to a request for a change to the scheme/proposals.
Flag any responses where respondents are asking for more information in order for them to be able to take part in the consultation or where they are making a Freedom of Information request.
Notify TfL as soon as is practical of evidence of any orchestrated campaign responses amongst their analysis of the consultation.
TfL required our supplier, AECOM, to complete the above activities and issue a final consultation report by 16 September 2022.
Please supply me with all releasable supplier selection and commissioning documents; I do not need to know the sums of money involved.
In this instance the section 43(2) exemption has been applied to this part of your request, as disclosure of supplier selection and commissioning documents could give an insight into how the value of this agreement was reached and would be likely to prejudice our commercial interests, as well as AECOM. Prejudice would be likely to occur if we were to seek similar services or AECOM were to compete for tendering opportunities in the future, as detailed knowledge of their commercial expertise would inevitably be prejudiced by disclosing a detailed breakdown of their competitive edge into the public domain.
The use of this exemption is subject to an assessment of the public interest in relation to the disclosure of the information concerned. We recognise the need for openness and transparency by public authorities but in this instance the public interest in ensuring that TfL is able to obtain the best value for the public purse outweighs the general public interest in increasing transparency of our processes.
If this is not the information you are looking for, or if you are unable to access it for any reason, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal as well as information on copyright and what to do if you would like to re-use any of the information we have disclosed.
Yours sincerely
Jasmine Howard FOI Case Officer FOI Case Management Team General Counsel Transport for London
