A ratepayer is questioning the process used by Whangārei District Council to appoint Armourguard to the latest regulatory services contract, a key limb of which is dog control. File photo.
A ratepayer is questioning the process used by Whangārei District Council to appoint Armourguard to the latest regulatory services contract, a key limb of which is dog control. File photo.
A ratepayer is calling out Whangārei District Council for its “irregular” process in handing its five-year, multi-million dollar Regulatory Services contract to American-owned security company Armourguard.
Through official inquiries, Mark Fairey confirmed Armourguard had been re-contracted in 2022 by the council without following either its procurement policy or itssignificance and engagement policy.
Fairey believed there was no good reason for that departure - certainly nothing that qualified for the provision of “exceptional circumstances”.
That meant local businesses were deprived of a shot at the significant contract - worth about $12 million - and the public got no say.
The council stands by that contract process and the quality of Armourguard’s service.
Fairey is a retired chartered accountant who had held senior management roles, board positions, and had significant experience carrying out procurement of services.
He challenged whether Armourguard was up to the role, which involves the key responsibility of dog control. He was among numerous dog owners who criticised the service after a recent Northern Advocate article questioning the council’s use of dog registration fees.
Fairey claimed dog control staff were tasked with enforcement duties in several other regulatory areas such as litter, freedom camping, parking, and noise control, which in his view undoubtedly affected their ability to properly carry out their dog control role.
Whangarei dog owner and ratepayer Mark Fairey is taking Whangārei District Council to task over the way it granted a multi-million dollar Regulatory Services contract, including dog control, to incumbent Armourguard without offering the contract on the open market. Photo / supplied
When the contract fell due again in 2021, Kaipara didn’t give Armourguard a look in - there had been too many complaints about dogs.
However, Whangārei extended Armourguard’s contract for another 12 months due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Then in 2022 council accepted a proposal prepared by health and bylaws manager Reiner Mussle to directly negotiate with Armourguard and re-contract it without putting the contract out to the open market.
The council’s planning and development general manager Dominic Kula said the council was provided with options and the pros and cons of each. He said there were “exceptional circumstances” justifying a departure from the procurement policy.
The council, still feeling the effects of delays caused by the pandemic, believed there were no suitable alternative service providers in the market, and that bringing another contractor up to speed, would take too long.
Armourguard had already been through a vigorous and competitive procurement process in being granted the 2016 contract.
“Council ultimately decided that awarding the contract to Armourguard was the most cost-effective procurement option including those relevant to the implementation of new technology (parking meter infrastructure), providing long-term certainty, building on momentum and success, and the encouragement of investment in equipment and staff training,” Kula said.
“Council considered that the use of a contractor to carry out regulatory services did not meet the threshold of requiring public consultation under the significance and engagement policy,” Kula said.
Fairey rejected those explanations saying they amounted to the council saying, “‘It’s all too hard to follow the process our policies require. We’ve left it too late to follow a proper process. We don’t have a plan B. So, let’s gift the contract back to Armourguard’.”
He claimed councillors weren’t fully appraised of the ramifications when presented with the proposal, Fairey said. The document did not remind them of the council’s procurement policy, did not mention Kaipara District Council having terminated its interest in Armourguard, or that the dog control service in the Whangārei district struggled to recruit and retain staff.
There was no legal opinion provided for elected councillors that the council had authority to delegate a statutory power to security guards. In New Zealand, unless specifically enabled in the legislation, statutory powers cannot be delegated meaning that the council should employ dog control officers directly, Fairey claimed.
Official information Fairey received showed the company had, for the most part, been unable to recruit its full quota of authorised dog control officers and, for the last two years of the 2016 contract, suffered a 75% staff turnover rate. Staffing was only ever stable during the 2020/2021 financial year - the height of pandemic protocols.
The Whangārei District Council justified a 27% increase in dog registration fees during 2021 as necessary for upping the dog control staff from four to six. Yet, it wasn’t until the final quarter of that year that even a fifth officer was hired.
Fairey also questioned the high rate of infringements issued by the council’s dog control officers. During 2021/2022 infringements were issued at a rate 6.2 times higher than in Wellington, where there were similar dog numbers. The council’s records for the most recent reporting year (2022/23) show its dog officers dished out 1365 infringement notices - 78% more than the 767 dished out for the 2021/22 year.
Whangārei District Council dog pound animal control building. Photo / supplied
Kula said that before directly negotiating with Armourguard, its performance was assessed against the requirements of the contract and the associated performance measures agreed with the community through the long-term plan.
“These were the relevant considerations for council through the process under our procurement policy.”
The council was “not concerned” about Armourguard’s staff turnover or filling any resulting vacancies.
“The annual cost of the new (2022) contract was negotiated at a lower rate than the existing (2016) contract, based on the same hours, with council then adding additional funding for double staffing of noise control shifts due to health and safety requirements.
“The resulting contract had a year one (2022-23) value of up to $2,386,680.49. This forms the base value for subsequent years of the contract. However, actual expenditure in a given year is based on the services delivered by Armourguard, and was less than this in the first two years of the contract (2022/23 and 2023/24).
“While there was a bonus for response timeframes on priority complaints [not infringements or impound fees] in the 2016 contract, this is not in the current [2022] contract.”
Kula said it wasn’t possible to compare infringement rates with other local authorities as each council had “different conditions and processes, that could result in differing statistics”.
The council was confident functions it delegated under the Dog Control Act were lawful and consistent with legal advice, Kula said.
Sarah Curtis is a news reporter for the Northern Advocate, focusing on a wide range of issues. She has nearly 20 years’ experience in journalism, much of which she spent court reporting.
