Procurement and contracts 733/2025

FOI Reference: 733/2025

Request:

1. Current and Planned Procurements

• Details of procurement exercises currently underway or planned within the next 12 months
• Estimated contract values and expected award dates
• Key service areas being procured (e.g., vehicles, equipment, IT systems, facilities)

2. Contract Renewal Information

• Major contracts (over £50,000 annual value) scheduled for renewal in the next 18 months
• Contract review dates and renewal processes
• Categories of services under contract

Scope: Please provide information covering the period from [current date] to [18 months forward]. I understand that some operational details may be exempt for security reasons.

Response:

In regards to question 1, I have determined that in relation to your request the following exemption applies:

Section 14(1) – Vexatious Requests:

Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious. Under S.14 (1) there is no requirement to conduct a public interest test and no requirement to provide any information or to confirm or deny whether the information is held.

I have taken cognisance of the Information Commissioners guidance on Vexatious requests which can be found at:

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/foi/freedom-of-information-and-environmental-information-regulations/section-14-dealing-with-vexatious-requests/

ICO guidance on the subject states:

‘Section 14(1) may be used in a variety of circumstances where a request, or its impact on a public authority, cannot be justified. Whilst public authorities should think carefully before refusing a request as vexatious, they should not regard section 14(1) as something which is only to be applied in the most extreme of circumstances.

In cases where the issue is not clear-cut, the key question to ask is whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress. This will usually be a matter of objectively judging the evidence of the impact on the authority and weighing this against any evidence about the purpose and value of the request. The public authority may also take into account the context and history of the request, where this is relevant.’

One of the indicators for identifying potentially vexatious requests is:

“Burden on the authority - The effort required to meet the request will be so grossly oppressive in terms of the strain on time and resources, that the authority cannot reasonably be expected to comply, no matter how legitimate the subject matter or valid the intentions of the requester”

Accordingly, I have classified your request as vexatious under section 14(1).

Our evidence and considerations in applying S14, against this backdrop is as follows:

Firstly, Freedom of Information legislation is designed to provide opportunities whereby the public can shine a torch on the decision making and workings of a public authority. However, this does not mean that information has to automatically be disclosed. To do so without significant thought process would be reckless and, in this case, could lead to the disclosure of exempt information.

In relation to question 1, each and every of the 421 logged entries in the Contracts Register would need to be manually reviewed with careful consideration with a view to identifying harm in disclosure and redacting the exempt information accordingly.  Any potentially exempt information cannot easily be isolated because it is scattered throughout the requested material.  The Freedom of Information team would have to carefully examine each entry to identify the harm, if any, and apply redactions accordingly.  The information would need to be reviewed by a member of the Freedom of Information Team with various internal Departments, so that the correct exemptions could be applied, and the public interest test carried out, where applicable.

It is impossible to quantify the length of time this task would take but we can safely say that it would be in excess of what could be reasonably expected to complete the initial review alone. It is not in the public interest to detract resources from a small team (2.5 Full Time Employees) with a high workload whose main function is the core policing purpose of adhering to the Freedom of Information legislation. Such an abstraction would negatively affect this purpose. I have identified that question 1 of this request would require an unreasonable amount of time to complete.

By way of assistance, the Procurement Manager has asked me to provide you with the following link which you may find useful:

https://sell2.in-tend.co.uk/blpd/contracts                                              

It should be noted that as a result of the systems adopted by Dyfed-Powys Police in relation to the recording of such information that the information released may or may not be accurate.

(This is a response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and disclosed on 06/08/2025)