Agenda item

Report CS15942

It was proposed to group together two Learning Disability (LD) supported living schemes for tendering (both schemes located in close proximity to each other) and approval was sought to commence procurement.

Contracts for both schemes co-terminate on 27th November 2016, the schemes collectively accommodating 11 people with significant learning and physical disabilities combined with complex health needs. Together the schemes incurred expenditure of £1,165,742 p.a. with a contract value post tender estimated at £5m - £6m. A contract period of five years was proposed - a three-year term with an option to extend to a maximum of two years.

Although prices obtained were competitive, it was unlikely to achieve the magnitude of cost reduction seen in previous tender exercises without significantly compromising the quality and sustainability of services. As such, and given concerns for the future stability of the market, it was proposed to evaluate tenders using criteria of 60% quality and 40% price, the emphasis on quality safeguarding service standards to support particularly vulnerable clients. 

In discussion, concern was expressed that a 60% quality/40% price criteria could lead to higher costs - quality could also be difficult to assess. However, the provider would be monitored against Key Performance Indicators and paragraph 10.3 of the report indicated areas that would most impact on a provider’s quality. If not accommodated at the schemes, the Portfolio Holder for Care Services suggested it would be necessary to place the service users into totally supported living. This would be more expensive and without quality criteria the Council would be faced with more expense.

Benchmarked against other local authorities, L B Bromley would be in the lower quartile for hourly rates of care in such schemes. It was unlikely that cost could be reduced further in future – cost reduction(s) had already been negotiated with the current provider over the life of the services. It was necessary to achieve as much quality as possible for the reduced cost.

The Deputy Leader indicated that he was content to support the report’s recommendations as written but was opposed to a 60% quality/40% price criteria. The Leader suggested that reasonable quality is needed at fair prices. A suggestion was put that officers come back to Members with information to demonstrate how many times a 60% quality criteria had previously been used across services. The Leader wanted a direction of travel and it was suggested that a decision on evaluation criteria be delegated to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader and Portfolio Holder for Care Services (and with their agreement). This was agreed. The Leader added that quality is important but it was also necessary for Members to be clear on the implications of agreeing to a 60% quality/40% price criteria. It was confirmed that where such a criteria had been used previously it was possible to demonstrate that the unit costing was not significantly different to the present case and that higher quality criteria does not necessarily mean a higher rate of cost.

RESOLVED that:

(1)  the schemes be grouped for tendering in order to drive the best possible quality/pricing;

(2)  commencement of the procurement procedure be approved to enable award in accordance with the Council’s financial and contractual requirements; and

(3)  a decision on evaluation criteria be delegated to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader and Portfolio Holder for Care Services, officers having first provided further information to demonstrate how many times (and how cost effectively) a 60% quality criteria has previously been used across services.