Decision details

Option 1. Remove or reduce the quality threshold and award on price. 

Benefits  

Risks  

No need to complete another tender, immediately; leaves us enough time to mobilise new contract; won’t have to tender new contract for three years, or five years if extension is invoked; no break in service provision.  

There is a risk of challenge if we reduce the quality threshold to allow for some of the bidders to get through, and others not. A question over how we would decide what the new quality threshold was, and in addition to this, there was no mention of being able to reduce or amend the quality threshold in the original tender documents. There are risks associated if the Council awarded to one of the five bidders on price alone, because the award is not in accordance with tender documents (there is risk of challenge from providers who bid, Longhurst Group for leaving them no choice but to terminate based on costs being unsustainable and the Council now paying above what they asked for); reputational damage for failing procurement and awarding on cost alone and not on quality of care; the duty of care placed on Councils within the Care Act 2014 is greater than duties under procurement regulations; the  bid with the lowest price did not meet the minimum quality standard and therefore runs risk in failing within mobilisation as well as the quality of service delivery resulting in a high likelihood of provider failure and an adverse impact on the service users.  

Option 2 (preferred). Direct award to Atlas Care Ltd, under Regulation 32(2)c. Inform the bidders they were not successful as they did not meet the quality threshold.  

Benefits  

Risks  

We know the standard of care Atlas Care Ltd are currently providing for care in the community is acceptable; there is very little risk of challenge, although not zero; less resource heavy than completing a mobilisation or full tender; ensures no breaks in provision. It also means we can retender for the other two schemes in 2024 for a period to end when this contract ends (1^st April 2027), so the contract live/end dates will coincide with one and other. When April 2027 comes, all five contracts will be due and extension or a retender.  

There is still a low risk of challenge due to the nature of direct awarding.  

Option 3. Complete another procurement exercise to get a provider that meets the quality threshold.  

Benefits  

Risks  

We will be able to get another provider in place in accordance with the Public Contract Regulations 2015, and we could have a contract to last longer; the new provider will meet quality standards, with little risk of failure;  

With the existing contract ending 31^st March 2024 we have limited time to complete another full tender and we would have no mobilisation time for the new provider. This would result in a break in provision of approximately six to twelve months, that could be costly to the Council in terms of internal staffing costs to run the tender, as well as finding spot care to cover the costs of care provision.  

Option 4. Do nothing.  

Benefits  

Risks  

No additional resources needed. Allow contract to end and do no more commissioning. Cost savings as we won’t be paying for the block contract.  

There will be no care in place for vulnerable people living in ECH, resulting in risk of harm to them. We will be failing to meet our duty of care under the Care Act 2014.