Purpose

This report seeks to approve a
Direct Award of contracts with the following providers: Eminent Care Agency, Lone
Care Services and Star Care UK for domiciliary care services
for the 6 Extra Care in-house services from for a period of 12
months.
 
Draft recommendation to:
Approve the direct award for (3) three contracts to Eminent Care
Agency, Lone Care Services and Star Care UK for domiciliary care
services for the 6 in-house Extra Care services for a period of 12
months and for the values per provider stated in the part B report
(with an aggregated value across all three contracts of
£2,400,000)
 

Content

For the reasons detailed in the
Part A and Part B and related Appendices, the CORPORATE DIRECTOR OF
ADULT SOCIAL CARE AND HEALTH AGREED to:
 
 
Approve
the direct award for (3) three contracts to Eminent
Care Agency, Lone Care Services and Star Care UK for domiciliary
care services for the 6 in-house Extra Care services from
1st June 2025 until 31st May 2026 for a
period of 12 months and for the values per provider stated in the
part B report (with an aggregated value across all three contracts
of £2,400,000)
 
Note:
It is important to note, it is unlikely that the
private contractor demand for domiciliary care services will be
required for the full 12 months, nor is the full amount of
£2,400,000 likely to be used. However, to allow for
contingency planning and to ensure an ongoing safe and compliant
service, a full 12-month estimate is being requested.
 

Reasons for the decision

This recommendation has been
made for a period of 12 months while service restructure is
completed. The direct award will ensure the continuation of a safe
and compliant service, while current staff are harmonised and
recruitment to fill vacant posts is completed.
 
It is important to note it is
anticipated that the private contractor agency spend will reduce in
line with recruitment of staff during restructure and that the
combined total £2,400,000.00 is unlikely to be spent. It is
required, however, as a contingency to support statutory and legal
obligations.
 

Alternative options considered

Option 1 – Competitive procurement of service via an open
competition
This
option would involve carrying out a compliant procurement via an
open procurement in accordance with the Procurement Act (PA 23).
This would take approximately 7 months to procure.
 
 
 

Pros

Cons

Compliant route to market
– Ensures adherence to the procurement Act (PA 23) and public
sector procurement regulations.

Length procurement timeline
– Approximately 7 months to complete leaving a service
gap.

Ensures value for money by
testing the market – Encourages competitive pricing and
quality through open bidding.

Gap in service impacts
financial goals – Service disruption may hinder the
Council’s ability to meets savings targets outlined in the
Improvement Plan.

Council can define its own
requirements – Allows for clear specification of service
standards, including social value considerations.

Resource-intensive process
– Requires dedicated staff and time to run the procurement
process effectively.

Supports long-term continuity
of care – Ongoing procurement allows planning for consistent
service delivery aligned with regulatory expectations (e.g, CQC concerns about staff
continuity).
 

Risk of receiving no bids
– Limited market competition, with only one known supplier,
could lead to a failed tender.

 
Not
recommended

Service continuity concerns
– Immediate and ongoing need for the service cannot be paused
during procurement, risking non-compliance with regulatory bodies
like the CQC.
 

 
Option 2 – Direct Award for a period of 12
months
This approach
involves a short term interim direct award whilst a
longer-term   procurement takes
place. A transparency notice will be published to ensure compliance
with the Procurement Act 2023.
 
 

Pros

Cons

Faster route to market –
Offers a quicker route to implementation compared to Option 1,
reducing the risk of a service gap.

Potential risk of challenge due
to reliance on direct award and potential
risk of sanctions including fines by the Procurement Review Unit.
(PRU)

Foundation for competitive
testing – A sort-term contract allows time for proper market
testing for a long-term solution.

No immediate market testing
– The short-term nature of the arrangement means the market
is not tested upfront.

Continuity of service –
Care agencies have been used by the service for the past four
years, ensuring continuity on staff attendance and service
coverage.
 

Time for internal governance
and procurement for future competitive tender process still
required.

Known and reliable providers
– The agencies are familiar to Brokerage, have strong CQC
ratings, and can provide staffing at short notice.

 

Transparent costing –
Hourly rates align with Domiciliary rates already used by
Brokerage, ensuring consistency in pricing.
 
Recommended

 

 
 
Option 3 – Call off Framework/DPS
This
option would involve calling off from existing
Framework/DPS. 
 

Pros

Cons

Compliant route to market
– Ensures adherence to the procurement Act (PA 23) and public
sector procurement regulations.

continuity of care to the
residents in the current extra care schemes is
important.  The domiciliary care
specification of the DPS refers to carers attending service
users homes and is not appropriate for
shift work within an extra care facility.
 

Ensures value for money by
having access to a pool of pre-qualified suppliers with competitive
prices

Gap in service impacts
financial goals – Service disruption may hinder the
Council’s ability to meets savings targets outlined in the
Improvement Plan.

Council can define its own
requirements – Allows for clear specification of service
standards, including social value considerations.

Resource-intensive process
– Requires dedicated staff and time to run the procurement
process effectively.

Supports long-term continuity
of care – Ongoing procurement allows planning for consistent
service delivery aligned with regulatory expectations (e.g, CQC concerns about staff
continuity).

Risk of receiving no bids
– Limited market competition, with only one known supplier,
could lead to a failed tender.

 
Not
recommended

Service continuity concerns
– Immediate and ongoing need for the service cannot be paused
during procurement, risking non-compliance with regulatory bodies
like the CQC.