Purpose

The existing Greater Manchester minerals and waste plans are out of date and require replacement. GMCA is coordinating preparation of a new single Joint Minerals and Waste Plan on behalf of the ten Greater Manchester local planning authorities.
The commission will provide specialist support for plan preparation, including policy drafting, evidence and topic papers, consultation support, site work and support through the new plan-making gateways up to submission. Examination support is not included in this contract.
External support is required because of the scale, complexity and specialist nature of the work and the limited internal minerals and waste planning resource available.
The plan programme is subject to fixed statutory milestones, including giving notice of commencement by 31 December 2026 and completing Gateway 1 by 30 April 2027. Timely mobilisation is therefore necessary to reduce the risk of delay and non-compliance with the plan-making timetable.
Market research found a limited and highly specialised supplier market. BPP Consulting LLP has relevant experience of end-to-end minerals and waste plan preparation, including policy development and evidence-base work. The documented supplier assessment and value-for-money review concluded that the proposed direct award is a proportionate approach, provides fair and reasonable pricing for the specialist services required and reduces delivery risk.

Decision

To award and enter into a contract with BPP Consulting LLP, through the Constellia framework, for consultancy support to prepare the Greater Manchester Joint Minerals and Waste Plan. The total contract value is £530,293.75 excluding VAT and 2.5% Constellia fee. The contract will commence on execution and expire on 31 March 2029. There are no optional extension.

Alternative options considered

1. Run an open competitive tender. Rejected because the procurement process would create a risk of delaying mobilisation and missing statutory plan-making milestones. Market research identified a limited specialist market, while an open tender would require additional time and resources and would risk delaying the project.
2. Use an alternative procurement framework. Rejected because the frameworks considered would not save time and would introduce additional administrative requirements.
3. Procure separate packages or use sole practitioners. Rejected because fragmented delivery would increase coordination and consistency risks, while reliance on an individual practitioner would create resilience, continuity and quality-assurance risks for a project covering ten authorities.