1 May 2008
Dear Mr Boyton,
Freedom of Information request Ref: 2-14182642
- Tender Presentations for Young People's Drug Service Haringey; Feb 2007
In relation to your request the following response has been prepared outlining the tender process for the Haringey Specialist Young Persons Substance Misuse Service.
Following a rigorous procurement process a report was sent to the Haringey Procurement Committee (comprising elected council members) on 13th March 2007.
The tender evaluation panel was chaired by the Head of Safer Communities, and comprised the following officers:
Jean Croot – Head of Safer Communities: Panel Chair
Angie Langley - Contracts Manager for Social Services
Peray Ahmet – Young Person Substance Misuse Coordinator
Paulette Haughton – Drug Interventions Programme, Project Manager
Recommendation
The panel recommended to the Procurement Committee that they award the Young Persons Substance Misuse Service to contractor A (In-Volve) with the highest score for a period of 33 months, commencing on 1st July 2007 with an option to extend for a further period of up to 12 months.
Haringey’s Drug and Alcohol Action Team commissioned a Tier 2/3 Young Persons Substance Misuse Service specifically for 13-21 year olds. A procurement exercise started in November 2006. There were thirty two expressions of interest and six organisations submitted formal bids.
Background
The contract for this service was, at the time held by the Haringey, Enfield and Barnet Mental Health Trust. The service was first commissioned by the Haringey DAAT in the financial year 2002/03. It was jointly commissioned by the Haringey and Enfield DAAT.
The DAAT:
a. Commissioned a Mapping Review into Young Persons Substance Misuse Services in Haringey
b. Conducted a Young Persons Substance Misuse Commissioning Review
c. Consulted young people, parents/carers and professionals on how best to deliver substance misuse services for young people in Haringey
d. Identified through national and local research, groups of ‘vulnerable’ young people who need to be targeted
e. Identified areas of good practice;
f. Developed a service specification based on findings of the Mapping Review and Commissioning Review
g. Identified £260k as maximum to come from the Young Persons Substance Misuse Grant per annum for the Tier 2/3 service.
Description of Procurement Process
The procurement process was an open tender procedure and was in accordance with Contract Standing Orders.
At the beginning of November 2006 the Drug and Alcohol Action Team placed advertisements in the national Guardian newspaper, Young People Now and on the Haringey website that sought ‘Expressions of Interest’ in relation to providing the Tier 2/3 Young Persons Substance Misuse Service contract. By the closing date of 5th January 2007, there were thirty two expressions of interest. Six complete bids were submitted to the Young Persons Coordinator by the closing date. Bids were sought on the basis of most economically advantageous tender rather than lowest tender. The six bids were subjected to a detailed evaluation under the Council’s agreed tendering process and in compliance with Council Standing Orders. The criteria used for all the bids were (See Appendix A):
Value for money
· Bid price
· Financial Soundness
Evaluation of each bid was undertaken by Finance officers on the 25th January 2007.
Ability to meet the requirements of the specification and method statement
· Specification
· Overall Method Statement - including compliance with Specification & Legislation
· Leadership
· Policy & Strategy
· People Management
· Resources
· Customer Satisfaction
· People Satisfaction
· Quality
· Performance Management
Environmental sustainability
Impact on society
Equal opportunities
Specialist evaluation of each bid was undertaken by Equalities officers on the 23rd and 29th January 2007.
Health & Safety
Evaluation of each bid was undertaken by Health and Safety officers on 24th and 28th January 2007.
Evaluation by the specialist panel made up of the Head of Safer Communities, Drug Intervention Programme Manager, Contracts Manager for Social Services and the Young Persons Substance Misuse Co ordinator, took place on 30th January 2007.
All Tenderers were informed early on in the process that they might have to give a formal presentation. Six Tenderers made formal presentations on the 5th and 6th February 07 to the Panel who allocated the following scores which incorporated the scores given by specialist evaluators (Equalities, Health & Safety and Finance), as well as the evaluation of the written submissions according to the criteria laid out in Appendix 1.
The Panel allocated the following scores:
A summary of overall points is set out below:
Tenderer: / Points: Possible:A – In-Volve / 676 1000
B DASL / 629.5 1000
C Lifeline / 578 1000
D KCA / 520 1000
E Mental Health Trust - StepAhead / 388 1000
F Addaction / 311 1000
Staff employed under the current contract had to be transferred under TUPE to the new provider. All TUPE information was issued in the tender pack and the new contract for the service includes TUPE clauses. All tenderers were asked to consider the TUPE implications as part of their bid. They were sent out relevant documentation provided by the current contractors which they were asked to include in their submitted bids.
The service aims to address the reduction of youth crime, as well as contributing towards targets of increasing numbers of young people in education, employment and training.
The service is commissioned using a contract that incorporates targets set by the National Treatment Agency and Government Office for London on a national level. There are also local targets which are relevant to the local Children and Young Persons Plan in Haringey.
The Young Persons Co ordinator holds quarterly contract performance meetings to monitor the service in detail and report outcomes to the Haringey Young Persons Substance Misuse Commissioning Group and the DAAT Performance Management Group.
In order to assess that targets set by the National Treatment Agency are being achieved the service is expected to provide monthly performance data to the DAAT and the National Drug Treatment Monitoring Service (NDTMS).
Equalities Implications
The service targets and provides access for any young person in the borough aged between 13-21 with a substance misuse problem. Outreach and satellite services focus on those groups of young people who are identified by national guidance and research as being ‘vulnerable’ to developing substance misuse problems. All equalities considerations were addressed throughout the tendering process. The Senior Equality and Diversity Officer was part of the tender evaluation process to ensure that equalities issues were robustly addressed and was satisfied that this was the case.
In the contract, the service is required to adhere to and share duties with respect to equalities which must be reflected in the way in which they deliver their service.
Health and Safety Implications
The organisation selected to to carry out the services defined above was required to identify and demonstrate effective health and safety policies and safe working procedures that address the following:
- relevant health and safety training for all operatives in relation to the services to be delivered
- a system of effective health and safety risk assessment
- a pro-active organisational structure that ensures comprehensive health and safety communications at all levels
- any contractual arrangements that are commissioned should be subject to a defined programme of monitoring in relation to health and safety performance
Comments of the Head of Procurement and Head of Legal Services
This contract was tendered in line with the Procurement Code of Practice. This award recommendation represented best value to the Council. Although the lowest bid has was accepted this award recommendation represents best value to the Council.
Contract monitoring against a service level agreement ensures continued contract compliance and minimises any risk of service failure.
The Head of Legal Services was satisfied that the process had been fully and appropriately followed and approved the recommendation to award the contract.
I trust that the foregoing information meets your requirements.
If you wish to apply for an internal review of the information provided, or to complain about the way your request was handled please contact:
Haringey Council
Feedback and Information Team
River Park House
225 High Road
N22 8HQ
Telephone:020 8489 2550
Fax:020 8489 2922
Email:
Yours sincerely,
Paulette Haughton
Interim Young Persons Substance Misuse Coordinator
LONDON BOROUGH OF HARINGEY
EVALUATION CRITERIA - Tier 2/3 Young Persons Substance Misuse Service
APPENDIX 1
1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose
1.2 Roles and Responsibilities
2. Evaluation methodology
2.1 First Stage Evaluation
2.2 Second Stage Evaluation
3. Evaluation criteria
4.0 Basis for awarding scores
1.0 Value for money
1.1 Bid price
1.2 Financial Soundness/appraisal of the company
2.0 Ability to meet the requirements of the specification and method statement
2.1 Specification
2.2 Overall Method Statement - including compliance with Specification & Legislation
2.3 Leadership
2.4 Policy & Strategy
2.5 People Management
2.6 Resources
2.7 Customer Satisfaction
2.8 People Satisfaction
2.9 Quality of services including:
· Experience of providing services for young people with substance misuse issues
· Demonstrated understanding of substance misuse treatment
· Demonstrated ability to provide an innovative and effective approach to working with young people with substance misuse issues or whop are deemed ‘vulnerable’ to developing substance misuse issues
· Demonstrated ability to provide a balanced and appropriate workforce
· Experience of working in a multi agency manner
· Awareness of the wider children and young persons agenda nationally and locally, including knowledge of relevant legislation and guidance
· Ability to provide a clear and effective programme for achieving the Key Performance Indicators
· the ability to meet service deadlines.
· the quality of the proposal submitted.
2.10 Performance Management
Environmental sustainability
2.11 Impact on society
3.0 Equal opportunities
3.1 Equal opportunities proposals
4.0 Health & Safety
5.1 Health & Safety
1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose
This document sets out the process and methodology that will be adopted in the evaluation of bids submitted in response to the Authority’s invitation to submit Tenders. It details who will carry out the evaluation and the scoring methodology that will be applied.
1.2 Roles and Responsibilities
The evaluation team will comprise of:
Head of Safer Communities (Haringey Council)
Drug Alcohol Action Team Strategy Manager
Drug Alcohol Action Team Young Person’s Substance Misuse Co-Ordinator
2. Evaluation methodology
2.1 First Stage Evaluation
The Authority will undertake an initial evaluation exercise to discount those organisations that are seriously non compliant or are not considered to have financial stability.
2.2 Second Stage Evaluation
All remaining bids will be evaluated to assess which ones offer the potential to achieve the most economically advantageous agreement. The evaluation will take into account all aspects of the proposals being made and will score these in accordance with the details set out in sections three and four of this paper.
During the process, the Young Persons Substance Misuse Co ordinator may clarify any queries with bidders as necessary and any adjustments considered necessary will be made to the initial scores.
3. Evaluation criteria
The evaluation of Bids will be made on the basis of the criteria set out below at Section 4. These criteria reflect the Authority’s objectives and priorities for the project and the requirements detailed in the Output Specification. They are divided into the following broad areas of analysis:
l Value for money;
l Ability to meet all the requirements of the specification and method statement;
l Specification and the overall method Statement;
l Environmental sustainability;
l Equal Opportunities;
l Health and Safety.
They are covered by the bid requirements in the Instructions for Tendering of the tender to which bidders are required to respond. Each of the responses will be scored on a scale of 1 to 5 as follows:
0 proposal contrary to the requirements of the Services Specification and Method Statement or inconsistent;
1 proposal exists but is superficial or contains significant shortcomings;
2 proposal falls short of achieving the expected standard in a number of identifiable aspects;
3 proposal meets the required standard in all material respects;
4 proposal meets the required standard in all aspects and exceeds the expected standard in some aspects with identifiable additional features; and
5 proposal is exceptional or outstanding - significantly exceeding the required standard in all major respects.
Table 1 details the issues to be scored and the weightings to be applied. Section 4 provides more details of how the scores will be determined.
Table 1
The scores will produce a maximum of 1000 points when the weightings are applied.
Section % / Available Section Points / Individual Question Weighting / Maximum Weighted Score1. Value for Money / 30 / 300
1.1 Bid Price / 5 / 30 / 150
1.2 Financial Soundness / 5 / 30 / 150
2. Ability to meet the requirements of Specification and Method Statement / 45 / 450
2.1 Specification / 5 / 9 / 45
2.2 Overall Method Statement / 5 / 9 / 45
2.3 Leadership / 5 / 9 / 45
2.4 Policy & Strategy / 5 / 9 / 45
2.5 People Management / 5 / 9 / 45
2.6 Resources / 5 / 9 / 45
2.7 Customer Satisfaction / 5 / 9 / 45
2.8 People Satisfaction / 5 / 9 / 45
2.9 Quality of service / 5 / 9 / 45
2.10 Performance Management / 5 / 9 / 45
5. Environmental Sustainability / 5 / 50
5.1 Impact on Society / 5 / 10 / 50
6. Equal Opportunities / 10 / 100
6.1 Equal Opportunities proposals / 5 / 20 / 100
7. Health and Safety / 10 / 100
7.1 Health and safety / 5 / 20 / 100
4.0 Basis for awarding scores
1. Financial Score
Criteria Priority: High
1.1 Bid Price
Score 3 for meeting the mean calculated price.
Score 5 for a bid price in excess of the mean calculated price.
Score 1 for a bid price below the mean calculated price.
1.2 Financial Soundness
2. Ability to meet the requirements of the Specification and Method Statement
Criteria Priority: High
2.1 Specification
2.2 Overall Method Statement
2.3` Leadership
2.4 Policy & Strategy
2.5 People Management
Submissions should include:
· Training plans
2.6 Resources
2.7 Customer Satisfaction (Incl Customer Complaints)
Complaints Policy and Customer Service Management
l Submissions should include an acceptable, comprehensive complaints/customer feedback procedure consistent with the requirements of the Care Standard Act 2000. The scores will be determined according to the details of the proposed procedure