Externalisation of Older Adults Day Services - Basingstoke

TUPE

There is a risk that no compliant bids will be received for this tender, which could delay or jeopardise the transition of service delivery. One significant barrier is the requirement for bidders to accept TUPE obligations, including enrolment onto LGPS, which may be financially or operationally unattractive to some providers. This could limit market interest, particularly among smaller or newer organisations without existing infrastructure to absorb these commitments. If no compliant bids are received, contingency planning will be required to ensure continuity of service for vulnerable individuals and carers.

Limited Market

There is a risk that the local market may not have sufficient capacity or suitably experienced providers to deliver the full scope of the Day-Opportunity and Community Hub Service, particularly in relation to complex needs such as dementia care and personal care provision. This could result in limited competition during the procurement process, potentially affecting value for money and service quality. Mitigation will involve early market engagement, clear specification of minimum standards, and robust evaluation criteria to ensure providers have the necessary capabilities and infrastructure.

Service Continuity

The transition from County Council-delivered services to an external provider introduces a risk of disruption to service continuity. Any gap in provision or change in service delivery approach could negatively impact wellbeing and trust. This risk will be mitigated through a detailed mobilisation plan, co-production with current service users, and clear contractual requirements around continuity, communication, and phased implementation.

Leasing Arrangements

There are lease-related risks that must be addressed before tendering. Newman Court currently operates under a lease with the Council, and a new lease will be required for the incoming provider. For this procurement, a lease agreement is essential to ensure legal clarity and define responsibilities. Without these agreements in place, there is a risk of delays, uncertainty for bidders, and potential disruption to mobilisation.

Reputational Risk

As this service is being externalised, there is a reputational risk to the Council if a poor-quality provider is appointed. Public and media interest in the decision means scrutiny will be high, and any service failure could damage trust. To mitigate this, we will ask robust, weighted quality questions, with a strong focus on mobilisation and implementation. Quality will be weighted significantly in the evaluation to ensure only capable providers are considered. This approach supports a smooth transition and protects the Council’s reputation by prioritising service excellence over lowest cost.

Financial Risk

A key financial risk for this procurement is the assumption that providers may generate additional income by selling places on the private market. While this could support long-term sustainability, there is no guarantee of demand, and over-reliance on private sales could impact the provider’s financial viability and service continuity. To mitigate this, the Council will conduct Credit Safe checks on all tenderers, pay in arrears to reduce upfront exposure, and work with Legal Services to include clawback provisions in the contract, ensuring recovery of funds in the event of non-delivery or financial failure.