Notice of Intention to make an award under the Most Suitable Provider (MSP) process -Local Stop Smoking Service & Support Grant (LSSSSG) Smoking Cessation Service

CPV: Health services

Procedure method

Award procedure without prior publication of a call for competition

Legal basis

CELEX · 32014L0024 Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (Directive 2014/24/EU)

Procurement category

Services

Notice status

Awarded without competition

Procurement threshold

Unspecified in notice

Regulatory regime

Standard

Commercial structure

Stand-alone contract (no framework)

Competition type

Direct award (no call for competition)

GPA / WTO covered

Unspecified in notice

Recurring procurement

Unspecified in notice

First published

23 May 2025, 15:09 BST

Last source update

16 Jul 2025, 18:06 BST

Award evaluation window

13 Jun 2025 – …

FTS notice number

2025/S 000-040666

Classification (CPV)

Health services

Delivery area

North West (UKD72)

Official registry OCID

ocds-h6vhtk-052392 Find a Tender

Why no open competition

The procurement falls outside the scope of application of the directive

Published justification

This is a Provider Selection Regime (PSR) intention to award notice. The awarding of this contract is subject to the Health Care Services (Provider Selection Regime) Regulations 2023. For the avoidance of doubt, the provisions of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 do not apply to this award. The publication of this notice marks the start of the standstill period. Representations by providers must be made to decision makers by midnight 28th July. This contract has not yet formally been awarded; this notice serves as an intention to award under the PSR

Publisher note: 'This is a Provider Selection Regime (PSR) intention to award notice. The awarding of this contract is subject to the Health Care Services (Provider Selection Regime) Regulations 2023. For the avoidance of doubt, the provisions of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 do not apply to this award. The publication of this notice marks the start of the standstill period. Representations by providers must be made to the relevant authority by Midnight 28th July (8 working days following publication of intention to award notice). This contract has not yet formally been awarded; this notice serves as an intention to award under the PSR.' Written representations should be sent to [email protected] for the attention of the Head of Procurement and Contracts or by post or by post to Head of Procurement and Contracts, Commercial Procurement Unit, Liverpool City Council, Cunard Building, Water Street, Liverpool L3 1AH. (It is advised to use a signed for delivery service) Award decision maker is Director of Public Health Matthew Ashton There were no declared conflict or potential conflicts of interest in making this decision The importance of the key criteria was established by reviewing the objectives and desired outcomes from the contract against the description of the key criteria as set out in Annex D of the Provider Selection Regime Statutory Guidance as published by NHS England. It was considered that Integration, collaboration, and service sustainability was the most important criteria as there is an existing service in place for delivery of a Stop Smoking and Nicotine Free Community support. The grant conditions specifically require the funding to be used to enhance commissioned stop smoking services and support, in addition to, and while maintaining, existing spend on these services and support from the public health grant. Given the current Stop Smoking & Nicotine Free Community Service will remain in place, there is therefore a need to fully integrate the new service into existing systems and provision to ensure processes and pathways are complementary and avoid duplication. Without seamless integration with current provision it was felt that the key 'Quit Date Set' target set by the Office for Health Improvement & Disparities (OHID) would be too onerous to meet. Failure to meet the target could put future funding at risk, as OHID have indicated performance against the 'Quit Date Set' target will be a factor in decision-making related to future year LSSSSG grant allocations . Improving access, reducing health inequalities and facilitating choice was the second most important criteria as a key objective within the service specification is to reduce smoking-related health inequalities within the city by targeting communities where smoking prevalence remains high. Smoking is a major cause of health inequalities in Liverpool. Smoking attributable mortality rates are 2.1 times higher in the most deprived local authorities than in the least deprived. It accounts for over half the difference in life expectancy between the lowest and highest income groups in Liverpool. In Liverpool adults in routine and manual occupations are 2.7 times more likely to be smokers compared to those in other occupations. Value was ranked third most important criteria to support the grant objectives of enhancing and building capacity as maximising efficiencies will be vital. The targets set by OHID for Liverpool are challenging, it was therefore felt due consideration of each organisation needed to be given, to ensure good value in terms of costs, overall benefits, and financial implications that would maximise the likelihood of achieving positive outcomes in enabling smokers to quit. Quality and Innovation was ranked fourth most important criteria so as to ensure all bidders met the national standards for provision of a quality stop smoking service ,as set out in NICE Clinical guideline 209 "Tobacco: preventing uptake, promoting quitting and treating dependence" . This criteria was ranked 4th because a Pass / Fail question had been included within the Technical and Professional Ability section of the Basic Selection Criteria to ensure organisations had the ability to achieve a minimum threshold of quality. Furthermore, because all stop smoking services in England are required to work to the same set of NG209 guidelines, there was built in assurance that organisations who had 'passed' the Basic Selection Criteria would have the appropriate quality measures to deliver this criterion. Social Value was ranked fifth most important criteria as Liverpool City Council is actively integrating social value into its commissioned services aiming to maximize economic, social, and environmental benefits for the city and its residents. CHCP CIC was deemed to be the Most Suitable Provider due to having the most assessed strengths against criteria 1- 3 when compared to the other submissions. Further detail against each criteria is provided below. Criteria 1: Integration, collaboration and service sustainability (Rank 1) - CHCP's submission set out how they are already fully integrated with key stakeholders and vulnerable groups across the city and have established effective pathways that are already embedded and operational. Whilst other organisations submissions acknowledged the complexity of integrating services the solutions put forward for integration suggested significant duplication with current arrangements, with the potential to cause confusion, destabilise the system, and impact on achieving local stop smoking targets. Criteria 2: Improving access, reducing health inequalities and facilitating choice (Rank 2) - All organisations held a clear vision as to how they would address health inequalities, however CHCP has already demonstrated impact in support of reducing local health inequalities through increasing quit dates set among local groups with the highest smoking prevalence rates. Solutions put forward by other organisations were either not considered viable in Liverpool or would require some significant changes to the current system. Criteria 3: Value (Rank 3) - CHCP were significantly stronger than the other organisations on perceived value. In already having pathways and a database in position, plus a fully staffed team already aligned in its skill mix to its proposed model of delivery, the CHCP submission clearly set out how it will provide immediate value for money. Whilst other organisations submissions acknowledged the need to provide value for money the solutions put forward suggested significant duplication with current management arrangements and therefore associated costs. For organisations other then CHCP a risk was also identified related to the full achievement of service KPIs due to the potential need for TUPE and service mobilisation. The submissions did not clearly outline how such costs would be offset in a beneficial way to Liverpool Public Health as commissioners of the service. Criteria 4: Quality & Innovation (Rank 4) - All the submissions clearly set out how they would provide high quality and innovative local stop smoking services in line with national quality standards. Criteria 5: Social Value (Rank 5) - All the submissions clearly set out how they would provide social value in Liverpool.

Submission deadline

6 Jun 2025, 17:00 BST

Submission channel

{"electronicSubmission"}

Accepted languages

en

• City Health Care Partnership CICAwarded supplierGB-COH: 6273905 5 Beacon Way, Hull, HU3 4AE, United Kingdom, Hull, Yorkshire & Humber

No document links were published on the notice.