Provision of Insourced Services for the Northern Care Alliance NOE.3007 (C386533)

CPV: Health services

Procedure method

Restricted procedure

Legal basis

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

Procurement category

Services

Notice status

Awarded

Procurement threshold

Unspecified in notice

Regulatory regime

Standard

Commercial structure

Stand-alone contract (no framework)

Competition type

Competitive procedure

GPA / WTO covered

Unspecified in notice

Recurring procurement

No (one-off requirement)

First published

13 Oct 2025, 16:52 BST

Last source update

11 Sept 2026, 08:22 BST

Authority reference

RM6276

FTS notice number

2026/S 000-003949

Classification (CPV)

Health services

Delivery area

UK

Official registry OCID

ocds-h6vhtk-05aeaa Find a Tender

Publisher note: This is a Provider Selection Regime (PSR) intention to award notice under the Competitive Process. 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 standstill period begins on the day after the publication of this notice. Representations by providers must be made to the relevant authority by 28th of January 2026.<br/><br/>Representations can only be made by providers party to the framework agreement who might otherwise have been a provider of the services.<br/><br/>This contract has not yet formally been awarded; this notice serves as an intention to award under the PSR. Written representations should be made through the Atamis portal.<br/><br/>Award decision-makers are outlined as clinical service leads, operational staff, procurement staff and finance staff from The Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust. Moderation leads and project support consists of category procurement and operational procurement staff from North of England Commercial Procurement collaborative. <br/>A robust conflict of interest declaration process was carried out. Three individuals identified as potential evaluators were found to have potential conflict of interest pre-evaluation phase. Those individuals were removed from the procurement process entirely, did not receive any procurement documentation and did not influence any decisions made. No conflicts of interest were identified for individuals making decisions or amongst the evaluation and moderation team.<br/><br/>NB: The contract has not yet been concluded; signature will follow the standstill period in accordance with the NHS Provider Selection Regime. The Contract Concluded date is therefore the date the notice is published.<br/><br/>Relative importance of the key criteria that the relevant authority used to make a decision;<br/><br/>The authority weighted the procurement 20% Quality and Innovation (PSR Criterion 1), 40% Value (PSR criterion 2), 22.5% Integration, collaboration and service sustainability (PSR Criterion 3), 7.5% Improving access, reducing health inequalities, and facilitating choice (PSR Criterion 4) and 10% Social Value (PSR Criterion 5).<br/><br/>Provided below is the rationale for the relative importance of the key criteria, and the rationale for choosing the provider with reference to each of the key criteria.<br/><br/>The authority placed importance on Quality and innovation, specifically in relation to the bidders organisational structure and staff and contract management which were asked as individual questions. The bidders were asked to highlight the skills and experience of staff providing the services and the organisations recruitment and selection process supported by a successful contract example.<br/><br/>The successful bidder scored a `good` for the first question outlined in this section (Organisation Structure and Staff) as outlined in the scoring criteria. The successful bidder covered the full requirements of the question and demonstrated that their staff and recruitment processes in place meets the standard required by the Contracting Authority. A contract example was given which included volumes and duration.<br/><br/>The bidders were also asked to propose how they would manage the contract during its life, including a description of how KPI failures and adoption of Trust policy changes would be managed, with the opportunity to attach their proposed Management Reports.<br/><br/>For the second question in this section (Contract Management) the successful bidder scored an `Excellent` in line with the scoring criteria, covering all aspects of the question, offering a high level of detail which was tailored to the contracting authorities needs and provided an excellent degree of confidence.<br/><br/>Value was 40% of the weighting and was separated out by a commercial element and a question. The commercial element was based on a % discount from tariff for Diagnostic elements (15% weighting) and a % discount from tariff for Outpatients elements (15% weighting), following the same model evaluated at framework level to gain the best financial outcome for the authority in the delivery of this contract. A question was also asked and evaluated (accounting for 10% weighting) on how the bidder would ensure sessions and clinics run efficiently and represent value for money. The bidder was also asked to describe their clinical governance structure and processes.<br/><br/>The successful bidder ranked third on the total scores for % discount from tariff elements and scored an ‘excellent’ for their answer to the value for money question, demonstrating an excellent understanding of the requirement and also highlighting the importance of ensuring high quality patient care whilst delivering value for money.<br/><br/>The authority focused on Integration and collaboration through two separate questions. The first based on service management requesting key elements such as ensuring service readiness, stakeholder engagement, contingency plans in the event of delays, risk mitigation and the opportunity to enclose a proposed plan.<br/><br/>The successful bidder scored a `excellent` for this section (Service Management) covering all aspects of the question to a high detail and exceeded the expectations of the contracting authority, providing a high level of certainty of service mobilisation and readiness supported by a well detailed mobilisation plan.<br/><br/>The second part of this section focused on contingency arrangements. Bidders were asked to detail their service contingency arrangements with specific reference to IT failure, equipment failure and staff cover.<br/><br/>The successful bidder scored a ‘excellent’ for this question in line with the scoring methodology. The response provided an excellent degree of confidence in contingency arrangements covering all elements of the question in high detail with demonstration of their excellent understanding of the requirement.<br/><br/>For Improving access, reducing health inequalities, and facilitating choice, the authority focused on how bidders could support accessibility for services for patients and facilitate choice, how they would achieve this for patients with additional needs and the qualitative and quantitative measures they would put in place to measure success of those initiatives.<br/><br/>The successful bidder scored a `excellent` for the singular question in this section (Patient Access) covering the full requirements of the question to a level which exceeded the contracting authorities expectations. The bidder provided clear initiatives and tailored the response to the contracting authorities needs in improving access for the patient and supporting the patient.<br/><br/>A social value theme of Wellbeing was chosen by the authority in alignment with the themes outlined in the overarching RM6276 framework, which focused on how bidders could commit to embedding practices to improve patient wellbeing through collaboration and co-design with NCA patients and clinical staff. Bidders were asked to describe their commitments, how they would work with stakeholders and how these arrangements would be monitored and reviewed.<br/><br/>The successful bidder scored a `good` for the singular question in this section (Wellbeing), meeting the required standard in all the points raised with specific commitments provided and examples of collaboration intentions.<br/><br/>Overall, the successful bidder scored the highest across all bidders, considering the 5 criteria of the Provider Selection Regime 2023 as weighted by the authority. This is an existing service and the successful bidder is a new provider for the service.

Submission deadline

10 Nov 2025, 12:00 GMT

Submission channel

{"electronicSubmission","written"}

Accepted languages

en

Bid validity

90 days from the deadline

• Venture Health Group LtdAwarded supplier 1st Floor, 49 Peter Street, Manchester, M2 3NG, Manchester, UK, M2 3NG