SC240066 - West Kent Drug and Alcohol service

It is the intent of the Council to award a contract as detailed within this notice to an existing provider following The Health Care Services (Provider Selection Regime) Regulations 2023 Direct Award C procurement procedure. Proposed Contract Start and End Date 1st February 2025 – 31 January 2029 The individuals involved in writing the assessment template were - Max Guest – Commissioner - Rebecca Eley – Senior Commissioner The individuals involved in managing the moderation process were - Matthew Wellard – Commercial and Procurement Manager – Moderator - Nicola Foster – Commercial and Procurement Officer – Note taker The individuals involved in the evaluation of the 5 Key Criteria were within the Direct Award C process. -Jess Mookherjee -Chris Beale -Alison Newman -Alan Luke -Rebecca Rhodes The Director of Public Health Anjan Ghosh took the decision to intend to award the contract. A summary of the assessment as to whether Change Grow Live Services Ltd met the quality standard required to be Direct Awarded the contract under the Provider Selection Regime (PSR) Direct Award C procurement process. The evaluation panel independently scored the providers past and future performance against the 5 key criteria using a set scoring criteria which is detailed below. Grade Score Grade Descriptions A – Exceptional Evidence 100 Evidence meets the requirement in an exceptional manner that demonstrates an overall extremely effective solution including the relevant commitment, understanding and resource B – Very good evidence 93 Evidence meets the requirement in a very good manner that delivers an overall effective solution including the relevant commitment, understanding and resource C – Good evidence 85 Evidence meets the requirement that delivers an overall effective solution including the relevant commitment, understanding and resource D – Acceptable Evidence 80 Evidence meets the requirement with to an acceptable standard that overall includes the relevant commitment, understanding and resource and quality, notwithstanding that there may be minor issues which are easily resolvable and in any event which do not have a material impact on the overall acceptability of the contract. E – Minor reservations 70 Evidence meets the requirement that overall includes the relevant commitment, understanding and resource but which may give rise to some minor reservations in one or more areas which may be resolvable but, if not, may have an impact on the overall acceptability of the contract. F – Major Reservations 30 Evidence fails overall to meet the requirement and/or gives rise to one or more serious concerns about the relevant commitment, understanding, and/or resources irrespective of any added value above the requirements or elements of the requirements. G – Unacceptable evidence 0 Evidence overall fails to meet the requirement and/or contains insufficient information to evidence overall meeting the requirement, including the relevant commitment, understanding and/or resources irrespective of any added value above the requirements or elements of the requirements. The outcome of the assessment is below. 2 ) Is the provider doing a good job on the existing contract? Heading titles (Key Criteria Moderated Score Numerical Value Weighting Weighted Score) Quality and Innovation B 93 25 23.25 Value C 85 25 21.25 Integration, collaboration and service sustainability C 85 20 17 Improving access, reducing health inequalities, and facilitating choice B 93 20 18.6 Social value B 93 10 9.3 89.4 PASS as score is greater than minimum score required of 80 3) Is the provider likely to do a good job on the future contract? Heading titles (Key Criteria Moderated Score Numerical Value Weighting Weighted Score) Quality and Innovation C 85 25 21.25 Value B 93 25 23.25 Integration, collaboration and service sustainability B 93 20 18.6 Improving access, reducing health inequalities, and facilitating choice B 93 20 18.6 Social value B 93 10 9.3 91 PASS as score is greater than minimum score required of 80 In addition, an assessment was made against whether the contract was changing considerably, which is detailed below; - Assessment of the contract concluded the proposed contracting arrangements were not materially different in character to the existing contract - AND - The new contracting arrangements did not meet the considerable change tests set out in Regulation 6(10)(b)(i-iii) The contract was also assessed against the Basic Selection Criteria and passed all required elements of the Basic Selection Criteria. Following the full assessment required under Direct Award C, it was deemed permissible to Direct Award the contract to Change Grow Live Services Ltd as 1 The provider met all requirements under the basic selection criteria 2 the contract was not changing considerably 3 the provider was performing well against the existing contract 4 the provider will likely satisfy the requirements of the future contract to a suitable level.