Westminster Women’s Safe Space

Contracts

• Contract 032318-2025-Con_27493-1

  Signed

  1 Oct 2021

  Value

  £2,901,580

  Period

  1 Oct 2021 – 31 Mar 2025

  Status

  active

  • Change The contract is being modified to extend the term in accordance with Regulation 72(1)(b) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. An extension to the term is necessary to avoid a gap in the services while WCC carries out a new procurement process. Given demand for services is increasing and suitable accommodation in the borough being scarce, the design of the re-procurement requires further consultation/consideration, to ensure that any future contract was fit for purpose (to include a revised delivery model and pricing structure). A contract extension is required until December 2025 to accommodate the timeframe to conduct the new procurement procedure and facilitate a transition period for any new providers appointed., Need for additional works, services or supplies by the original contractor/concessionaire: WCC takes the view that the above-mentioned nine-month extension is a permissible modification pursuant to Regulation 72(1)(b) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. A change in contractor cannot be made as WCC considers that it would be uneconomical and impractical for a short-term change of contractor to take place. The majority of the contract price relates to staffing costs, rather than the costs of the accommodation, and the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) would apply to those staff if there was a change in contractor for this nine -period. WCC believes it would not be economically viable for staff to be transferred to an alternative provider of the services on a short-term basis. Additionally, a change in contractor would involve a circa three-month mobilisation to begin providing the services, thereby risking a gap in the provision of the services. Continuity and consistency of support to service users is critical and a change in contractor for such a short period of time could prove incredibly disruptive for those service users. In the event WCC was required to change contractor at this juncture, particularly for a short period of nine months, this would cause significant inconvenience and substantial duplication of costs for WCC. This would require substantial duplication of effort to mobilise a new contractor for a short period, in addition to the resource/effort required to conduct a further procurement process in tandem with preparing for the re-procurement in respect of the longer-term contract. This would be highly disruptive to WCC’s operations and would entail a duplication of costs that would not be an effective use of taxpayers’ funds. WCC is subject to statutory obligations to provide the services and the disruption caused by a change of contractor at this stage would create a real risk that WCC’s ability to properly discharge those obligations would be compromised.