Issue - items at meetings - Drug and Alcohol Recovery System Procurement outcome

Extract from the proceedings of the Health & Wellbeing Board meeting held on 14 October 2014 (to follow); together with a report of the of the Director of Public Health (copy attached) and the report to the Health & Wellbeing Board (appended).

That the Policy & Resources Committee agrees that the Adult Drug and Alcohol Recovery Service contract is awarded to Cranstoun as  the lead provider in the Pavilions Partnership at a value not exceeding £15.6m over a three year period,subject to the Director of Public Health being satisfied about the detailed delivery arrangements;  and authorises the Director of Public Health to award this contract upon being satisfied as to the delivery arrangements, and to take all necessary steps in connection with the letting of the contract.

That the Policy & Resources Committee agrees to grant delegated powers to the Director of Public Health to extend the contract at the end of the three year term, with the potential to extend the contract for a further two years if he deems it appropriate.

63.1    The Chair noted there was a petition associated with this item from UNISON and called forward the lead petition, Mr Nick McMaster, to present for up to three minutes.

63.2    The petitioners stated that petition was led by UNISON with the intention of keeping the drug and alcohol recovery service within the NHS, and stop it being put out to tender. The current staff working within the service opposed this change and wished to remain part of the NHS – instead of a private profit making company. There was no obligation to put the service out to tender if it was meeting its goals, and a comparison was made to the tendering of sexual health services earlier in the year. The current system already provided a skilled workforce; was value for money, and it was felt that changes to the configuration of the service could undermine this. The staff were equally proud to have an NHS drug and alcohol recovery service, and this was of value to the city. There was also concern that the staff would lose their current NHS terms and conditions, and potentially there could be some loss of sick pay. The petitioners urged the Committee to support the petition, and at the least seek a deferral.

63.3    The Committee noted the petition.

63.4    The Committee considered a report of the Director of Public Health in relation to the Outcomes from the Adult Drug and Alcohol Recovery Procurement Process. In July 2013 the Committee had considered a paper which outlined the proposals for the Public Health contracts which had transferred to the Local Authority from the NHS; this included procurement plans for the Adult Drug and Alcohol Services. The recommendation in the report was to award the contract to the preferred bidder, and this had also been agreed by the Health & Wellbeing Board on 14 October. The Committee were now asked to make the final decision.

63.5    The Chair noted there was a proposed amendment from the Labour & Co-Operative Group and invited Councillor Morgan to propose the amendment.

63.6    Councillor Morgan stated it was vital to ensure the service helped individuals recover from substance misuse, and some figures were provided in relation to level of alcohol and substance misuse in the city. The service should be local and accountable within the local NHS, and it was queried if the CCG and Council could have looked for ways to support the current service structure. Staff in the service were unhappy with how the service had been portrayed, and felt that their approach had been deemed ‘anti-recovery’, and that any concerns with the service should have been bought to the attention of the providers. Further work should have been undertaken with the Trust to reconfigure the service, and staff also felt they were unfairly criticised for maintaining the current service which they had not had a hand in shaping. There was also a lack of clarity in relation to the contracts and status of the staff. In summary it was reiterated that the position of the Labour Group was to keep the service locally provided by the NHS.

63.7    Councillor Lepper seconded the amendment.

63.8    In response to the Chair it was explained that there was independent consultant hired at the beginning of the process to speak to the service users and stakeholders; an open consultation was then conducted using the Council’s website – there had been feedback from the open community through this process. Work had been undertaken with existing providers, and there had been quarterly performance meetings and a ‘treatment performance’ meeting. As part of the service specification there had been a bidder’s briefing, and service providers had been invited to submit questions – there had been positive feedback from service providers throughout this process. There had been a two-stage dialogue: the evaluations panel had three meetings each feeding back and then the second stage with associated feedback. In relation to Social Workers from Adult Service’s it was explained that the decision on where they would be employed could not be clarified until the final decision was made; however, there were ongoing conversations with the Adult Commissioner, the Public Health Commissioner and HR in relation to the affected staff to ensure staff were affected at a minimum level.

63.9    It was also clarified that this had been an open process; there had been an opportunity for the current service providers to come forward with a joint bid and this had not happened. It was felt the process had been conducted properly in line with the necessary legal requirements. The Chair went on to clarify that the evaluation panel, which included service users, had all agreed with the final recommendation for the preferred bidder, and he added that this bidder was a non-profit organisation with an NHS provider as a partner. The Committee had also unanimously agreed this position in the report in July 2013.

63.10  Councillor G. Theobald stated that he had listened to views of the Professional Officers at the Health & Wellbeing Board on Tuesday, and he could not see any reason to defer the report. The procurement process had been done properly and the service users, who had been part of this process, should be at the centre of the service and supported this decision. The preferred bidder was a highly experienced charity that provided services for other local authorities.

63.11  In response to Councillor Shanks it was explained that the shift in the emphasis in the service focused around the recovery agenda and the reintegration of service users into the community through employment training and education; with treatment being considered one facet of the recovery journey. There would be greater work with the Department for Work & Pensions (DWP); currently this type of work was ‘added’ to the service, but there had been shift towards a more social and integration model of service design.

63.12  Councillor Sykes noted he had received lots of correspondence in relation to this matter; as well as concerns about the costs of the procurement exercise. He noted that the proposal was not to ‘privatise’ the service, but instead to allow a new third sector and NHS provider to take it on. He could not support a deferral, and felt that the options proposed in the report was much more preferable to the arrangements in some local authorities.

63.13  Before the Committee voted on the amendment the Chair referred to the Monitoring Officer for any legal advice. The Monitoring Officer explained that the amendment followed a similar one that had been tabled at the Health & Wellbeing Board – at that time the Deputy Head of Law had given appropriate advice about the legal position. This amendment now went further and proposed that the contract be awarded to a specific organisation, and it was considered that this carried a significant legal risk as there was a legal requirement for the award of contracts to be fair, transparent and to not discriminate. If the amendment were adopted it could easily be viewed as preferential and outside of the robust procurement process; the risk of legal challenge would be significant and likely to succeed. It was also added that it was important the Committee give due attention and considered to the recommendations from the Health & Wellbeing Board; any departure should only be in exceptional circumstances.

63.14  The Chair then put the Labour amendment to the recommendations (as set out below) to the vote:

            “That the decision on awarding the Adult Drug and Alcohol Recovery Service contract is deferred to allow Sussex Partnership NHS Trust more time to formulate an alternative bid.”

63.15  The amendment was not carried.

63.16  The Chair then put the substantive recommendations, as listed in the report, to the vote.

63.17  RESOLVED:

1)        That the Committee agrees that the Adult Drug and Alcohol Recovery Service contract is awarded to Cranstoun as  the lead provider in the Pavilions Partnership at a value not exceeding £15.6m over a three year period,subject to the Director of Public Health being satisfied about the detailed delivery arrangements;  and authorises the Director of Public Health to award this contract upon being satisfied as to the delivery arrangements, and to take all necessary steps in connection with the letting of the contract.

2)        That the Committee agrees to grant delegated powers to the Director of Public Health to extend the contract at the end of the three year term, with the potential to extend the contract for a further two years if he deems it appropriate.