URL: https://democracy.croydon.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=2600

Decision Maker: Corporate Director of Adult Social Care & Health

Outcome:

Is Key Decision?: Yes

Is Callable In?: Yes

Purpose: This report seeks to approve a Direct Award of contracts with the following providers: Eminent Care Agency, Lone Care Services and Star Care UK for domiciliary care services for the 6 Extra Care in-house services from for a period of 12 months.   Draft recommendation to: Approve the direct award for (3) three contracts to Eminent Care Agency, Lone Care Services and Star Care UK for domiciliary care services for the 6 in-house Extra Care services for a period of 12 months and for the values per provider stated in the part B report (with an aggregated value across all three contracts of £2,400,000)  

Content: This report seeks to approve a Direct Award of contracts with the following providers: Eminent Care Agency, Lone Care Services and Star Care UK for domiciliary care services for the 6 Extra Care in-house services from for a period of 12 months.   Draft recommendation to: Approve the direct award for (3) three contracts to Eminent Care Agency, Lone Care Services and Star Care UK for domiciliary care services for the 6 in-house Extra Care services for a period of 12 months and for the values per provider stated in the part B report (with an aggregated value across all three contracts of £2,400,000)   For the reasons detailed in the Part A and Part B and related Appendices, the CORPORATE DIRECTOR OF ADULT SOCIAL CARE AND HEALTH AGREED to:     Approve the direct award for (3) three contracts to Eminent Care Agency, Lone Care Services and Star Care UK for domiciliary care services for the 6 in-house Extra Care services from 1st June 2025 until 31st May 2026 for a period of 12 months and for the values per provider stated in the part B report (with an aggregated value across all three contracts of £2,400,000)   Note: It is important to note, it is unlikely that the private contractor demand for domiciliary care services will be required for the full 12 months, nor is the full amount of £2,400,000 likely to be used. However, to allow for contingency planning and to ensure an ongoing safe and compliant service, a full 12-month estimate is being requested.   This recommendation has been made for a period of 12 months while service restructure is completed. The direct award will ensure the continuation of a safe and compliant service, while current staff are harmonised and recruitment to fill vacant posts is completed.   It is important to note it is anticipated that the private contractor agency spend will reduce in line with recruitment of staff during restructure and that the combined total £2,400,000.00 is unlikely to be spent. It is required, however, as a contingency to support statutory and legal obligations.   Option 1 – Competitive procurement of service via an open competition This option would involve carrying out a compliant procurement via an open procurement in accordance with the Procurement Act (PA 23). This would take approximately 7 months to procure.       Pros Cons Compliant route to market – Ensures adherence to the procurement Act (PA 23) and public sector procurement regulations. Length procurement timeline – Approximately 7 months to complete leaving a service gap. Ensures value for money by testing the market – Encourages competitive pricing and quality through open bidding. Gap in service impacts financial goals – Service disruption may hinder the Council’s ability to meets savings targets outlined in the Improvement Plan. Council can define its own requirements – Allows for clear specification of service standards, including social value considerations. Resource-intensive process – Requires dedicated staff and time to run the procurement process effectively. Supports long-term continuity of care – Ongoing procurement allows planning for consistent service delivery aligned with regulatory expectations (e.g, CQC concerns about staff continuity).   Risk of receiving no bids – Limited market competition, with only one known supplier, could lead to a failed tender.   Not recommended Service continuity concerns – Immediate and ongoing need for the service cannot be paused during procurement, risking non-compliance with regulatory bodies like the CQC.     Option 2 – Direct Award for a period of 12 months This approach involves a short term interim direct award whilst a longer-term   procurement takes place. A transparency notice will be published to ensure compliance with the Procurement Act 2023.     Pros Cons Faster route to market – Offers a quicker route to implementation compared to Option 1, reducing the risk of a service gap. Potential risk of challenge due to reliance on direct award and potential risk of sanctions including fines by the Procurement Review Unit. (PRU) Foundation for competitive testing – A sort-term contract allows time for proper market testing for a long-term solution. No immediate market testing – The short-term nature of the arrangement means the market is not tested upfront. Continuity of service – Care agencies have been used by the service for the past four years, ensuring continuity on staff attendance and service coverage.   Time for internal governance and procurement for future competitive tender process still required. Known and reliable providers – The agencies are familiar to Brokerage, have strong CQC ratings, and can provide staffing at short notice.   Transparent costing – Hourly rates align with Domiciliary rates already used by Brokerage, ensuring consistency in pricing.   Recommended       Option 3 – Call off Framework/DPS This option would involve calling off from existing Framework/DPS.    Pros Cons Compliant route to market – Ensures adherence to the procurement Act (PA 23) and public sector procurement regulations. continuity of care to the residents in the current extra care schemes is important.  The domiciliary care specification of the DPS refers to carers attending service users homes and is not appropriate for shift work within an extra care facility.   Ensures value for money by having access to a pool of pre-qualified suppliers with competitive prices Gap in service impacts financial goals – Service disruption may hinder the Council’s ability to meets savings targets outlined in the Improvement Plan. Council can define its own requirements – Allows for clear specification of service standards, including social value considerations. Resource-intensive process – Requires dedicated staff and time to run the procurement process effectively. Supports long-term continuity of care – Ongoing procurement allows planning for consistent service delivery aligned with regulatory expectations (e.g, CQC concerns about staff continuity). Risk of receiving no bids – Limited market competition, with only one known supplier, could lead to a failed tender.   Not recommended Service continuity concerns – Immediate and ongoing need for the service cannot be paused during procurement, risking non-compliance with regulatory bodies like the CQC.        

Date of Decision: November 17, 2025