Home Care Contract Procurement Process Topic Group 28 & 29 August 2008 Item 3 Remit Report

Home Care Contract Procurement Process Topic Group 28 & 29 August 2008 Item 3 Remit Report

HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

HOME CARE CONTRACT PROCUREMENT PROCESS TOPIC GROUP

THURSDAY 28 AUGUST 2008 AT 10.00AM AND FRIDAY 29 AUGUST 2008 AT 10.00AM

REMIT OF THE TOPIC GROUP

Report of the County Secretary

Author:Emma Lund, Democratic Services Officer

[Tel: 01992 555563]

1.Purpose of Report

To note the remit and membership of the Home Care Contract Procurement Process Topic Group.

2.Remit and Membership

Remit

At its meeting on 3 July 2008 the Overview and Scrutiny Committee agreed that a topic group should be established to undertake a one-off scrutiny to examine the home care contract procurement process. The remit of the group is to scrutinise:

Was the tendering process robust, and was a thorough process gone through to select the most appropriate providers?

Has Adult Care Services taken all appropriate measures to address the issues that have arisen?

Were there any actions or omissions by Adult Care Services which contributed to these issues?

What are the lessons that can be learnt?

Membership (3:1:1)

The following Members have been appointed to the topic group:

K Coleman (C)

T C Heritage (C)

P A Ruffles (C)

R Mays (L)

N Hollinghurst (LD)

1

Item 3 – Remit Report

3.Procedures

3.1The Topic Group may determine their own arrangements for obtaining views from a wide range of sources, including requiring members of the Executive and Officers to attend before them and answer questions and inviting other persons to attend its meetings.

3.2The Topic Group may also arrange any site visits they feel necessary.

3.3A final report of the Topic Group will be drafted by the Scrutiny Officer, agreed by the Service Department Officer allocated to the work, and considered in draft by all members of the Topic Group. The final report and recommendations will then be passed to the relevant Chief Officer and Executive Member or to Cabinet.

3.4The Chief Officer/Executive Member is required to respond to a report and recommendations within 2 months. The response will be sent to the Head of Scrutiny, who will copy it to the Topic Group Members and Chairman and Vice Chairmen of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

4.Financial Implications

None

5.Conclusion

Members are asked to consider the scoping document and the suggested remit and make any amendments they feel necessary.

Background papers used in preparing this report:

Hertfordshire County Council’s Constitution adopted on 24 May 2005.

Minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 3 July 2008.

1

Item 3 – Remit Report

Scrutiny Remit:

Scrutiny of the Homecare Contract Procurement Process

OBJECTIVE: To clarify why the procurement process did not prevent significant services delivery issues arising when contracts were transferred.

QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED:

  1. Was the tender process robust; was a thorough process gone through to select the most appropriate providers and was sufficient evaluation and checking built into the tendering stage?
  1. Did ACS do all it could to facilitate a smooth transfer within the regulations?
  1. Has ACStaken all appropriate measures to address the issues which have arisen? Were there any actions or omissions by ACS which contributed to these issues?
  1. What lessons can be learnt?

OUTCOME: to establish whether procurement needs strengthening, and to ensure that lessons learned are applied to future procurement by HCC

METHOD: One-offDATE: 28 and 29 August 2008

MEMBERSHIP:

T Heritage, K J Coleman, P A Ruffles, N Hollinghurst, R Mays

EVIDENCE & WITNESSES

  • Users and carers involved in the tender process – to provide feedback on their involvement
  • Acting Head of Contracts – to describe tender process, outline issues which have arisen and describe the action taken by ACS
  • Hertfordshire Business Service – to confirm what advice was provided on the tender process
  • Supporta Care and Care UK – to explain what went wrong from their perspective and what they did to put it right
  • CSCI – to explain regulatory function to providers, and involvement/communication with ACS
  • Legal representative – to explain TUPE legislation when business transfers from provider to another

Constraints:

SUPPORT:

Scrutiny Officer: Natalie Rotherham

Lead Officers: Mark Lobban/Guy Pettengell

Democratic Services Officer: Emma Lund

HCC CHALLENGES: how this item helps deliver the Challenges

  1. Helping people feel safe & secure
  2. Maximising opportunities for children and young people
  3. Supporting the independence of the growing number of older people
  4. Tackling the causes and impact of congestion
  5. Dealing with worn out roads and pavements
  6. Reducing the impact of new development on the environment
  7. Maximising efficiency savings

CfPS OBJECTIVES – how the item delivers these objectives

  • Provides a critical friend challenge to executive policy makers and decision makers
  • Enables the voice and concerns of the public
  • Is carried out independent minded governors who lead and own the scrutiny role
  • Drives improvement in public services

1

Item 3 Appendix 1 – scoping document

Top View