Purpose

This report seeks approval to proceed with the procurement strategy for the IT System and service delivery of the Council’s Private Sector Housing (PSH) Property Licensing Program.

The draft procurement is intended to be structured into two Lots:

• Lot 1: Licensing system and administrative processing services, including provision of a cloud?based SaaS platform and end?to?end application management.

• Lot 2: Property inspection, reporting and compliance monitoring services, including delivery of inspection programmes and support for enforcement activity

Decision

For the reasons set out in the report, the Deputy Mayor (Statutory) and Cabinet Member for Homes RESOLVED to:

Agree the strategy set out in this report which will lead to the procurement of a contract for private sector housing licensing software solution and associated delivery services over a period of five (5) years for each contract with an estimated value of circa £21m for both contracts:

Lot 1 – IT system and Administrative Process (five year contract) - cost around £10m

Lot 2 – Inspection, Reporting and Compliance Monitoring (five years contract) - cost around £10m

Reasons for the decision

The Council cannot deliver the PSH licensing schemes fully in-house within the statutory timelines (6 months from the date of the Cabinet decision) due to limited Private Sector Housing Team staff capacity, existing BAU pressure, scale of expected demand and recruitment lead times causing delivery risk.

The existing systems are not capable of delivering the proposed schemes because:

·         Uniform system (used for recording service request and enforcement actions) is not scalable for the anticipated volume and not suitable for accepting and processing licensing applications.

·         The Metastreet contract for HMO mandatory licensing processing ends in October 2026.

·         A structured competitive procurement preserves value for money.

·         A two-lot structure mitigates perceived single-supplier risk and supports competitive bids 

·         Early strategy approval protects mobilisation timeline.    

Alternative options considered

OPTION 1 - Full In-House Delivery

The Council procures a standalone IT system, and recruits all required staff to deliver the full licensing and inspection service internally.

Feasibility

Low. Recruitment capacity constraints and mobilisation timeline risk make this challenging.

Benefits and Drawbacks

            Benefits

•           Maximum internal control

•           Full ownership of processes

Drawbacks

•           High recruitment burden

•           Delivery risk within statutory timeline

•           Significant operational strain

•           Reputational exposure if mobilisation fails

Overall Assessment    Not recommended

OPTION 2 - Single Supplier Delivery Partner (IT + Admin + Inspections)

Single provider supplies system, administrative processing and inspection capability.

Feasibility

            Moderate to High (subject to procurement outcome and supplier capacity).

Benefits and Drawbacks

Benefits

•           Fastest mobilisation

•           Scalable delivery

•           Reduced recruitment risk

•           Simplified operational model

Drawbacks

•           Supplier dependency

•           Potential market concentration

•           Contract management importance increases

Overall Assessment    Not recommended

OPTION 3 - Two-Lot Procurement Delivery Model (Preferred Procurement Structure)

Description of the Option        Procurement structured in separate lots:

•           Lot 1 – IT and administrative processing

•           Lot 2 – Inspections, Reporting and Compliance monitoring service.

Allows for a single supplier, consortium bids, or separate awards.

Feasibility

            High. Allows competition while enabling flexibility.

Benefits and Drawbacks

Benefits

•           Encourages broader market participation

•           Reduces perception of single-supplier bias

•           Enhances value-for-money defensibility

•           Allows scalable approach

Drawbacks

•           Coordination complexity of the requirements

•           Interface risk between providers if we end up with more than one supplier.

•           Exit complexity

Overall Assessment: Recommended OPTION 3