Decision

RESOLVED to:

1. 1.  Approve the request for the procurement of Planned External Works to fully Council?owned residential properties (non?Section 20) through the use of an existing framework arrangement, with a total estimated value of up to £30,000,000 (thirty million pounds) and a contract term of up to two years (1+1), subject to Finance approving such contracts prior to award.
2. 2.  Approve the proposed delivery approach, including the direct award of contracts under the framework to two contractors, comprising one Tier 1 contractor and one Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise (SME) contractor, with work allocation structured to ensure deliverability, appropriate risk management, and value for money, as well as fulfilling the Council's policies for employment, climate and the environment.
3. 3.  Delegate authority for the implementation of the approved procurement strategy, including the approval of any necessary framework call-off arrangements, to the Group Director, Housing Climate and Economy. This authority is to be exercised in consultation with the Group Director, Finance and Corporate Resources and the Cabinet Member for Housing Management and Regeneration.

Reasons For Decision

1. Options Appraisal

This business case has considered a range of delivery options for the provision of Planned External Works to fully council-owned residential properties, including insourcing through the DLO, delaying delivery until the medium-term external works contract is in place, and procuring delivery through an existing framework arrangement.

Each option has been assessed against key criteria including deliverability, capacity, cost, risk, timescales, and alignment with the Council’s wider asset management and procurement strategies.

The appraisal concluded that procuring through an existing framework arrangement represents the most appropriate and proportionate approach at this time. This option provides the Council with immediate access to the capacity and specialist expertise required to deliver the programme, while avoiding the operational, financial, and delivery risks associated with alternative approaches.

1. Insourcing (Direct Labour Organisation)

The option to insource delivery of the external works programme through the Council’s DLO was considered in detail. While the DLO plays a vital role in delivering responsive repairs and elements of planned maintenance, it does not currently have the capacity, specialist skills, or organisational structure required to deliver a large-scale external works programme of this nature.

Insourcing delivery would require:

·  Significant recruitment across multiple specialist trades;

·  Investment in supervision, commercial management, and health and safety resources;

·  Procurement of specialist plant and equipment; and

·  A substantial lead-in period before delivery could commence.

In addition to these practical constraints, an expanded in-house model would introduce long-term fixed costs and reduce the Council’s ability to scale delivery up or down in response to funding availability and programme priorities. Taken together, these factors mean that insourcing delivery at this stage would introduce unacceptable risk and delay, and would not represent best value for money.

1. Delay to Delivery Until the Medium-Term Contract Is in Place

The option to defer delivery of external works until the medium-term external works contract has been procured and mobilised was also considered.

This option was rejected due to the material risks associated with pausing Planned External investment. External works address deterioration to the building envelope and are essential in preventing water ingress, fabric failure, and escalation of defects.

Delaying works would increase the likelihood of:

·  Accelerated asset deterioration;

·  Increased demand for reactive repairs;

·  Higher long-term costs due to emergency or abortive works; and

·  Adverse impacts on resident satisfaction and confidence.

Given the transitional period required to procure and mobilise the medium-term contract—particularly due to the inclusion of mixed-tenure properties and associated statutory processes—deferral was not considered a prudent or proportionate approach.

1. Procuring Through an Existing Framework (Preferred Option)

Procuring delivery through an existing framework arrangement was assessed as the most deliverable and lowest-risk option available to the Council.

This approach enables the Council to:

·  Maintain continuity of delivery during the transition to the medium-term contract;

·  Secure access to experienced contractors with proven capability in delivering complex external works;

·  Minimise mobilisation risk and lead-in time; and

·  Retain flexibility to align delivery with funding availability and asset priorities.

The framework route also provides assurance that suppliers have already been subject to competitive assessment, including evaluation of technical competence, capacity, financial standing, health and safety, and sustainability credentials. This allows the Council to focus on effective programme and contract management rather than re-running procurement processes during a transitional period.

The decision to directly award contracts to the same contractors currently delivering the Council’s planned internal kitchen and bathroom works further strengthens this approach. It enables continuity of delivery, consistency of standards, and a single, coherent contract management model across related capital programmes. This reduces operational risk, improves oversight, and ensures that lessons learned and performance improvements are carried forward rather than reset, which would be the case with alternative delivery options.

While continuity of contractors provides clear operational and governance benefits, the Council has been mindful of the need to avoid over-reliance on individual suppliers. The proposed arrangements are time-limited, value-capped, and delivered via an existing framework, ensuring that competitive tension is retained through performance management, benchmarking, and the progression of the medium-term procurement. The Council retains the ability to reallocate work, apply contractual remedies, or terminate call-offs in the event of under-performance

1. Relationship to Previous and Related Decisions

On 7 October 2024, the Cabinet Procurement & Insourcing Committee approved a Business Case for Planned Capital Works Contracts for Property & Asset Management, which established the Council’s strategic approach to delivering major planned works through external contractual arrangements.

Following that approval, a short-term internal works contract was implemented as a bridging arrangement to ensure continuity of delivery while longer-term contracts progressed. That approach enabled the Council to continue delivering priority works without interruption and provided stability across related programmes.

The Council is now progressing a medium-term external works contract through procurement, which will include mixed-tenure properties and therefore requires additional statutory and mobilisation processes prior to implementation.

This business case proposes a comparable and consistent bridging approach for external works, limited to fully council-owned residential properties, to ensure that essential planned investment continues during the interim period. The proposed approach is aligned with previous CPIC decisions, reflects established governance principles, and supports continuity of delivery while the medium-term arrangements are finalised.

1. Having considered all reasonable delivery options, procuring through an existing framework arrangement is assessed as the most proportionate, deliverable, and value-for-money option available to the Council at this time.

The preferred option provides the necessary capacity and flexibility to deliver Planned External Works, protects the condition and longevity of the housing stock, and mitigates the risks associated with delay or insourcing. It also ensures continuity of delivery and alignment with the Council’s wider asset management and procurement strategies during a period of transition.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Insourcing – Delivery of External Works through the Council’s DLO

The option to deliver the Planned External Works programme through the Council’s Direct Labour Organisation was considered. This option was rejected as the DLO does not currently have the capacity, specialist skills, or resources required to deliver the scale and technical complexity of the Planned External Works within the required timescales.

Expanding in-house provision would require significant recruitment, training, and investment in plant and equipment, resulting in increased cost, lead-in time, and delivery risk. This approach was therefore not considered to represent a proportionate or value-for-money solution to meet the Council’s immediate delivery requirements.

Do Nothing / Delay Delivery Until the Medium-Term External Works Contract Is in Place

This option was considered but rejected as delaying the delivery of Planned External Works would result in unacceptable risks to the condition of the housing stock. Deferral of works would increase the likelihood of asset deterioration, higher future repair costs, and potential failure to meet the Council’s statutory obligations as a landlord.

This option would also undermine programme certainty during the transition period and negatively impact the Council’s ability to plan and prioritise capital investment effectively.

Undertake a New Standalone Competitive Procurement Exercise

The option to undertake a new competitive procurement exercise for external works was considered and rejected. This approach would introduce additional procurement timescales and risk during a period when the Council is already progressing a medium-term external works contract through procurement.

A further competitive exercise would not support continuity of delivery and would risk delaying essential works to fully council-owned properties. It was therefore not considered a proportionate response to the Council’s current operational and programme needs.

A mini-competition was considered but discounted as it would introduce additional time, cost, and mobilisation risk during a defined interim period, without delivering proportionate benefit. Given that suppliers have already been competitively appointed to the framework, and that continuity of delivery and contract management is a key requirement at this stage, a direct award represents the most efficient and controlled approach.