Content

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST RELATING TO THIS ITEM:
 
None
 

RESOLVED:
 
That Cabinet:
 
1.   
Approved the commencement of a procurement for Home Care and
Reablement services as separate lots.

2.   
Agreed a contract term of up to eight years, with appropriate break
clauses at year four and year six.

3.   
Approved a commissioning mix that increased guaranteed hours from
around 50% in Year?1 to around 70% by Year?3, with the remainder
procured via the Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS). Appendix?A listed
the indicative maximum number of hours per service
agreement.

4.   
Approved a Council?defined sustainable pricing approach, including
a rate range and annual uplift mechanism, with flexibility to
respond to exceptional circumstances.

5.   
Agreed to an increased number of contracts and a cap on awards per
provider to improve resilience and avoid
over?concentration.

6.   
Noted and approved the mobilisation approach, including TUPE where
applicable, Electronic Call Monitoring (ECM), and phased transition
arrangements.

7.   
Delegated authority to the Cabinet Member for Health, Social Care
and Wellbeing, in consultation with the Corporate Director of
Adults, Housing and Health, to award contracts for Home Care and
Reablement following completion of the procurement process.
 

Reasons for decision

 
Haringey supported
around 1,500 people per year with Home Care and Reablement. Home
Care provided support such as personal care and dressing, helping
residents remain in their homes for longer. Reablement supported
residents who had experienced, or were at risk of, hospital
admission to regain skills lost during illness.
 
The proposed approach
to retendering these services sustained and strengthened what was
already working well in Haringey’s model while addressing
current pressures. The locality?based, guaranteed?hours
arrangements had improved responsiveness, workforce stability and
hospital discharge, and enabled greater oversight of providers,
supporting quality assurance and relationship?based practice.
A re?procurement was
required to preserve these gains and update the model for current
market conditions.
 
Separating Home Care
and Reablement into distinct lots emerged as a key learning from
the current contract. Establishing Reablement as a separate service
ensured clarity about its short?term, outcomes?focused role and
allowed ongoing support to be commissioned and measured
differently.
Introducing
Council?defined sustainable rates with transparent uplift rules
aligned with the Council’s fair?pay commitments and the
requirement to consider the actual cost of care, reducing the risk
of provider exit or failure. Increasing the share of guaranteed
hours to approximately 70%, distributing awards across more
providers with caps per provider, and using ECM for billing and
assurance collectively improved resilience, continuity and contract
oversight.
 
Delegating contract
award decisions to the relevant Cabinet Member enabled timely
implementation following the conclusion of the tender process,
ensured proportionate political oversight, and supported safe
continuity of care for residents while complying with Contract
Standing Orders.
 

Alternative options considered
 
Do nothing / rely
solely on the DPS
Rejected. Without call?off contracts, Brokerage would have needed
to place all packages on the DPS, which was slower, offered less
certainty for residents and providers, and would have weakened
market stability and oversight.
Extend current
arrangements only
Rejected. While short extensions supported continuity, a full
re?procurement was required to secure updated terms, pricing, and
capacity, and to comply with procurement regulations.
 
Deliver all home care
in?house
Rejected. This would have required significant set?up costs, Care
Quality Commission (CQC) registration, management structures, and
the fast transfer of a large workforce. It would also have been
significantly more expensive than external provision, and the
Council did not have the capacity or financial means to mobilise a
borough?wide in?house service within required timescales.
 
Direct negotiation
with incumbents only
Rejected. This would have limited competition and risked
non?compliance with procurement law given the anticipated contract
values.