Content

11.1

The Assistant Director of Transformation and
Delivery from the Sheffield ICB/Sheffield CC presented a report
which sought approval to initiate a joint procurement process for
the Integrated Community Equipment Loan Service (ICELS_ in
collaboration with Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. The
Assistant Director stated that a joint approach was expected to be
confirmed shortly. It was outlined that the procurement would
support Sheffield’s statutory duties under the Care Act 2014
and align with the city’s strategic priorities around
personalised care, technology-enabled care (TEC), and hospital
discharge work.

 

 

11.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That
Adult Health and Social Care Policy Committee:-
 

Agree to jointly commission an
Integrated Community Equipment service in collaboration with
Rotherham Council from April 2027
Adopt a model of joint governance
and a dedicated CES team
Agree to pooled funding via Section
75 arrangements

 

 

11.3

Reasons for
Decision

 

 

11.3.1

A new contract needs to be in place by 1st
April 2027 and to facilitate this, a tendering exercise needs to be
undertaken with a new provider in place by this date. If this is
not achieved, then the commissioning organisations and their
partners will not meet their statutory obligations under the Care
Act.

 

 

11.3.2

The proposals support Sheffield City
Council’s Strategic Plan (2022-2027), NHS South Yorkshire ICB
Sheffield and Rotherham Places, and Rotherham Borough Council by
enabling people to live their best lives and support people to be
independent through the provision of equipment:
• Supports the care of people within
their own homes, enabling them to maximise their independence.
• Reduces hospital admissions and
facilitates prompt hospital discharge.
• Reduces the requirement for Service
Users to enter long-term care.
• Reduces the demand on domiciliary care
through reduced care packages, double-handed care.
• Enables access to the curriculum and
care at home for children with a range of health and social care
needs.

 

 

11.3.3

It is recommended that Sheffield and Rotherham
formally agree to jointly commission an Integrated Community
Equipment Service from 1 April 2027, adopt a model of joint
governance, a dedicated CES team, and pooled funding via Section 75
arrangements, align commissioning timelines through a one-year
extension of Sheffield’s current contract, and co-develop a
joint specification and tender with shared market engagement
activities during 2025/26.

 

 

11.4

Alternatives
Considered and Rejected

 

 

11.4.1

Alternative Option
1: Sheffield-only procurement
One option considered was for Sheffield to
proceed with a standalone procurement process, without
collaboration with Rotherham. This option was rejected because it
would not deliver the same level of efficiency, value for money, or
service resilience. A Sheffield-only approach would miss the
opportunity to align commissioning timelines, reduce duplication,
and benefit from shared infrastructure. It would also limit the
ability to attract and retain high-quality providers through a
larger, more attractive contract.

 

 

11.4.2

Alternative Option
2: Fully in-house
An alternative considered was to bring the
Integrated Community Equipment Service fully in-house, with the
Council directly managing logistics, warehousing, procurement, and
delivery operations.
 
This option was rejected due to significant
operational and financial challenges. Delivering a service of this
scale in-house would require substantial upfront investment in
infrastructure, including warehousing, fleet management, staffing,
and IT systems. It would also introduce considerable logistical
complexity, particularly in managing stock, coordinating
deliveries, and ensuring timely response to urgent needs such as
hospital discharges.
 
Evidence from other areas, such as Kirklees,
highlights that in-house models often struggle with fragmented
policies, inconsistent access to equipment, and inefficiencies in
procurement and delivery.
 
In contrast, outsourced models benefit from
national buying power, established logistics networks, and access
to specialist expertise in clinical governance, health and safety,
and procurement. These advantages enable faster delivery, better
value for money, and improved service resilience.
 
Given the scale and complexity of the service,
and the need for flexibility and responsiveness, an in-house model
was not considered viable or cost-effective at this time.