Decision

1. 1

The Strategic Commissioning Manager presented a report to Committee which provided an update to the September 2025 decision to initiate a joint procurement process for an Integrated Community Equipment Loan Service (ICELS). The initial decision was provided to co-commission with Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (RMBC). An update to the process was provided in March 2026, noting the inclusion of the City of Doncaster Council (CDC) and the decision with South Yorkshire Integrated Care Board (SYICB). It was stated 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.

1. 2

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

1. Approve the joint procurement of an Integrated Community Equipment Loan Service in collaboration with RMBC, CDC and SYICB from May 2027 for a ten-year term with an estimated value of £150m, taking account of inflation and demand increases
2. Note that Sheffield City Council will be the Lead Commissioner, on the basis that partners provide proportionate resources to enable effective contract management that will not be of detriment to Sheffield. The appropriate governance, resource, cost sharing and risk allocation arrangements will be agreed with the partners prior to contract award and will be supported by a dedicated commissioning team, Collaboration Agreement and updated Section 75 Agreement between partners.
3. Delegate approval of a Collaboration Agreement and updated Section 75 Agreement to the Director of Commissioning, Procurement and Contract Management.
4. Approve an extension of the current contract with Medequip to cover the mobilisation period between contract award and go live.
5. Receive updates on the service on an annual basis.

1. 3

Reasons for Decision

1. 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, or the proposed contract extension being enacted as appropriate. If this is not achieved, then the commissioning organisations and their partners risk meeting their statutory obligations under the Care Acy. A contract extension is being sought which may delay the start date.

1. 3.2

The proposals support Sheffield City Council’s Strategic Plan (2022-2027) 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

1. 4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

1. 4.1

Alternative Option 1: One option considered was for Sheffield to proceed with a standalone procurement process, either with or without our NHS partners. This option was not recommended as it would not deliver the same level of efficiency, value for money, service resilience, or meet shared partnership priorities. A Sheffield-only approach would miss the opportunity to work in partnership, align commissioning timelines, reduce duplication, and benefit from shared infrastructure. It would have significant budgetary implications and would limit the ability to attract and retain high-quality providers through a larger, more attractive contract.

1. 4.2

Alternative Option 2: A second alternative considered was to bring the Integrated Community Equipment Service 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.