Purpose

Cabinet is recommended to
approve proposal to directly award a new 8 year contract (5 years
with 3 optional 1 year extensions) to the incumbent integrated
sexual health provider, Barts Health NHS Trust, using the Provider
Selection Regime (PSR) Regulations 2023. This will be a joint
service with London Borough of Tower Hamlets and London Borough of
Newham, who are the lead commissioner.
 

Content

Cabinet:

(1)           
agreed the commissioning intentions outlined in the
report, in summary, to continue to commission our specialist
integrated sexual health service for our local population beyond
November 2025, in a joint commissioning arrangement with
London Borough of Newham, London Borough of Tower
Hamlets and London Borough of Redbridge, with Newham acting as lead
commissioner; and

(2)           
agreed the use of Provider Selection Regime, Direct
Award Process C, which would see the incumbent provider (Barts
Health NHS Trust) awarded a new contract for 5 years (with 3
optional one-year extensions) to provide integrated sexual health
services.

 

Options & Alternatives Considered

Option 1: Do nothing
This
would result in less overall spend and no need to enter a
procurement process. However, this is not a possible option, as
doing nothing means the Council would fail to fulfil its statutory
requirement to commission sexual health services for our
population. It would also worsen morbidity and mortality
outcomes, and worsen health
inequalities.

Option 2: Recommissioning as an individual
borough
This
option would give us total control over our commissioning
intentions and service specification. However, there are
significant disadvantages to this option. We would lose the
financial efficiencies and improved service alignment and
collaboration achieved through the current joint commissioning
arrangement, and this would likely increase costs associated with
paying for our residents’ sexual health care outside of the
borough. We are also aligned with our current co-commissioners on
our vision for the service.

Option 3: Follow an alternative commissioning route
e.g. competitive procurement
This
in theory provides alternative options for commissioners, however
it is unlikely that there would be additional interest in providing
this service aside from the current provider. This option would
include the disadvantages of option 2, as the other boroughs would
be unlikely to want to pursue competitive procurement with
us.

Option 4: Commission jointly as we currently do,
via direct award Process C to the incumbent
provider
This
is the recommended option, as it is most likely to maintain a
high quality service for our residents,
maximise financial efficiencies and collaboration through joint
commissioning, and reduce likely out of borough costs compared to a
single-borough service.