II.2.3) Place of performance

NUTS code:

UKE45

II.2.4) Description of the procurement

The Contract Authority; NHS West Yorkshire Integrated Care Board intends to award a contract to an existing provider following Direct Award Process C. The authority is publishing this notice in Find a Tender in accordance with the NHS Provider Selection Regime.<br/><br/>Contract Period: 01/08/2026 - 31/07/2027<br/><br/>Contract Value: £4,665,444

II.2.5) Award criteria

Quality criterion: The existing provider(s) is satisfying the contract and will likely satisfy the proposed contract to a sufficient standard. / Weighting: 100

Cost criterion: The existing provider(s) is satisfying the contract and will likely satisfy the proposed contract to a sufficient standard. / Weighting: 0

II.2.11) Information about options

Options: No

II.2.13) Information about European Union funds

The procurement is related to a project and/or programme financed by European Union funds: No

II.2.14) Additional information

The ICB is not required to follow direct award process A or B<br/>The Record of Decision Making created at the time of the decision confirms that the service:<br/>• is an existing service;<br/>• is delivered by an existing provider – Novus Health Limited;<br/>• is replacing a contract that is due to expire; and<br/>• is therefore eligible in principle for Direct Award Process C.<br/><br/>The commissioner confirms that the proposed contracting arrangements are not changing considerably from the existing contract<br/>The Community Dermatology Service Specification dated 01/08/2026 demonstrates that the proposed contract does not introduce any considerable change when compared with the existing arrangements.<br/>In substance:<br/>• the service model remains a community-based integrated pathway;<br/>• the population, geography, referral routes, and eligibility criteria are unchanged;<br/>• delivery remains with the existing provider, using the same delivery and service model;<br/>• there is no expansion, reconfiguration, or transfer of material risk.<br/>The ICB actively reviewed the proposed scope, duration, outcomes, delivery model, and risk profile against the existing contract and concluded that none of these elements met the PSR “considerable change” threshold. While the specification is presented in an updated format, the underlying service is materially consistent with the existing contract.<br/>The increase in contract value does not arise from any commissioner-led expansion of service scope, specification, patient cohort, eligibility criteria, geography or contractual outcomes. The increase is wholly attributable to unplanned growth in activity driven by external factors, including elective recovery requirements, increased referral volumes and sustained system pressures within secondary care dermatology services. The providers have delivered this additional activity through the existing service model and contractual arrangements. Accordingly, whilst the financial value exceeds the PSR material change threshold, the nature of the service being delivered remains materially unchanged and the increase reflects external demand factors rather than a substantive change to the service commissioned. <br/> <br/>Activity by Novus increased from 6,720 attendances in FY21/22 to 14,635 attendances in FY25/26, an increase of approximately 118%. This increase followed system-wide elective recovery requirements and increased referrals from secondary care pathways at Mid Yorkshire Teaching NHS Trust. The increase in contract value reflects actual demand growth and associated activity delivered rather than any expansion of the commissioned service specification.<br/><br/>No changes are proposed to the service specification, referral criteria, population served, service geography, contractual outcomes or delivery model<br/><br/>The ICB is of the view that the existing provider is satisfying the existing contract to a sufficient standard, according to the detail outlined in the contract, and also taking into account the key criteria and applying the basic selection criteria<br/>PSR Key Criteria provides detailed, narrative based evidence demonstrating that the existing provider:<br/>• is satisfying the current contract to a sufficient standard; and<br/>• is likely to satisfy the proposed contract to a sufficient standard.<br/>Commissioners considered whether the increase in contract value, in isolation, should trigger a competitive process. Having reviewed the underlying drivers of demand, commissioners concluded that the increase reflects organic growth in activity within an unchanged service model rather than a change to the commissioned service itself. The essential characteristics of the service remain unchanged.<br/>The Service Review assesses performance against all PSR key criteria, including:<br/>• Quality and innovation – supported by/evidenced by commissioner evaluation of outcomes, policies and procedures against expected standards and KPI’s and peer benchmarking. <br/>• Value and stewardship of public funds – demonstrated through cost effectiveness, system savings, sustainability.<br/>• Integration, collaboration, and sustainability – reflected through partnership working, alignment with wider pathways, digital interpolation and investment.<br/>• Access, inequalities, and choice – supported by evidence of targeted interventions, inclusive or adapted provision, reach into underserved or priority populations.<br/>• Social value – including evaluation of local employment and staff wellbeing community capacity building, wider economic or social benefits.<br/>The ICB considered not only historic performance, but also whether the provider’s established workforce, governance arrangements, and delivery model provide assurance of continued performance under the proposed contract. The proposed contract does not introduce new delivery requirements, expanded cohorts, or increased demand beyond that already successfully managed by the provider.<br/><br/>Proportionality and Overall Assurance<br/>In determining the appropriate procurement route, the ICB considered whether a competitive process would deliver additional benefit. Given the continuity of need, the absence of material change, the provider’s sustained performance, and the risks associated with service disruption, the ICB concluded that a competitive process would not be proportionate to the time, cost, and delivery risk involved.<br/>Taken together, the three documents; Record of Decision Making, Service Specification and Service Review Template provide a coherent and auditable justification for the use of Direct Award Process C. WY ICB remains satisfied that the requirements of the Provider Selection Regime have been properly applied.

WYICB PSR Review Panel

Scorex House, West 1 Bolton Road

Bradford

BD1 4AS

UK

Internet address(es)

URL: https://www.westyorkshire.icb.nhs.uk/

NHS England Independent Patient Choice and Procurement Panel

London

London

SE1 8UG

UK

Internet address(es)

URL: https://www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/how-commissioning-is-changing/nhs-provider-selection-regime/independent-patient-choice-and-procurement-panel/

NHS West Yorkshire Integrated Care Board

Scorex House, West 1 Bolton Road

Bradford

BD1 4AS

UK

Internet address(es)

URL: https://www.westyorkshire.icb.nhs.uk/