II.2.3) Place of performance

NUTS code:

UK

II.2.4) Description of the procurement

Provision of independent advocacy services for secure mental health services. <br/><br/>Includes IMHA (Independent Mental Health Advocacy) and IMCA (Independent Mental Capacity Advocacy).

II.2.5) Award criteria

Quality criterion: Business Continuity and Exit Planning / Weighting: 10

Quality criterion: Social Value - Workforce / Weighting: 5

Quality criterion: Service Specific – Patient Wellbeing / Weighting: 15

Quality criterion: Service Specific – Governance and Quality / Weighting: 15

Quality criterion: Implementation / Mobilisation / Weighting: 10

Quality criterion: Social Value - Travel & Transport / Weighting: 5

Price / Weighting:  40

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 awarding of this contract is subject to the Health Care Services (Provider Selection Regime) Regulations 2023. The provisions of the PCR15 do not apply. The standstill period begins on the day after the publication of this notice. Representations by providers must be made to the relevant authority by 16/09/26. Representations can only be made by providers party to the framework agreement (NOE.0627) who might otherwise have been a provider of the services.<br/>This contract has not yet formally been awarded; this notice serves as an Intention to Award under the PSR. Written representations should be made via Atamis.<br/>Decision-makers are clinical service leads, operational, procurement and finance staff from SWYPFT & HTFT. Moderation leads and project support are category and operational procurement staff from NOE CPC. A conflict of interest declaration process was carried out. No conflicts of interest were identified for individuals making decisions or among the evaluation/moderation team.<br/>The contract has not yet been concluded; signature will follow the standstill period in accordance with PSR. The Contract Concluded date is the date the Contract Award notice is published.<br/>The authority weighted the procurement, 10% Quality & Innovation, 40% Value, 10% and 15% Integration, collaboration & service sustainability, 15% Improving access, reducing health inequalities, & facilitating choice and 10% Social Value.<br/>The Authority determined the relative importance of the key criteria in line with PSR principles (Reg 4) and with a focus on achieving best outcomes for service users. The evaluation was structured to reflect the priorities in the specification: Value (40%) Given the contract’s multi-year nature and its impact on efficiency in the use of NHS resources, cost formed a significant part of the assessment, ensuring affordability & sustainability of service delivery. The Authority adopted an open‑book costing approach for this procurement to ensure transparency, proportionality, and financial sustainability in the provision of Forensic Advocacy Services across SWYPFT & HTFT. This approach was intended to:<br/>Avoid unsustainable under‑pricing,<br/>Provide clarity on true cost drivers,<br/>Enable informed decisions on affordability versus service scope.<br/> <br/>The successful provider ranked first, and the submitted pricing was fully compliant with the specification requirements and consistent with sustainable delivery for the contract term.<br/>Service Quality accounted for the largest proportion of evaluation weighting. This reflects the PSR key criterion relating to the quality and effectiveness of health care services and their ability to deliver safe, person-centred advocacy. Sub-criteria included:<br/>Quality & Innovation.<br/>The successful provider scored ‘good’. The response presented a clear mobilisation plan with defined tasks, milestones, and arrangements for continuity and engagement, demonstrating confidence in successful service implementation. The response was assessed as good and met the criterion to the standard described in the published scoring methodology.<br/>Integration, collaboration & service sustainability<br/>The successful provider scored ‘good’. The response provided a governance framework with processes for assurance, reporting, and compliance, offering confidence in safe and effective service delivery. The response was assessed as good and met the criterion to the standard described in the published scoring methodology.<br/>Improving access, reducing health inequalities, & facilitating choice<br/>The successful provider scored ‘excellent’. The response showed a strong commitment to supporting service user wellbeing through a person-centred approach and proactive engagement measures. The Authority assessed this as exceeding requirements in key areas and meeting the published scoring methodology to an excellent standard.<br/>Integration, collaboration & service sustainability<br/>The successful provider scored ‘good’. The provider outlined practical measures for maintaining service continuity during disruption and for managing a smooth and compliant exit at contract end. The response was assessed as good and met the criterion to the standard described in the published scoring methodology.<br/>Social Value.<br/>Two targeted questions (Workforce Wellbeing & Carbon Reduction) ensured providers demonstrated commitments with measurable outcomes.<br/>The successful provider scored ‘good’. The response presented a clear culture plan supported by examples of intended impact and a timed social value action plan. The response explained how workforce wellbeing initiatives would be implemented and how outcomes would be monitored, evidencing alignment with NHS priorities and providing assurance of delivery. The response was assessed as good and met the criterion to the standard described in the published scoring methodology.<br/>The successful provider scored ‘good’. The response demonstrated clear commitments to low-carbon travel methods and embedding sustainable travel within day‑to‑day service delivery. It described arrangements for monitoring and reporting and included the use of virtual appointments to support accessible service provision. The response was assessed as good and met the criterion to the standard described in the published scoring methodology.<br/>The successful provider demonstrated capability across all service delivery areas in line with PSR objectives.<br/>This weighting ensured price was balanced against the ability of providers to evidence quality controls, safe transition planning, resilience, & wider social value outcomes aligned to statutory requirements and NHS priorities. The successful provider scored the highest across all providers and compliance with all aspects of the evaluation criteria. This is an existing service, the successful provider is the incumbent.

Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, trading as North of England NHS Commercial Procurement Collaborative ("NOE CPC")

Don Valley House, Savile Street East

Sheffield

S4 7UQ

UK

E-mail: procurement@noecpc.nhs.uk

Internet address(es)

URL: https://www.noecpc.nhs.uk

North of England Commercial Procurement Collaborative (NOE CPC)

Savile Street East,

Sheffield,

S4 7UQ

UK

Internet address(es)

URL: https://www.noecpc.nhs.uk

Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, trading as North of England NHS Commercial Procurement Collaborative ("NOE CPC")

Don Valley House, Savile Street East

Sheffield

S4 7UQ

UK

E-mail: procurement@noecpc.nhs.uk

Internet address(es)

URL: https://www.noecpc.nhs.uk