Tender Evaluation Report. Procurement of Non-Emergency Patient Transport Services (NEPTS)

Transcription

1 Tender Evaluation Report SUBJECT Procurement of Non-Emergency Patient Transport Services (NEPTS) SPONSORED BY NHS South Norfolk CCG (Lead Commissioner), NHS Norwich CCG, NHS West Norfolk CCG, and NHS North Norfolk CCG PRESENTED BY Bob Smith NHS Anglia Commissioning Support Unit Healthcare Procurement Manager SUBMITTED TO Commissioning Boards of the above NHS bodies PURPOSE OF PAPER Information, Recommendation, & Decision TIMESCALE Board approval required by 24 th February 2014 Date: 11 th February Introduction 1.1 The current NEPTS contract with the East of England Ambulance Service Trust expires 30 th September This purpose of this procurement is to select a provider to undertake service delivery with effect from 1 st October The term of the contract will be 5 years. 1.2 This requirement covers the following Commissioners: NHS South Norfolk CCG (acting as Lead Commissioners) NHS Norwich CCG NHS West Norfolk CCG NHS North Norfolk CCG 1.3 The Commissioners have engaged NHS Anglia CSU (ACSU) to undertake the procurement for this requirement. The South Norfolk Commissioning lead is Chris Coath. The CSU Procurement lead is Bob Smith. 1.4 Readers attention is drawn to the protective marking of this paper, and the commercial sensitivity of the information contained herein. 2. Recommendation 2.1 The recommendation is to award this business to Bidder 9. The following information provides evidence to support this recommendation. 1

2 3. Process & Outcomes 3.1 The call for competition was published on Supply2Health by ACSU on 21 st October 2013 on Supply2Health and in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU). The Contract Notice directed potential providers to the East of England Collaborative Procurement Hub Bravo e-sourcing portal where the pre-qualification questionnaire (PQQ) was available for download. 3.2 The procurement process comprised a separate Pre-Qualification Questionnaire (PQQ) and Invitation to Tenders (ITT), the latter comprising the service specification, service-related questions, financial modelling templates, and instructions to tenderers. PQQs were evaluated to establish a shortlist that was adjudged as having suitable experience, track record, quality assurance, and financial capacity. The shortlisted bidders were then issued with the ITT. 3.3 Nine (9) responses to the PQQ were received. 3.4 The following bidders were shortlisted: 2 1. Bidder 1 2. Bidder 5 3. Bidder 6 4. Bidder 7 5. Bidder 8 6. Bidder The unsuccessful bidders were advised and debriefed accordingly. 3.6 Prior to issue of the ITT, a pre-itt shortlist engagement event was held on 2 nd December 2013 where shortlisted providers were invited to attend plenary presentations by the Commissioners, ACSU Procurement, and Norfolk County Council, before having the opportunity to speak with stakeholder groups comprising: Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Kings Lynn Norfolk Community Health & Care Norfolk & Suffolk Foundation Trust Norfolk County Council Social Care Services East of England Ambulance Service Trust Emergency Service Provider East of England Ambulance Service Trust PTCAAS Provider Norfolk Community Transport Association Norfolk County Council Travel & Transport Department 3.7 Shortlisted bidders were also invited to feedback on the draft service specification. With the exception of one bidder (Bidder 8), all shortlisted bidders participated.

3 3.8 The ITT was subsequently issued to the shortlisted bidders on 6 th December The following bidders subsequently withdrew from the process: 1. Bidder 1 2. Bidder 6 3. Bidder Tender responses from the remaining 3 shortlisted bidders were received as requested on 15 th January The ITT advised bidders of the evaluation criteria to be used to establish the most economically advantageous tender. The evaluation criteria and weightings were as follows: Pricing 35% Pricing Assurance 5% Service Delivery 20% Service Integration 10% Mobilisation & Transition Planning 10% Specific Scenarios 10% Innovation & Continuous Improvement 5% Service Monitoring and Information 5% 3.11 The full tender evaluation criteria and methodology are in the embedded file below. NEPTS Tender Evaluation Criteria.do 3.12 As this procurement is for healthcare services, which are an excluded service under the Public Contract Regulations 2006, and although not therefore legally obliged to undertake a Standstill Period, we are following Crown Commercial Service best practice guidelines and including a standstill prior to award of business in order to mitigate the risk of challenge by an unsuccessful bidder that, following court action, could result in the contract being deemed as ineffective. The robust nature of the evaluation process means that the risk of a challenge from an unsuccessful bidder during the standstill period is minimal. 4. Tender Evaluation 4.1 The tender evaluation panel comprised the following personnel: Tender evaluation comprises personnel from NHS South Norfolk CCG, NHS Norwich CCG, NHS North Norfolk CCG, NHS West Norfolk CCG, NHS Anglia CSU, Norfolk County Council (Transport Integration Technical Q32 only). 4.2 All evaluators signed discrete Non-Disclosure Agreements prior to receiving the tender responses. 3

4 4.3 Each technical evaluator independently scored their allocated questions, and submitted their completed score sheets to the ACSU Procurement representative. A score moderation meeting was subsequently held on 31 st January 2014 for the purpose of agreeing scores and critique for each bidder s response to each ITT technical question. The critique will be taken forward by the CSU Procurement representative for the purpose of debriefing unsuccessful bidders. 4.4 The CFOs conducted the evaluation of pricing and pricing assurance aspects of the tender responses. 4.5 As a result of the above evaluations, Bidder 5 and Bidder 9 were invited to present to the evaluation panel on 6 th February The third bid had scored consistently low not to warrant further consideration. The presentation subjects were how bidders would ensure the provision of high quality clinically safe patient services under any resulting contract, how their proposed innovations would add benefit throughout the term of any resulting contract, and pricing assumptions made for the use of different vehicle categories and the volunteer workforce. 4.6 Following the presentations, the evaluation team revisited their original scores and agreed any variations based on the materials provided at the presentations. 4.7 The resulting final moderated scores and the results of the ITT evaluation process are shown below. The Dun & Bradstreet report on the financial status of Bidder 9 shows a D&B risk rating is 2A/1 which represents a minimal risk of business failure. 4.8 In summary, scores are: Bidder Total weighted technical score out of 600 Total weighted pricing score out of 350 Total weighted pricing assurance score out of 50 Total score out of 1,000 4 Bidder Bidder Bidder Bidders were requested to provide two references at PQQ stage. Following Bidder 9 s selection as the preferred bidder, a call was made to their nominated reference contact for whom Bidder 9 are currently providing nonemergency patient transport services In summary, the reference revealed that Bidder 9 initially provided a light touch on vehicle numbers, and relied on bringing in additional capacity from other areas before ramping up to cope with the capacity requirements. The reference also revealed that other bidders proposed more vehicles than

5 Bidder 9 in their bids, and that Bidder 9 initially under-estimated the number of journeys for out-patient clinics, renal, and elderly cohorts, but have now resolved this matter. Some of this was down to poor data provided by the commissioner at ITT stage. The reference confirmed that the tendered pricing has been maintained and that performance trends are improving monthly, and that patient and acute provider feedback has been positive. 5. Timetable Remaining Key Procurement Events 5.1 The remainder of the procurement process and the timetable against events is as follows: Milestone Commissioners approval of selected Bidder Result announced/start of Standstill Period Completion Date 24 th February th February 2014 Completion of Standstill Period 7 th March 2014 Award of business to selected Bidder 10 th March 2014 Commencement of Mobilisation Mid March 2014 Contract signed Early April 2014 Service Commencement By 1 st October 2014 End of document 5