Agenda item

Joint report of Corporate Director for People and Director of Public Health

Tracey Lamming, Public Health Principal, presented the report recommending extending the existing contracts for sexual health services by up to six months to allow sufficient time for the new services to mobilise safely and effectively. 

Resolved to

(1)  approve spend of up to £2,015,798 to extend existing sexual health contracts (as detailed in Table 1 above) for a maximum of 6 months (1 April 2024–30 September 2024);

(2)  delegate authority to the Director of Public Health to enter appropriate deeds of variations to extend the existing sexual health contracts for a maximum of 6 months to 30 September 2024.

Reasons for decision:

·  Under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 there is a statutory duty for local authorities to commission comprehensive sexual health services for its residents. This includes provision of information, advice, and support on a range of issues, such as sexually transmitted infections (STIs), contraception, relationships and unplanned pregnancy.

·  Contractual arrangements are needed to continue the service uninterrupted. To bring in a new service would result is a higher risk to residents due to a disruption of services. It would cause significant inconvenience for residents.

·  Economically, a contract extension would cost significantly less than securing a new interim service. Similarly, it is economically favourable to continue with the existing service under the current contract terms and conditions.

·  A contract extension will ensure there is sufficient time available for both negotiations with bidder/s and for the mobilisation of a new and complex integrated service model for sexual health services. 

·  It is possible that the market has responded well to our vision for sexual health services in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire and it is essential that there is adequate time to complete a comprehensive procurement process to get the best possible service for local citizens.

·  Currently, both the in-person and online sexual health services are utilised well therefore to extend these is the solution that offers the least risk in terms of current service provision, in terms of the future contract and for mobilisation. 

·  The current contracts are jointly funded by Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council and an extension is also dependant on Nottinghamshire County Council obtaining approval in line with their governance processes. However, this decision relates to the approval sought and expenditure to be incurred by Nottingham City Council, in relation to the proposed extension of the contracts.

·  With the information above taken into account, there are grounds to modify the existing contracts without a new procurement procedure at this stage as the additional services (of the type supplied by the current contracts) are necessary, were not included in the initial procurement and where a change of contractor:

o  cannot be made for economic or technical reasons such as requirements of interchangeability or interoperability with existing equipment, services or installations procured under the initial procurement, or

o  would cause significant inconvenience or substantial duplication of costs for the contracting authority.

·  Variation of the online service contract would be secured compliantly through callloffs from the e-SRH Framework, and the Department of Health and Social Care have confirmed with our current online provider that that any call-off contracts that are varied and end beyond the life of the e-SRH Framework will be honoured.

Other options considered:

·  Setting up an interim service for the 6-month period. The time it takes to safely mobilise a service, it would be a break in the continuity of care for residents across Nottingham City and Nottinghamshire County and the logistics in the transfer of patient records for a short period. Therefore, this option is not recommended.

·  Do nothing. This would result in having no service for up to 6-months period. This is not considered to be a viable option due to the mandated responsibility both local authorities must provide an open access sexual health service to our residents. The impact on citizens of no service which would result in residents either having no access to services or having to go elsewhere for sexual health service and us being charged by other local authorities for out of area activity. Therefore, this option is not recommended.