NHSWYICB - End of Life Services

Location

Bradford

Description

Hospice Palliative Care and Community End of Life Services

Total Quantity or Scope

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.Contract length is 1 Year Contract period: 01/04/2026 - 31/03/2027Contract value: £2,254,419

Award Detail

Award Criteria

CPV Codes

• 85100000 - Health services
• 85323000 - Community health services

Indicators

• Award on basis of price and quality.

Legal Justification

This is a Provider Selection Regime (PSR) intention to award notice. The awarding of this contract is subject to the Health Care Services (Provider Selection Regime) Regulations 2023. For the avoidance of doubt, the provisions of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and the Procurement Act 2023 do not apply to this award. The publication of this notice marks the start of the Standstill Period. Representations by providers must be made to the relevant authority by 27 May 2026. This contract has not yet formally been awarded; this notice serves as an intention to award a contract under the PSR.

Other Information

1. Eligibility for Direct Award Process CThe Record of Decision Making confirms that the service:• is an existing service;• is delivered by an existing provider (Marie Curie Hospice);• is replacing a contract that is due to expire; and• is therefore eligible in principle for Direct Award Process C.The Record also identifies the named decision maker, senior approving bodies, contract value and term, and confirms that no conflicts of interest were declared. This document evidences that the decision was taken consciously and contemporaneously within the PSR framework, rather than by default or assumption.2. No Considerable Change to Contracting ArrangementsThe 2026/27 Service Specifications demonstrate that the proposed contract does not introduce any considerable change when compared with the existing arrangements.In substance:• the service model remains a community based, de medicalised chronic pain pathway;• the population, geography, referral routes, and eligibility criteria are unchanged;• delivery remains with the same hospice provider, using the same integrated model;• there is no expansion, reconfiguration, or transfer of material risk.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.3. Provider Performance and Likely Future PerformanceThe Service Review Template – PSR Key Criteria provides detailed, narrative based evidence demonstrating that Marie Curie Hopsice:• is satisfying the current contract to a sufficient standard; and• is likely to satisfy the proposed contract to a sufficient standard.The Service Review assesses performance against all PSR key criteria, including:• Quality and innovation, supported by independently evaluated outcomes and national recognition;• Value and stewardship of public funds, including strong return on investment, system savings, and low cost per QALY;• Integration, collaboration, and sustainability, with delivery embedded across primary care, community services;• Access, inequalities, and choice, with culturally adapted provision targeted at underserved populations; and• Social value, including local employment, prevention, and community capacity building.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.4. Proportionality and Overall AssuranceIn 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.Taken together, the three documents provide a coherent and auditable justification for the use of Direct Award Process C, demonstrating that:• the regulatory conditions for Process C are met;• the decision was taken lawfully, transparently, and proportionately;• the existing provider sufficiently meets the PSR criteria; and• continuity of a clinically effective and system beneficial service is in the best interests of patients and the wider system.WY ICB therefore remains satisfied that the requirements of the Provider Selection Regime have been properly applied and evidenced. This is a Provider Selection Regime (PSR) intention to award notice. The awarding of this contract is subject to the Health Care Services (Provider Selection Regime) Regulations 2023. For the avoidance of doubt, the provisions of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and the Procurement Act 2023 do not apply to this award. The publication of this notice marks the start of the Standstill Period. Representations by providers must be made to the relevant authority by 27 May 2026. This contract has not yet formally been awarded; this notice serves as an intention to award a contract under the PSR.Written representations should be sent to wyicb-kirk.procurement@nhs.netThe assessment was undertaken in accordance with the Provider Selection Regime (PSR) Direct Award Process C, using a structured service review and evaluation methodology.Evaluation of Key CriteriaThe provider was assessed against the five PSR key criteria, using a combination of quantitative performance data, qualitative evidence, and professional judgement:1. Quality and Innovationo Evaluated using performance metrics (e.g. achievement of preferred place of death, patient outcomes), CQC inspection ratings, and service delivery evidence. o Consideration was given to clinical effectiveness, patient experience, safety, innovation, and continuous improvement.o Evidence included activity data, outcome measures, patient feedback, and external assurance (e.g. CQC “Outstanding” domains).2. Valueo Assessed through analysis of contract value against outcomes delivered, including activity levels, avoidance of hospital admissions, and system-wide benefits. o Consideration of cost-effectiveness, benchmarking (where available), and contribution to reducing demand on acute services.3. Integration, Collaboration and Sustainabilityo Evaluated based on the provider’s role within the wider system, including partnership working with NHS, social care, and voluntary sector partners. o Evidence included participation in system forums, joint pathways, and alignment with integrated care objectives.4. Improving Access, Reducing Health Inequalities and Facilitating Choiceo Assessed using evidence of equitable access, responsiveness to population needs, and compliance with equality duties. o Consideration of referral processes, service reach, and support for underserved or vulnerable groups.5. Social Valueo Evaluated based on the provider’s contribution to local communities, including delivery of services locally, workforce impact, and alignment with “Keep it Local” principles.o The evaluation was informed by a multi-disciplinary review, incorporating input from clinical, finance, quality, and commissioning leads. Judgements were based on available evidence and moderated to ensure consistency and objectivity.Evaluation of Basic Selection CriteriaThe basic selection criteria (as set out in PSR guidance) were assessed separately to confirm that the provider:• Meets regulatory requirements, including Care Quality Commission (CQC) registration and compliance• Is technically and professionally capable of delivering the service• Has financial standing and organisational stability appropriate to the contract• Has appropriate governance, safeguarding, and risk management arrangements in placeThis assessment drew on:• Existing contract management intelligence• Regulatory inspection reports (e.g. CQC ratings) • Ongoing performance monitoring and assurance processesDecision-making approach• The assessment combined objective data (performance, activity, outcomes) with qualitative evaluation (confidence in delivery, system fit)• Findings were reviewed and validated through governance processes, including senior management oversight• The outcome reflected whether the provider is meeting current contractual requirements and is likely to continue to do so.