NHSE1094 - Healthcare Services for the Yorkshire and Humber Female Secure Estate

Location

HMP New Hall and HMP Askham Grange

Description

This is an INTENTION TO AWARD Notice following The Health Care Services (Provider Selection Regime) Regulations 2023 - Competitive Process. North of England Commissioning Support (NECS) is a commissioning support service working for and on behalf of NHS England - North East and Yorkshire (the Relevant Authority) who have undertaken a competition process to provide Healthcare Services for the Yorkshire and Humber Female Secure Estate. Contract Start Date: 01 December 2026 Contract End Date: 31 March 2033 The contract term is for an initial period of 3 years and 4 months, with an option to extend for a further 3 years at the discretion of the Relevant Authority and subject to satisfactory contractual and financial performance.

Total Quantity or Scope

This is an INTENTION TO AWARD Notice following The Health Care Services (Provider Selection Regime) Regulations 2023 - Competitive Process. This is an intention to award notice to advise that the relevant authority intends to award a contract under a competitive process under the Health Care Services (Provider Selection Regime) regulations 2023. For the avoidance of doubt, the provisions of the Procurement Regulations 2024 (Procurement Act 2023) and/ or Public Contracts Regulations 2015 do not apply to this award. The competition is for Healthcare Services for the Yorkshire and Humber Female Secure Estate. The aim of this competition process is to secure a provider to deliver comprehensive Primary Care Services, Mental Health and Neurodiversity Services, and Integrated Substance Misuse Treatment Services for women detained within HMP New Hall and HMP Askham Grange. Contract Start Date: 01 December 2026 Contract End Date: 31 March 2033 … This is an Existing Service.

Award Detail

Award Criteria

CPV Codes

• 85100000 - Health services
• 85120000 - Medical practice and related services

Indicators

• Award on basis of price.

Other Information

The Relevant Authority assessed the five key criteria against the service requirements and determined the relative importance of each, as outlined below and detailed within the provider response documentation. The contract award criteria are specified in the provider response documents. 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 Procurement Regulations 2024 (Procurement Act 2023) and Public Contracts Regulations 2015 do not apply to this award. This contract has not yet formally been awarded; this notice serves as an intention to award under the PSR. A contract will not be awarded until after the 9th working day following standstill. The standstill period begins on the day after the publication of this notice. Representations by providers must be made to the relevant authority by midnight 24 June 2026. Any representations should be sent via the Atamis messaging portal and/or via email to necsu.neprocurement@nhs.net The individual(s) making the award decision are: • Local Governance Group (LGG) and Regional Leadership Group (RLG) of NHS England - North East and Yorkshire • Evaluator job titles: Health & Justice Senior Commissioning Manager Head of Womens Health and Perinatal Services Quality Manager Commissioning Manager Senior Commissioning Manager Head of Clinical Quality Senior Nursing and Quality Manager Senior Finance Manager Pharmacist Drug Strategy Lead Head of Health & Justice - CNE Programme Manager - NEY Health and Justice Public Health Speciality Registrar National Implementation Manager for RECONNECT and Enhanced RECONNECT National Lead for Specification 29 (Health & Justice, Section 7A) Non- Custodial Programme Manager Programme Officer - Health & Justice Senior Quality Manager (Yorkshire & Humber) Senior Commissioning Manager Public health and justice specialist Integration and Partnership Senior Manager Service User Programme Manager - Health & Justice (Yorkshire & Humberside) There were no declared of potential conflicts of interest of individuals making the award decision. Conflicts of interest were completed by all involved in the process. Conflict 1 - An evaluator disclosed that their sibling is employed by a bidding organisation; however, the sibling has no involvement in, or connection to, the Health and Justice Services relevant to this procurement. This was assessed as an indirect and low-risk potential conflict. Mitigation: Approval was granted for the evaluator to continue their role, subject to a reminder of their obligation not to discuss any aspect of the procurement with external parties during the evaluation and consensus stages. Conflict 2 - An evaluator disclosed that, following acceptance of voluntary redundancy, they had accepted an offer of employment to join a bidding organisation as bank staff. This was assessed as a direct conflict of interest. Mitigation: The evaluator was removed from the project and did not participate in any aspect of the evaluation process. Conflict 3 - An evaluator disclosed that a cousin-in-law is employed by a potential provider. However, the provider did not submit a bid in response to the procurement. This was assessed as a low-risk conflict. Mitigation: Approval was granted for the evaluator to remain on the project, with a reminder of their obligation not to discuss the procurement with any external parties during the evaluation and consensus stages. Conflict 4 - An evaluator disclosed that a previous friend is employed by a potential provider. However, the provider did not submit a bid in response to the procurement, and the evaluator has had no contact with the individual for over six months. This was assessed as a low-risk conflict. Mitigation: Approval was granted for the evaluator to remain on the project, with a reminder of their obligation not to discuss the procurement with any external parties during the evaluation and consensus stages. There were no further conflicts of interest identified. The scoring criteria for the Basic Selection Criteria Questions were either evaluated as Pass/Fail or For Information. The Relevant Authority considered the five key criteria against the service requirements and determined the relative importance of each, as outlined below and detailed within in the provider response documentation. Quality and Innovation - 58% Value (price) - Pass/Fail Integration, Collaboration and Service Sustainability - 8% Improving Access, Reducing Health Inequalities and Facilitating Choice - 24% Social Value - 10% The successful provider was selected based on offering the most advantageous Provider response by scoring the highest combined score for quality (key criteria) and finance, evaluated against the published evaluation criteria as detailed within the provider response documentation. As a result, they are the recommended provider and have been awarded the contract, subject to final agreement.