SCC APC Individual Placement and Support (Most Suitable Provider Process)

2. VI.3

This is a Provider Selection Regime (PSR) intention to confirmation of contract award notice. The awarding of this This contract is subject to has been awarded under the Health Care Services (Provider Selection Regime) Regulations 2023. For the avoidance of doubt, the provisions of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 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 Midnight (00:00) on 08 May 2024 . This contract has not yet formally now been awarded; this notice serves as an intention to award under formally awarded using the PSR key criteria 1. Quality and Innovation - Maximum Score (%) 20.00 Relative authorities must give due consideration to how well providers are able to deliver high quality care when deciding who to arrange services with. Relevant authorities must ensure they assess the extent to which an arrangement with a most suitable provider could generate new and significant improvements in the promotion and adoption of proven innovations in care delivery. process.' key criteria 2. Value - Maximum Score (%) 20.00 Contract awarded 9 May 2024. Services are intended be provided between 10 May 2024 - 9 May 2026 Relevant authorities must give due consideration to the - Lifetime value offered by a service, in terms of the balance of costs, overall benefits and the financial implications of an arrangement. key criteria 3. Integration, collaboration and service sustainability - Maximum Score (%) 20.00 Relevant authorities must consider the extent to which their decisions are consistent with local and national NHS plans and the importance of services being provided in an integrated and collaborative way, and in a way that improves health outcomes and in a way that seeks to secure the stability of good quality health care services or service continuity of health care services. key criteria 4. Improving Access, reducing health inequalities and facilitating choice - Maximum Score (%) 20.00 Relevant authorities must consider the importance of accessibility to services and treatments for all eligible patients, the need to tackle health inequalities and the importance of ensuring that patients have choice in respect of their health care. key criteria 5. Social Value - Maximum Score (%) 20.00 Relevant authorities must consider whether what contract is proposed might improve economic, social, and environmental well-being of the area relevant to an arrangement. £522,016 Rationale for choosing No review received during the provider with reference to the key criteria: key criteria 1. Quality and Innovation Very good response which provided an explanation about co-location venues, working with partners. The timeline provided an explanation about commencing immediately with the delivery standstill period. No conflicts or potential conflicts of the IPS service being delivered as part of this timeline. Each stage of the timeline demonstrated what would occur at each stage. key criteria 2. Value Very good response which provided detail of experience relating to the County of Surrey. Outreach co-location was provided within the response. Other areas explained interest were travel vouchers. The response demonstrated existing knowledge and practice declared of hard-to-reach locations within the County of Surrey. The response provided a very good explanation of preparation with existing partners. The response provided an explanation of the understanding of Surreys support and treatment systems. key criteria 3. Integration, collaboration and service sustainability A very good response providing a focus on the workforce delivering the IPS service. The response provided an explanation about co-location. The response provided was within the financial envelope available for this two-year contract. Evidence was provided with offering the maximum FTE required. key criteria 4. Improving Access, reducing health inequalities and facilitating choice A very good response providing an explanation about collaboration of the IPS treatment provider. The response demonstrated additional value and added value for individuals and delivery of treatment. Existing partner relationships was explained which provided an understanding of relationships. The response provided an explanation about data and how this will provide evidence for reporting and reporting mechanisms for sharing this information. The response spoke about a DPIA aligned to care plans. The response spoke about training for staff delivering making the IPS service. key criteria 5. Social Value A very good response which spoke about staff retention and being aware of team cohesion. The response spoke about carrying out bench marking of salaries. The response spoke about experience of working in a similar sixed County. The response identified similar locations where this service had been provided elsewhere. The response spoke about the delivery being explored and how it would be applied. The response spoke about challenges and solutions providing examples of this. The response spoke about individuals who are homeless and how to reduce the risk for them. The response spoke about hard-to-reach locations. This was a very good response. Providing a clear break down of social value. The response provided examples of social value. The response spoke about exciting networks which include recovery cafes, women cafes and a capital card, which provides rewards to individuals as part of their treatment. Explaining that everything within the card is locally sourced. The response spoke about fund raising as part of social value delivery. The response also spoke about existing social value in Surrey and other areas too. decision.