The report of the Strategic Director, Place (Document “D”) advises members of the forthcoming procurement of a framework agreements with a value in excess of £2 million.

Bradford Council’s Adaptation Team (Housing Service) within the Department of Place currently utilises a framework agreement for the delivery of major disabled adaptation works.

The current framework agreement has been in place since 1 April 2016 and is due to expire on 31 March 2020.

Recommended –

That the report be noted.

(Alison Garlick – 01274 434512)

The report of the Strategic Director, Place (Document “D”) advised members of the forthcoming procurement of a framework agreement with a value in excess of £2 million.

Document “D” revealed that Bradford Council’s Adaptation Team (Housing Service) within the Department of Place currently utilised a framework agreement for the delivery of major disabled adaptation works.  The current framework agreement had been in place since 1 April 2016 and was due to expire on 31 March 2020. Procurement of a replacement framework was required to ensure the delivery of adaptations and to comply with EU procurement Legislation and Contract Standing Orders.

For the benefit of new Members to the Committee the Chair explained that contracts for a value over £2 million must be considered by the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee. It was expected that the value of the contract would be approximately £4.5million.

Document “D” contained three options and corresponding benefits and disadvantages of each were reported.  A Member expressed a view that the options appeared one sided and the way in which those options had been selected was not clear.  For clarity it was explained that the framework option was utilised to ensure that there was the capacity for the work to be undertaken should individual contractors, for whatever reason, be unable to fulfil their obligations and to ensure that one contractor would not have a monopoly and dictate price.  Batch tendering had been undertaken in the past but did not provide as many advantages because small contractors could incur delays through lack of capacity, staff sickness or other issues. Experience had found that having larger firms on the framework meant that the Council was more able to respond quickly and having additional contractors on the “reserve” list meant that these could be drawn upon should unfortunate incidents, such as contractors going into administration, occur.

Members questioned the calculations contained in the report with the number of completed DFGs appearing to be above the available budget.  It was suggested that a breakdown of the budget spend would have been useful.  In response it was explained that once a DFG was approved a client legally had 12 months for work to be delivered so there was a level of financial commitment held in the budget at all times.  Members were also advised that if a client used their own contractor it would not be fair to delay payment until all works were completed so the works were inspected periodically and payments made in stages. 

The time taken from an initial enquiry to works being completed was queried.  It was explained that all cases varied significantly.  For most cases there was a wait of approximately one month to have a housing inspection.  If cases were not complicated it could take less than there months to get to the contractor stage.  Complicated technical schemes could take considerably longer.

A Member referred to delays of six months from referral to Occupational Health inspection.  It was suggested that the Adaptations Team and Occupational Therapist should work together as the two departments were located in the same building.  In response it was explained that the two teams did have good working relationships and worked very closely but were governed by separate legislation.

Customer satisfaction levels which were detailed in the report were discussed and it was questioned why the number of customers who would recommend the service was not revealed.  It was agreed that the data would be investigated and Members advised of those statistics.  Based on the statistics which were contained in the report Members raised concerns that 100 of the 500 applicants in the coming year would not be satisfied with the work or quality.  The consideration given to quality and price in the tender process was questioned.  The assessment ratio had been changed from 60/40 to ensure prices were competitive.   Members were advised that the statistics for satisfaction were often affected by the clients’ preferred scheme not being the measures recommended by the Occupational Therapist as opposed to the quality of work or prices charged.   Assurances were provided that contracts were performance managed at all times and schemes were visited at least twice per week whilst work was on going.  Unacceptable workmanship, quality or behaviour would be picked up at that time.  Work would not be signed off if it did not meet the required standards. 

A Member referred to a consultation undertaken by Foundations into the DFG and proposals that it be extended to include smart equipment.  It was explained that the regulations were still with the Government and until they were incorporated into policy there was very little that the service could do.

The potential for landlords to block adaptations for their tenants was discussed and it was explained that anyone could apply for DFG but if in rented accommodation landlords must give consent for the work to be done.  Members were assured that, in reality, very few landlords refused.  In response to suggestions that landlords be tied into a ten year lease following adaptations it was explained that the service did not have the authority to request that commitment.  It was explained that clients did sign to confirm their intention to remain in adapted properties for five years.

In response to questions about adaptations in social housing it was confirmed that Incommunities had their own budget for adaptations and work was carried out in those properties.  The measures undertaken could sometimes devalue the properties but it was confirmed that Incommunities did try to meet the needs of its tenants.

Benchmarking with other authorities was queried and it was reported that regular meetings were held, however, different procurement methods were utilised to gain the best value for money in each area.

A Member referred to the growing number of people living with disabilities and the need to provide suitable accommodation for those residents.  She reported a scheme being considered to purchase ex Council houses with large garden plots which could be extended to provide independent living.  It was agreed that the issues raised could be discussed at a meeting scheduled later in the year discussing older people’s accommodation.

Resolved –

That the report be noted.

ACTION: Strategic Director, Place

)