answer text |
<p>The government welcomes the findings in Richard Oldfield’s report, in which he
recognises the progress made in establishing the Dynamic Framework to commission rehabilitative
services as part of the new unified probation model. As outlined in the letter from
the Director General of Probation and Wales to Clinks, the report’s primary conclusion
that we can do more to encourage participation of small and medium-sized organisations,
is accepted and we are taking forward work to implement most of the recommendations
made.</p><p>The Framework will exist for at least 7 years, and the procurement of
Day 1 contracts represents just a small part of the total volume of services that
will be commissioned through it. It is therefore to be expected that only a relatively
small proportion of the organisations that had qualified on to the Dynamic Framework
then went on to bid in the call off competitions for Day 1 contracts. Active encouragement
has been given to all organisations interested in delivering services in the new probation
operating model to qualify for the Dynamic Framework, regardless of whether they had
expressed an interest in directly bidding for Day 1 contracts.</p><p>It is not unusual
in running a large number of concurrent competitions, some of which were run below
probation region level at a more local PCC level, that there will be fewer organisations
with the capacity and capability to bid in some areas than others. It is a significant
achievement that all 110 contracts could be successfully awarded.</p><p>It is not
possible to produce a meaningful estimate of the cost an organisation may incur in
participating on the Framework, as that depends on a range of factors, including how
many competitions an organisation chooses to bid in, what the organisation’s starting
point is in terms of understanding of staff transfer and information security requirements,
what their existing staffing and estates footprint looks like. A standard selection
questionnaire is used as the method by which organisations seek to qualify for the
Dynamic Framework, and efforts have been made to make the call off competition process
proportionate to the value of the contracts being awarded, whilst ensuring all processes
remain in line with procurement regulations and established good commercial practice
in government.</p><p>Evaluating (or vetting) the Day 1 competitions formed just one
part of the workstream of activity to establish the Dynamic Framework, qualify bidders,
run competitions, oversee mobilisation of successful bidders (which over an average
3 month mobilisation window included assessing readiness of staff, systems and premises)
and implement new contract management processes and structures. It is not possible
to separate out the cost of evaluating; the monthly cost of the overall workstream
was c. £220k in FY2020/21, this cost covered all of the above activity.</p><p>Looking
ahead, consultation has begun with market participants on the changes that are being
proposed to the various procurement and competition documents. As Richard Oldfield
recognises in his report, it was always the intention to learn lessons from this first
round of competitions, and that work began even before transition to the new operating
model had been completed. All aspects of the documentation are being considered, from
the selection questionnaire to call off competition documents and the Framework Agreement
itself. Changes will be implemented over the coming weeks and months in a staged manner
and consultation will continue as this progresses. We will continue that approach
to reviewing and learning lessons throughout the life of the Dynamic Framework.</p><p>Work
is underway to prepare guidance and criteria for when grants should be the presumptive
first choice of funding mechanism. Richard Oldfield’s recommendation is that this
should be for all awards under £1milion; arguably other factors, such as type of service,
also need to be taken into consideration. Market participants will be consulted as
this guidance and criteria is developed further. Whilst work on delivery has commenced,
detailed timescales have yet to be determined. It is therefore too early to say what
proportion of future awards may take the form of grants or contracts.</p><p>Finally,
the monitoring of the proportion of contract values that are subcontracted to VCSEs
and SMEs will be reviewed through contract management governance and the analysis
of annual financial returns made by lead providers.</p>
|
|