Issue - meetings

Report of the Head of Inward Investment and Employment

The Cabinet considered the report of the Head of Inward Investment and Employment which provided details of the business case for a review of the contract for the delivery of an Information, Advice and Guidance service for young people, which will ensure both a cost saving and a better alignment with the Council’s Public Sector Reform programme and the Liverpool City Region plans for a Careers Hub under the Devolution Deal.

Decision Made: That

(1)       approval be given to a contract extension of 12 months from 1 April 2017 with the current contractor, to allow relevant procurement rules to be followed, including ensuring they are EU compliant in order to be used as match funding from the European Social Fund; and

(2)       the Chief Executive be requested to write to the Chief Executive of the current contract provider, informing him of the contract extension.

Reasons for Decision:

Re-procurement of the contract offers a number of advantages, primarily to review the budget allocation in light of further budget reductions and changes in the volumes and cohort eligible for support. It also allows an update of the service specification in light of a number of changes since the contract was last let, including changes to statutory requirements. It would allow for a closer alignment and delivery with other internal priorities such as troubled families and looked after children. It offers an additional opportunity to potentially draw down match funding from European Social Fund (ESF) which may never again be offered due to Brexit.

In order to be EU compliant and potentially draw down match funding from ESF, it was necessary to follow the appropriate procurement process. In order to do this, a contract extension was required with the current contractor to avoid a hiatus in delivery.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

Other options had been considered in detail for this service through an options analysis which had been shared with Cabinet Member, Regeneration and Skills. The main option which had been investigated was the extension of the current contract on existing terms for two years, which would be permissible under the existing agreement. This had been rejected on the grounds that better value for money can be gained from re-procurement.