Dear NHS England,

Please provide under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act the exact decision making and procurement processes which lead to the SARC contracts being awarded to G4S in the West Midlands

Specifically please provide information pertaining to

1) the details of the open application process

2) details of the PQQ process and what criteria were used to disqualify interested parties, details of the organisations which were qualified at that stage

3) What assessment was made of G4S capacity, experience and capability of running SARC centers?

4) what evidence was given of experience and expertise in running SARC centers by G4S?

5) What are the criteria , including service delivery, value for money and contract performance that G4S presented on their application which won them the bid?

6) Who were the independent panel of stakeholders? Were inquiries made as to thy independence of these stakeholders? Were they asked if they held personal of financial interests in G4S? Was this verified?

7) Was any money or other benefit in kind given to anyone at NHS England or any related organisation, in return for the letting of this contract by G4S or its representatives?

8) How was the scoring system assessed? Why did G4S score so highly?

9) Was the Public Services Act , which was admittedly still a bill but on the legislative horizon, taken into account as to the social value of this contract?

10) What performance management criteria have been put in place?

11) How are complaints monitored?

12) Is there a confidential system of complaints for service users who are unhappy with the way G4S is treating them, in SARC centres?

13) What was the scoring of the third sector consortium which also bid fro the same contract and was it scored so low?

I look forward to receiving this information from you and will be posting a copy of this FOIA on What Do They Know so it can be tracked by interested parties. There is no commercial interest in not providing the information requested, personal details may be redacted, the contract has already been let.

Yours faithfully,

Farah D

Contactus England (HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE INFORMATION CENTRE), NHS England

Thank you for contacting NHS England.  Your enquiry has been allocated a
reference number of SDR 107224.  Please quote this reference number in any
further communication regarding this enquiry.

 

I can confirm that your query has now been passed to the Case Management
Team. We are aware of the need for a follow up contact quickly.  We are
experiencing high volumes of contacts at the moment and so it may take
some time for us to contact you depending on the complexity and type of
issue raised.  Please do bear with us and be assured that your enquiry is
important to us and we will contact you as soon as we can.

 

If you require any further information or wish to speak to someone about
your enquiry, please contact NHS England at the email address and
telephone number shown below.

 

Kind Regards

 

 

NHS England

PO Box 16738 | Redditch | B97 9PT

0300 3 11 22 33

[1][email address]

[2]www.england.nhs.uk

 

show quoted sections

FOI England (NHS ENGLAND), NHS England

Our reference: SDR 107724: Acknowledgement

 

Dear Farah,

 

Thank you for your Freedom of Information (FOI) request, dated 9 July
2013.

 

Please be assured that your request is being dealt with under the terms of
the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and will be answered within twenty
working days.

 

If you have any queries about this request or wish to contact us again,
please email [1][email address] and the message will be
forwarded appropriately. Please remember to quote the above reference
number in any future communications.

 

Please do not reply directly to this email. This message has been sent
from a central mailbox and incoming messages will not be received.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Michelle Butterworth

Customer Contact Centre Case Officer

 

NHS England

 

PO Box 16738 | Redditch | B97 9PT

0300 3 11 22 33

[2][email address]

[3]www.england.nhs.uk

 

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.england.nhs.uk/

Dear FOI England (NHS ENGLAND),

You have not responded to my FOI request concerning SARCs being run by G4S.

Please revert as a matter of urgency.
Yours sincerely,

Farah D

Butterworth Michelle (NHS ENGLAND), NHS England

Dear Farah,

 

Re:         Freedom of Information request (Our Ref: SDR - 107224)

 

Further to my email of 11 July 2013, I am writing to update you regarding
your request for information under the FOI Act.

 

Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding in full to your
request. We are still in the process of assessing your request, and
possible exemptions, and I am endeavouring to provide you with a response
as soon as possible.

 

We have noted your request of an internal review.  Please note that an
internal review cannot be conducted until a response has been issued.  If
you wish to request an internal review once you have received your
response, there will be details of how to make the request on the response
email.  Please allow me to reiterate my apologies for the delay, and I
will come back to you as soon as possible.

 

Kind regards,

 

Michelle Butterworth

Customer Contact Centre Case Officer

 

NHS England

 

PO Box 16738 | Redditch | B97 9PT

0300 3 11 22 33

[1][email address]

[2]www.england.nhs.uk

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.england.nhs.uk/

FOI England (NHS ENGLAND), NHS England

Dear Farah,

 

Re:         Freedom of Information request (Our Ref: SDR - 107224)

 

Thank you for your Freedom of Information (FOI) request dated 9 July
2013.  Please accept our apologies for the delay in providing this
response.

 

Your exact request was,

 

“Please provide under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act the
exact decision making and procurement processes which lead to the SARC
contracts being awarded to G4S in the West Midlands

Specifically please provide information pertaining to

1) the details of the open application process

2) details of the PQQ process and what criteria were used to disqualify
interested parties, details of the organisations which were qualified at
that stage

3) What assessment was made of G4S capacity, experience and capability of
running SARC centers?

4) what evidence was given of experience and expertise in running SARC
centers by G4S?

5) What are the criteria , including service delivery, value for money and
contract performance that G4S presented on their application which won
them the bid?

6) Who were the independent panel of stakeholders? Were inquiries made as
to thy independence of these stakeholders? Were they asked if they held
personal of financial interests in G4S? Was this verified?

7) Was any money or other benefit in kind given to anyone at NHS England
or any related organisation, in return for the letting of this contract by
G4S or its representatives?

8) How was the scoring system assessed? Why did G4S score so highly?

9) Was the Public Services Act , which was admittedly still a bill but on
the legislative horizon, taken into account as to the social value of this
contract?

10) What performance management criteria have been put in place?

11) How are complaints monitored?

12) Is there a confidential system of complaints for service users who are
unhappy with the way G4S is treating them, in SARC centres?

13) What was the scoring of the third sector consortium which also bid for
the same contract and was it scored so low?”

 

NHS England holds this information.  For clarity of response, we will
answer each question in sequential order.

 

In response to Question 1, the details of the open application process are
available in the public domain, and can be found by following the website
link below:

 

[1]https://www.supply2health.nhs.uk/CP7/Lis...

 

In response to Question 2, the Pre-Qualification Questionnaire (PQQ) was
based on a pass/fail system, in a series of questions in the following
categories:

 

Section                
Description                                                        
Evaluation Methodology

A                             General Provider
Information                    Pass/Fail

B                             Legal &
Regulatory                                          Pass/Fail

C                             Financial
Information                                     Pass/Fail

D                             Insurance
Requirements                              Pass/Fail

E                              Health &
Safety                                                Pass/Fail

F                             
Sustainability                                                    
Pass/Fail

G                             Relevant
Experience                                      Pass/Fail

H                             Policies and
Procedures                                Pass/Fail

I                               Resources and
Workforce                            Pass/Fail

 

As part of the PQQ, potential providers were asked to confirm their
capability to provide:

 

o A SARC manager to oversee the day to day running of SARC and manage
the crisis team.
o An appropriately trained crisis team, allowing 24hr access to SARC
facilities for all female, male and child victims of sexual violence.
o A clinical director to provide leadership and clinical governance to
the crisis team and forensic medical examiners.
o Arrangements to call out forensic examiners and paediatricians (if
appropriate) to provide the necessary forensic services.
o A single point of access to the crisis team for those wishing to refer
or to access the SARC.
o Assistance to forensic medical examiners in achieving best evidence
from victims of sexual violence.
o Secure storage of evidence on behalf of victims of sexual violence,
pending possible instigation of criminal proceedings.
o Secure storage for on-site dispensing of emergency drug therapies.
o Onward referral for victims to appropriate ISVA and counselling
services as required.
o Ensure victims are offered full assessment and safeguarded to include
children and adults.
o Local focus for monitoring access to and progression along the agreed
victim pathway(s).
o Engagement activities with local health, social care and voluntary
services that might refer victims of sexual violence to the SARC.
o Engagement activities with the public to improve rates of
self-referral to the SARC and awareness of rape and sexual assault.
o Arrangements to assist victims of rape and sexual assault without
transport to access the SARC.
o In house arrangements for cleaning forensic suites to national
forensic standards following each use.
o Arrangements for deep cleaning forensic suites on a six monthly basis.
o Signposting for historic cases of rape and serious sexual assault.

 

References were also checked at this stage.

 

Six organisations submitted an application at the PQQ stage.  Nine other
organisations registered an interest on Supply2Health and were able to
download documents but did not submit an application.

 

In response to Question 3, assessment of all applications was made against
the service specification with an overall weighting of 70% for quality and
30% for price.  The quality criteria were weighed in the following
categories:

 

SECTION              QUALITY
SUB-CRITERIA                                                 WEIGHTING

 

A                             Service requirements and
implementation                          40%

B                             Clinical
Governance                                                                       
15%

C                             Human Resources and staffing
requirements                     10%

D                             Service
Interrelationships                                                           
10%

E                              Information management and
Technology                          10%

F                              Care
Pathways                                                                 
                10%

G                             Communications and
Marketing                                               3%

H                            
Innovation                                                                                         
2%

 

TOTAL
QUALITY                                                                               
100%

 

In response to Question 4, G4S provided evidence against the service
specification, as requested in the application process, and reflected
their experience of running other SARCs around the Country e.g. West
Mercia. References were also requested and reviewed.

 

In response to Question 5, the criteria were as per Question 3.  It was
also based on examples of evidence of delivery of other SARCs.

 

In response to Question 6, the procurement panel was made up of
representative from the joint commissioning partners this included NHS,
West Midlands Police and Local Authorities. All panel members signed a
declaration of interest form which addressed the issues outlined in the
question.

 

The panel included:

 

SARC Project Manager (NHS)

Procurement Manager (NHS)

Consultant in Public Health (NHS)

Sexual Health Programme Lead (NHS)

Contract, Information Governance and Finance Managers (NHS)

Local Authority Lead (Council)

Safeguarding Lead (Council)

Head of Public Protection (Police)

Commissioning representative (NHS)

 

In relation to Question 7, NHS England can confirm that no monies or
benefit in kind were given to anyone at NHS England or any related
organisation, in return for the letting of this contract by G4S or its
representatives.

 

In relation to Question 8, please see the responses to Questions 2 and 3
for the criteria in the scoring system.  G4S scored higher than any other
organisation that submitted a bid.

 

Each bid was evaluated in the same way, using the AWARD E-evaluation
tool.  In evaluating questions, evaluators could only consider the
information provided in answer to each particular question. Scoring was
undertaken in accordance with the criteria in Table below.  Each evaluator
was required to document for each section the rationale for their scoring
decision. 

 

Within the Quality Section the scores awarded to each question were added
together, converted to a percentage of total marks available, and the
weightings applied (see above).  The weighted scores for each section were
added together to give a total Quality Score and the overall Quality
weighting applied to arrive at the final Quality score.

 

The scoring methodology used a 6 point rating scale.  The table below
shows the scoring methodology.

 

  SCORE PERFORMANCE MEASURE

SCORE LABEL
Excellent answer 5 Excellent answer. High degree of
confidence in the Bidder’s ability to do
what is stated through a thorough
understanding of what is being requested
and responses demonstrate that the Bidder
can do what they say they will. Responses
are supported by evidence as appropriate.
Potentials system/stakeholder benefits
described with evidence/rationale.
Good answer 4 Good understanding of the issues and /or
requirements, good level of detail, and
demonstration that proposals are feasible
so that there is a good level of
confidence that the Bidder will deliver.
Some potential system/stakeholder benefits
described with some evidence/rationale.
Acceptable answer 3 Acceptable answer. Understands the issues
and addresses them appropriately with
sufficient information.
Poor answer 2 Limited answer. Some misunderstandings and
a generally low level of information and
detail.  Fails to meet
expectations/requirements and provides
insufficient confidence of delivery.
Very poor answer 1 Very poor answer. Barely understood by the
Bidder and limited on relevant
information. Provides no confidence that
the issues will be addressed and managed
in line with expectations.
Unacceptable or no answer 0 Unacceptable answer or no answer given
given

 

A moderator was assigned to each section, based on their professional
role/experience. After individual evaluator scoring, the moderators
produced a final score for each section, in conjunction with the
evaluators, reconciling any difference of opinion and ensuring the
methodology was accurately applied.

 

In response to Question 9, NHS England can confirm that the Public
Services Act was not a consideration in this tender process.

In response to Question 10, Monthly and quarterly KPIs are collected based
on the national data set for SARCs and were set out in the service
specification. There is a Joint Commissioning Group with representation as
follows:

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

·         NHS England Birmingham, Solihull and Black Country Area Team
Lead Commissioner (Chair)

·         NHS England – Staffs and Shropshire Area Team Commissioner

·         West Midlands Police Force Lead for SARC

·         Birmingham Local Authority Lead for SARC

·         Solihull Local Authority Lead for SARC

·         Walsall Local Authority Lead for SARC

·         Sandwell Local Authority Lead for SARC

·         Dudley Local Authority Lead for SARC

·         Wolverhampton Local Authority Lead for SARC

·         G4S Lead Clinician

·         G4S Lead Manager

This group has met monthly since the centre was opened.  From August 2013
onwards, the meeting will become monthly by telephone and quarterly face
to face.

 

There is a SARC Strategic Partnership Board which meets quarterly and did
so long before this procurement exercise.  There are three voluntary
sector representatives on the SARC Strategic Partnership Board.

 

In response to Question 11, Complaints are practically managed as per G4S
policy. Details of complaints are reported to commissioners through the
monthly Joint Commissioning Group (see membership list in response to
Question 10). 
In response to Question 12, patients can raise complaints with NHS England
or Local Healthwatch groups.

 

In response to Question 13, NHS England can confirm that no bids were
received from the 3^rd sector.

 

I hope this information is helpful. However, if you are dissatisfied, you
have the right to ask for an internal review by writing to us, within two
months of the date of this letter, to:

 

NHS England

PO Box 16738

REDDITCH

B97 9PT

 

Email: [2][email address]

 

Please quote the reference number SDR-107224 in any future communications.

 

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) can be contacted at:

 

The Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

K9 5AF

 

Telephone: 0303 123 1113

Email: [3][email address].uk  

Website: www.ico.gov.uk

 

Please note there is no charge for making an appeal.

 

Please do not reply directly to this email. This message has been sent
from a central mailbox. To communicate with NHS England regarding FOI,
enquiries or complaints we ask that these are sent directly to the
customer contact details provided above. This is to ensure all
communications are progressed correctly.

 

Kind regards,

 

Michelle Butterworth

Customer Contact Centre Case Officer

 

NHS England

 

PO Box 16738 | Redditch | B97 9PT

0300 3 11 22 33

[4][email address]

[5]www.england.nhs.uk

 

 

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. https://www.supply2health.nhs.uk/CP7/Lis...
2. mailto:[email address]
3. mailto:[email address]
4. mailto:[email address]
5. http://www.england.nhs.uk/

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org