EXEMPT INFORMATION REPORT NO: 83/2015 Appendix 1 (See Paragraph 11) CABINET 21 st April 2015 Social Care Case Management System Report of the Director for People STRATEGIC AIM: Creating a Safer Community for All KEY DECISION YES DATE ITEM FIRST APPEARED ON FORWARD PLAN December 2014 1. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT 1.1 To seek authorisation to award a contract for a social care case management system. 2. RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 That Cabinet approve the award of a contract for a social care case management system for adults and children, from those companies that have submitted a tender as set out at in Appendix 1 (Exempt); 2.2 That Cabinet approve the use of 200,000 from the Social Care Reserve to part fund the new system; and 2.3 That Cabinet approve the use of the IT/ASC System Replacement Programme grant funding from the Capital Programme to fund the balance of the total cost of the system as set out in Appendix 1, plus an additional sum of 95,000 for implementation and related equipment costs. 3. REASONS FOR THE RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 The current case management system is not fit for purpose. It was identified as an area for improvement by Ofsted during their January 2013 inspection of arrangements for the protection of children and by peer reviewers in February 2014 as being inefficient and overly time consuming. In addition, it cannot fulfill the full requirements of the Care Act 2014, and therefore additional measures will need to be put in place to ensure compliance, creating further inefficiencies. It was therefore agreed with Members that a procurement for a replacement system was required as a matter of urgency. 3.2 The tender submissions are currently subject to a number of clarifications following demonstrations held between 10 th and 17 th March. The clarifications are not scored separately, however the result of the
evaluation to date may be revised as a result of any points of clarification. In addition, feedback is being sought from local authorities who use each system. The clarifications and full and final evaluation will be completed prior to the Cabinet meeting. A verbal update will be given at the Cabinet meeting by the Director for People and a recommendation, and reasons for that recommendation, will be made as to the preferred provider. 4. DETAILS OF DECISION REQUIRED 4.1 The contract includes the following services: case management system for children and adults; financial module enabling direct payments and calculation of care costs for individuals; interoperability with health systems; customer portal for self-referral and access to eligibility. 4.2 The contract will be for a period of five years in line with the Crown Commercial Services Framework used, subject to the performance of the new provider. 5. BACKGROUND 5.1 Rutland County Council has used a computer software based case management system for both Adults and Children s Social Care since 2006/7. These operate as two separate systems. 5.2 The system is used as the main case file record relating to child or adult care and case management process: from initial contact through to care and support planning, and case closure. The functionalities include management of personal and sensitive information and the production of management information and statutory data returns. The current system has also been implemented as the main case management system for non-social care targeted services in the People Directorate. 6. PROCUREMENT 6.1 The procurement value is such that it requires a full OJEU process to be undertaken. There is a current Crown Commercial Service (government) Framework Agreement for IT systems and software, which includes social care case management systems. The Council s procurement was therefore undertaken as a mini-competition between contractors on the Framework, who have already been through a competitive process in order to be accepted onto the framework, and all of whom are therefore suitably qualified to provide the system the Council requires. 6.2 Four bids were submitted from a possible sixteen providers on the Framework and were evaluated by the Head of Commissioning, Head of Service for Inspection Readiness, and the Performance & Application Support Team Manager.
7. EVALUATION 7.1 Tenders submitted were evaluated on a quality:cost ratio of 55%:45% through a single stage process; this ratio was the maximum quality allocation allowed under the Framework. All tenders submitted were compliant. The overall scores for each of the tenders for both quality and cost are detailed in the Appendix 1. 7.2 Providers were invited to demonstrate their system and then answer questions designed to ensure that the evaluation panel s understanding of the written submission was correct and to clarify any points that had been raised during scoring. The bidders were made aware that the demonstrations and clarifications were to assist the evaluation panel in their scoring. The demonstrations provided clarification on a number of points and consequently, where appropriate and necessary, there were some alterations to the original scores made by the evaluation panel. The further information provided by bidders via this process was felt sufficient to materially alter the scores given in some instances. 7.3 Post Tender Clarification Stage - Pricing Clarification was requested from one of the tenderers regarding the pricing they had submitted. This was to ensure that the calculations were clear and that the full costs of the system had been accounted for and the scoring compared like with like. This clarification made no difference to the ranking of the organisations against the price criteria. 8. CONSULTATION 8.1 Consultation has been undertaken with the Director for People and the Director for Resources, and with the relevant Portfolio Holders. 9. IMPLICATIONS 9.1 Financial implications 9.1.1 The proposal is to fund this project through the use of earmarked reserves and capital grants. The Council has Social Care Reserve that is held to deal with costs arising from changes in the health sector, the Care Act and demographic pressures. It is therefore recommended that 200,000 is used to finance this project. Within the Approved Capital Programme, there is 567,000 of unallocated capital funding that has been set aside for IT/Case Management system. It is therefore proposed to finance the balance of the project costs using these capital grants. The total cost of the project, based on all tenders received is well within this available budget. 9.1.2 The ongoing annual cost of the system will be above the budget allocated for the existing case management system, which is currently c 26,000; this will create a cost pressure on the budget from year two of the contract, when the
annual costs are due. Potential means of mitigating this pressure are currently being explored. A verbal update will be provided at the meeting. 9.1.3 In addition to the costs of procurement, there are additional project costs that require funding as follows: Given the importance of the system and necessity of ensuring that it is implemented smoothly and without a break in provision, it is proposed that dedicated project management support is identified. It is proposed therefore that up to a maximum of 65,000 is released to deliver this, based on a cost of an experienced project manager for a period of up to six months at up to 500 per day. One of the objectives of the new system is to enable social workers to operate in a more mobile way and reduce the time they need to spend in the office. New hardware will therefore need to be purchased at an estimated cost of up to 27,000. To ensure that new hardware is used effectively and to its maximum capabilities some hardware training will be required at an estimated cost of 3,000. It is proposed to fund these additional costs from the IT/ASC System Replacement Programme grant funding from the Capital Programme 9.2 Legal implications The tender process has been undertaken with guidance from the Welland Procurement Unit and in line with the Council s Contract Procedure Rules in order to ensure procurement regulations and legal requirements are met. 9.3 Section 17 implications Under Section 17 Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council has a statutory duty to prevent crime and disorder. The bidders all demonstrated that their systems are able to hold information on risk to and from service users, and facilitate statutory safeguarding processes. 9.4 Social Value implications Under the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, the Council has a statutory duty to have regard to economic, social and environmental well-being in connection with public service contracts. A new case management system will contribute to the social and environmental well-being of Rutland residents by enabling appropriate and early interventions where individuals are identified as having support and care needs.
10. RISK MANAGEMENT RISK IMPACT COMMENTS Time High Timing is critical. Any systems replacement is likely to take up to 12 months and an Ofsted inspection of children services is likely to take place during the procurement/implementation period. It is essential the council has a plan in place to demonstrate the change journey however any planning needs to take account of impending children s inspection. The prices submitted during bidding are only valid for a limited period, and agreement has been sought from all bidders that they will honour their prices to a decision date of 21 st April. Any delay of the decision beyond this date may result in revised price submissions. Viability Low Given the quality of the bids submitted, we are confident that an award can be made and the system will be in line with our requirements. Finance Low The capital costs are affordable and can be met within available funds. Consideration is being given to how the ongoing revenue costs can be met. Profile Medium This is a high profile project for all staff and partners. There are considerable reputational risks if the system is criticised during an Ofsted inspection. Equality and Diversity Low Re-procurement will ensure that all service users will be supported through good quality case management. A good quality case management system is critical to safeguarding vulnerable children and adults. 11. REASONS WHY THE ANNEX IS MARKED NOT FOR PUBLICATION 11.1 The exempt appendix is NOT FOR PUBLICATION in accordance with paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of Part 1 to the Local Government Act 1972 in that it contains information relating to prices and details of services submitted by bidders and evaluation scores. The public interest test has been applied to the information contained within the exempt appendix and it is considered that the need to retain this information as exempt outweighs the public interest in disclosing it as to do so could compromise the respective positions of the Council and (potential) bidders in relation to future procurement. Background Papers None. Report Author Karen Kibblewhite Head of Commissioning Tel No: (01572) 722557 email: kkibblewhite@rutland.gov.uk Large Print or Braille Version of this Report is available upon request Contact 01572 722577.