NHSWYICB - Non Consultant Led Community Dermatology Service

Tender description

Non consultant led community dermatology service for the Wakefield population Lot 1: The Contract Authority; NHS West Yorkshire Integrated Care Board intends to award a contract to an existing provider following Direct Award Process C. The authority is publishing this notice in Find a Tender in accordance with the NHS Provider Selection Regime.<br/><br/>Contract Period: 01/08/2026 - 31/07/2027<br/><br/>Contract Value: £322,869. Additional information: 1) The ICB is not required to follow direct award process A or B<br/>The Record of Decision Making created at the time of the decision confirms that the service:<br/>• is an existing service;<br/>• is delivered by an existing provider - DMC Healthcare Limited;<br/>• is replacing a contract that is due to expire; and<br/>• is therefore eligible in principle for Direct Award Process C.<br/>The Record also identifies the named decision maker, senior approving bodies, contract value and term, and confirms that no conflicts of interest were declared. This document evidences that the decision was taken consciously and contemporaneously within the PSR framework, rather than by default or assumption.<br/><br/>2) The commissioner confirms that the proposed contracting arrangements are not changing considerably from the existing contract<br/>The Community Dermatology Service Specification dated 01/08/2026 demonstrates that the proposed contract does not introduce any considerable change when compared with the existing arrangements.<br/>In substance:<br/>• the service model remains a community-based integrated pathway;<br/>• the population, geography, referral routes, and eligibility criteria are unchanged;<br/>• delivery remains with the existing provider, using the same delivery and service model;<br/>• there is no expansion, reconfiguration, or transfer of material risk.<br/>The ICB actively reviewed the proposed scope, duration, outcomes, delivery model, and risk profile against the existing contract and concluded that none of these elements met the PSR “considerable change” threshold. While the specification is presented in an updated format, the underlying service is materially consistent with the existing contract.<br/>The financial value of the contract award is within the material change threshold. The nature of the service being delivered remains materially unchanged. <br/><br/>As previously indicated, there are no changes are proposed to the service specification, referral criteria, population served, service geography, contractual outcomes or delivery model<br/><br/>3) The ICB is of the view that the existing provider is satisfying the existing contract to a sufficient standard, according to the detail outlined in the contract, and also taking into account the key criteria and applying the basic selection criteria<br/>The Service Review Template – PSR Key Criteria provides detailed, narrative based evidence demonstrating that the existing provider:<br/>• is satisfying the current contract to a sufficient standard; and<br/>• is likely to satisfy the proposed contract to a sufficient standard.<br/>The service specification, patient cohort, geography, referral routes, contractual outcomes and delivery model remain unchanged. The proposed contract value remains within the material change threshold and reflects the current level of activity delivered by the provider. The commissioner is satisfied that there has been no considerable change to the contracting arrangements.<br/>The Service Review assesses performance against all PSR key criteria, including:<br/>• Quality and innovation – supported by/evidenced by commissioner evaluation of outcomes, policies and procedures against expected standards and KPI’s and peer benchmarking. <br/>• Value and stewardship of public funds – demonstrated through cost effectiveness, system savings, sustainability.<br/>• Integration, collaboration, and sustainability – evidenced through partnership working, alignment with wider pathways, digital interpolation and investment.<br/>• Access, inequalities, and choice – supported by evidence of targeted interventions, inclusive or adapted provision, reach into underserved or priority populations.<br/>• Social value – including evaluation of local employment and staff wellbeing community capacity building, wider economic or social benefits.<br/>The ICB considered not only historic performance, but also whether the provider’s established workforce, governance arrangements, and delivery model provide assurance of continued performance under the proposed contract. The proposed contract does not introduce new delivery requirements, expanded cohorts, or increased demand beyond that already successfully managed by the provider.<br/>4) Proportionality and Overall Assurance<br/>In determining the appropriate procurement route, the ICB considered whether a competitive process would deliver additional benefit. Given the continuity of need, the absence of material change, the provider’s sustained performance, and the risks associated with service disruption, the ICB concluded that a competitive process would not be proportionate to the time, cost, and delivery risk involved.<br/>Taken together, the three documents; Record of Decision Making, Service Specification and Service Review Template provide a coherent and auditable justification for the use of Direct Award Process C, demonstrating that:<br/>• the regulatory conditions for Process C are met;<br/>• the decision was taken lawfully, transparently, and proportionately;<br/>• the existing provider sufficiently meets the PSR criteria; and<br/>• continuity of a clinically effective and system beneficial service is in the best interests of patients and the wider system.<br/>WY ICB therefore remains satisfied that the requirements of the Provider Selection Regime have been properly applied and evidenced.<br/><br/>• The procurement is not to conclude a framework agreement or to award a contract based on a framework agreement