Decision Details

Decision Confirmed

Re-Tender of the Community Navigator Service

To delegate authority for awarding and executing a contract for the provision of the Service starting 1st October 2025 and the agreed contract extension period to the Executive Director Adults, Health and Commissioning in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of Adults and Health Committee.

Thu 6 Mar 2025

Adults Health and Commissioning

antonina.yaneva@cambridgeshire.gov.uk

Document.ashx

Officer

Patrick Warren-Higgs

Yes

The proposed new contract will be for a 2+1year contract which will enable us to align the service going forward with the Adult Social Care Strategy. The proposed tender will be set at a ceiling of £354,000 per annum for up to 3 years meaning a total value of £1,062,000. This budget has been confirmed by the Finance department, any future uplifts will be applied at the discretion of the Council based on supporting evidence. We anticipate that the competitive bidding process has the potential for some cost savings or increased capacity for the new service.

Option 1 Do nothing (service ends end of September 2025) Provides a direct saving of £354,771 annually to the Council. There would be a negative impact on residents as there would be no Community Navigators support; financial savings may be short-lived as internal teams would need to absorb the workload, potentially increasing overall costs. This option is not recommended due to long-term costs and the reduced support for people with care needs. Option 2: Extend current contract Ensures continuity with an experienced provider with a proven record of high-quality service. There is no option to recommissioning or a new agreement This route cannot be taken as it is not compliant with procurement law or Council contract rules. Option 3: Competitive tender A competitive process could attract bids below the current ceiling rate and encourage new innovations in service delivery. Risks include potential challenges if a new provider needs more local knowledge or resources. Limited competitive interest in the bid is also possible (refer to Risk Log), although the SMT exercise indicates this will not be the case This option is recommended as it offers the potential for cost savings and fresh approaches to service delivery whilst maintaining quality. Option 4: In house service delivery (see 7.12) Greater control over service quality, closer alignment with Council priorities, and reduced reliance on external providers. Not a viable option, as it would place additional strain on already stretched Council resources and require substantial start-up costs. Developing the expertise and networks currently held by external providers would also pose challenges, together with the potential of greater financial investment. This option is not feasible given current resource limitations and implications on cost. Furthermore, the Council benefits from a strong supply of services from SMEs that provide better value for money than an in-house model. Establishing in-house capacity would not only require significant financial investment but could also risk be disrupting the market. Maintaining partnerships with SMEs ensures flexibility, responsiveness, and continued costeffectiveness.