Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:

1.    That the Policy Committee notes the contents of the presentation.

2.    That the views and comments of the committee are sought to inform the Cabinet Member for Housing prior to the Cabinet meeting on the 20^th November 2024.

Councillor Chris Westwood, Cabinet Member for Housing introduced the agenda item on the Housing, Repairs and Maintenance Contract Procurement. He highlighted that the repairs and maintenance contract with Cardo had been in place for around 13 years, during which much had changed. He emphasised the necessity of reviewing the council's requirements and identifying the best partner to deliver these services moving forward. Acknowledging that 80% of tenants were satisfied with the repairs and maintenance service and 78% were happy with its timeliness, he expressed that there was still room for improvement.

He stated his desire for Winchester City Council Housing to be easier to do business with, noting that this could mean different things to different people and outlined several key outcomes desired from the new contract:

1. Establishing a partnership rather than a supplier relationship, with the chosen partner representing the council's values in tenants' homes.
2. Improving customer service and experience, including a strong digital offering and continuous customer feedback at all interactions.
3. Enhancing the quality of service to ensure repairs were done right the first time, every time.
4. Ensuring transparency and visibility for both tenants and internal management to effectively oversee operational processes and the contract.
5. Reducing repair costs to deliver value for money to the council and tenants.
6. Fostering continuous innovation to improve services and drive further value.
7. Expanding services beyond repairs and maintenance to potentially include planned upgrades, retrofit activities, decarbonisation of housing stock, voids management, and other future services.

He emphasised that this contract was one of the most important and valuable for the council and sought feedback on the work completed to date to inform the procurement process over the next 18 to 24 months.

Simon Hendey, Strategic Director, Yvonne Anderson, Service Lead - Housing Landlord Services and Jamie Butt, Procurement Officer further introduced the item and provided a presentation and explained the procurement process planned for the next two years leading up to the selection of a new contractor. They detailed the stakeholder engagement activities undertaken:

1. Conducted a resident survey sent to all households in the council's stock, receiving 823 responses, which was considered a positive level of engagement.
2. Hosted resident workshops, although attendance was lower than anticipated, with efforts made to encourage participation.
3. Held discussions with Cardo and CCS to understand what worked well and areas needing improvement.
4. Engaged with housing staff to gather their insights, given their close involvement with the service.
5. Consulted with members to obtain valuable feedback.
6. Reached out to contractors to gauge their interest in the contract, following an advertised invitation and an online event to attract further interest.

They further described the proposed scope of the contract, which would include:

1. Repairs and maintenance services.
2. Voids management to prepare empty homes for new tenants promptly.
3. Compliance services, particularly focusing on the "big six" regulatory requirements.
4. Cyclical and planned programmes.
5. Potential inclusion of the retrofit programme.
6. Consideration of whether the repairs hub would continue to be operated by the council or managed by the provider.
7. Co-location of the provider's team within the city offices to maintain close collaboration.

They emphasised the shift from a traditional "master and servant" contract model to a strategic partnership approach, favouring the TAC - 1 contract for its collaborative nature, as supported by feedback from contractors. They discussed various pricing mechanisms, highlighting the preference for a "price per repair" model over others like "price per property" or "schedule of rates" due to fairness and risk management.

Finally, an overview of the procurement timeline, noting key milestones was provided which included the completion of the research phase and preparation of tender documents, the publication of the contract notice and bid evaluations, with the intention to award the new contract in December 2025, with the contract expected to commence in July 2026. They concluded by emphasising the importance of this contract and the council's commitment to improving services for tenants through this procurement process.

Councillor Horrill addressed the committee regarding the procurement of the Housing, Repairs and Maintenance Contract and raised several points for the committee to consider, including the following. She questioned the proposal of a ten-year contract without a break clause and suggested incorporating a full review for flexibility. She expressed concern about relying on a single contractor for such a significant investment and asked whether multiple contractors had been considered. Additionally, she emphasised the importance of understanding the council's repair requirements, suggested including commitments to apprenticeships and local job opportunities in the contract, and inquired about the expected social value outcomes.

Councillor Cook addressed the committee regarding the procurement of the Housing, Repairs and Maintenance Contract and raised several points for the committee to consider, including the following. She raised concerns about previous questions related to housing that remained unanswered, referring to an earlier email. She was concerned if the council had been paying invoices without verifying completed work, as revealed in a previous meeting. She also highlighted low resident attendance at workshops which could be due to inadequate notice, and expressed concerns about the management of the repair hub and lack of scrutiny on rates for voids.

The committee was asked to note and comment on the contents of the presentation and the views and comments of the committee were sought to inform the Cabinet Member for Housing prior to the Cabinet meeting on the 20th of November 2024.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the report. In summary, the following matters were raised:

1. A question was asked about the social value assessment criteria part of quality evaluation, was this a minimum and if there was potential to increase this percentage as part of the evaluation. Clarification was also sought on how delays in legislation might have affected this level and how transparency would be ensured regarding the social value delivered.
2. Clarification was sought on the pricing mechanisms currently in use, their effectiveness in terms of value for money and resident outcomes, and how the proposed mechanisms would differ.
3. A question was raised regarding the recommendation to enter into a Term Alliance  Contract (TAC-1), questioning whether this should be explicitly included in the recommendations to Cabinet.
4. Concern was expressed about the end of the current contract, specifically what would happen if the current contractor lost staff or interest before the new contract commenced, and how any potential additional costs would be managed.
5. Further clarification was requested on contingency plans if the new contract was not in place before the current one ended, including the possibility of extending the existing contract.
6. An inquiry was made about the perceived advantages to the council of having a ten-year contract.
7. Questions were asked about the open book reviews proposed at years three, five, and seven of the contract, including what aspects would be reviewed and what would constitute severe failings.
8. Clarification was sought on when KPIs would be developed and included in the contract, and what they might encompass.
9. Questions were raised about the "price per void" approach, specifically why there was no requirement to scrutinise rates and how costs would be controlled under this model.
10. An inquiry was made about whether penalties would be included in the contract for failures to meet specifications or timelines, and how the council would enforce these.
11. Clarification was sought on how annual works would be managed within a ten-year lead contractor arrangement, and how flexibility would be maintained to go to the market if necessary.
12. A question was raised about whether retrofit works under the contract would cover measures to prevent flooding in properties at risk.
13. Concern was expressed about inflation risk over the ten-year period, particularly how indexation would affect the "price per void" and "price per repair" models, and how this risk would be managed.
14. An inquiry was made about residents' ability to raise faults directly with the contractor, how the council's systems would interact with the contractor's systems, and how oversight and record-keeping would be maintained to ensure transparency and accountability.
15. Questions were asked about whether there was sufficient time to ensure system integration between the council and the contractor before the contract commenced.
16. Concern was raised about complaints being made directly to the contractor and the potential risk of lack of oversight or discrepancies in records between the resident and contractor.
17. A question was asked about the 823 resident responses received, specifically whether it was possible to quantify the percentage of responses from the city area versus the rural areas.

These points were responded to by Councillor Chris Westwood, Cabinet Member for Housing, Simon Hendey, Strategic Director, Yvonne Anderson, Service Lead - Housing Landlord Services and Jamie Butt, Procurement Officer accordingly.

RESOLVED:

1. That the committee noted the contents of the presentation on the Housing, Repairs and Maintenance Contract Procurement.
2. The committee agreed to ask the Cabinet Member to consider the following: