Pathways and POEM feedback

The FoI request we submitted some months ago has been partially answered, and it made sense to put what we did get online. We asked for details on:

1. POEM bidders, their quality and finance scores, and agreed contract values and performance targets for the winners
2. Pathways to Work bidders, their quality and finance scores, and agreed contract values and performance targets for the winners
3. Portfolio management applied to Pathways to Work Phase 2

Their responses following an appeal against initial refusal boiled down to:

• Performance targets for individual contracts are 'prejudicial to commercial interests' and exempt from FoI
• Information on the bid process that seems to say that no portfolio management was applied, although it's somewhat difficult to understand
• Ranges have been provided for quality score and contract value in each area, showing the highest and lowest but not the winning amount

The DWP response follows, along with the information that they did provide.

Performance Targets

The Invitation to Tender suite of documents in support of Phase 1 & 2 Pathways made a clear statement of the minimum performance targets bidders would need to meet. These targets are included in the table containing indicative contract values.

Subsequently, individual targets have been set as part of the post contract award process for each individual Provider for each contract package. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to disclose these targets as they are taken directly from the Providers bids and therefore fall under s43(2) (prejudicial to commercial interests).

Portfolio Management

The evaluation of both Phase 1 & 2 Provider Led Pathways was undertaken in-line with the process described in the ‘Instructions to Bidders’ issued to all bidding organisations (see Annex 2).

The instructions detailed how the respective quality and price elements of each bid would be evaluated and brought together to decide which organisation would be afforded ‘preferred bidder’ status for each of the respective contract packages.

In addition, to maintain consistency throughout the evaluation process a benchmarking exercise was undertaken at the commencement to set standards and weekly telephone conferences were held with lead evaluators to ensure uniformity of approach. At conclusion of the evaluation, all scores were moderated prior to being presented to an Evaluation Board and then Ratified Panel.

The evaluation criteria as published maintained the principles of fair and open competition; no additional weightings have been applied regarding a bidding organisations status.

Price/Quality evaluation methodology

Within each contract area, the quality scores and price offerings were ranked by highest and lowest.

The highest scoring bidder on the quality elements (out of a maximum 228 points) automatically received 100% of the quality score. The lowest scoring bidder on quality automatically received nil. The lowest score was taken from the highest score then divided by 100 to give a 1% value against which the other bids were scored.

The pricing evaluation was on the same basis except that the lowest price received 100% and the highest price nil. (We have supplied a worked example at Annex 1 by way of illustration – (Directly extracted from the ITT where it appeared as Annex 3.)

The bid annex extracts will be put online soon, but should already be in the possession of anyone interested.

Pathways to Work Phase 2 Feedback

District	Winner	Contract value	Min quality	Max quality	Min price	Max price
West of England	Working Links	13400000			2153	2790
The Marches	Remploy	14400000	64	120	2095	2720
Surrey and Sussex	RBLI	11200000	63	132	1453	3397
Surrey and Sussex	Instant Muscle	11200000	63	132	1453	3397
South and South East London	Reed in Partnership	21000000	56	124	2223	2724
North East Yorkshire and The Humber	Working Links	10000000	58	119	1396	3160
North East Yorkshire and The Humber	Carter & Carter	10000000	58	119	1396	3160
North and North East London	Reed in Partnership	23100000	74	134	2238	2779
Leicestershire and Northamptonshire	Working Links	18000000	97	154	1932	3132
Kent	RBLI	18700000	110	145	1755	2604
Hampshire and The Isle of Wight	Shaw Trust	17900000	64	120	2056	2561
Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Swindon	Working Links	12600000	75	129	2140	3132
Coventry and Warwickshire	Working Links	10100000	92	145	1936	3114
Cheshire and Warrington	TNG	5300000	58	136	1446	4135
Cheshire and Warrington	Carter & Carter	5300000	58	136	1446	4135
Cambridgeshire and Suffolk	Reed in Partnership	14900000	89	131	2204	2601
Brent, Harrow, Hillingdon and West London	Reed in Partnership	18300000	75	126	2164	3127
Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire	Shaw Trust	16300000	48	120	2494	3119
Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire	Shaw Trust	14300000	46	120	2338	3037

Pathways to Work Phase 1 Feedback

District	Winner	Min quality	Max quality	Min price	Max price
West Yorkshire	A4e	49	125	1280	3106
South East Wales	A4e	100	141	1413	3264
Nottingham	WorkDirections	61	126	1250	3245
North & Mid-Wales	A4e	98	141	1438	3229
Lincolnshire & Rutland	TNG	61	152	1413	3249
Lambeth, Southwark & Wandsworth	WorkDirections	60	141	1416	3529
Greater Manchester	Shaw Trust	56	140	1331	3097
Forth Valley, Fife & Tayside	Triage Central	47	118	1297	3255
Edinburgh, Lothian & Borders	WorkDirections	39	117	1393	3248
East & West Norfolk	Shaw Trust	57	136	1185	3261
Devon & Cornwall	A4e	92	133	1340	3105
City & East London	WorkDirections	57	139	1363	3497
Central London	WorkDirections	57	141	1500	3555
Black Country	Seetec	64	120	999	2652
Birmingham & Solihull	WorkDirections	47	148	1190	2719

POEM London Feedback

District	Winner	Annual starts	Min score	Max score	Out of	Min price	Max price	Winning price
No table data available.

Update 10/2/09 - Looks like the final table got lost somewhere. If it's really important, let me know and I'll see if I can dig it out again.