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

Districtsort iconWinnerContract valueMin qualityMax qualityMin priceMax price
West of EnglandWorking Links1340000021532790
The MarchesRemploy144000006412020952720
Surrey and SussexRBLI112000006313214533397
Surrey and SussexInstant Muscle112000006313214533397
South and South East LondonReed in Partnership210000005612422232724
North East Yorkshire and The HumberWorking Links100000005811913963160
North East Yorkshire and The HumberCarter & Carter100000005811913963160
North and North East LondonReed in Partnership231000007413422382779
Leicestershire and NorthamptonshireWorking Links180000009715419323132
KentRBLI1870000011014517552604
Hampshire and The Isle of WightShaw Trust179000006412020562561
Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and SwindonWorking Links126000007512921403132
Coventry and WarwickshireWorking Links101000009214519363114
Cheshire and WarringtonTNG53000005813614464135
Cheshire and WarringtonCarter & Carter53000005813614464135
Cambridgeshire and SuffolkReed in Partnership149000008913122042601
Brent, Harrow, Hillingdon and West LondonReed in Partnership183000007512621643127
Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and OxfordshireShaw Trust163000004812024943119
Bedfordshire and HertfordshireShaw Trust143000004612023383037

Pathways to Work Phase 1 Feedback

Districtsort iconWinnerMin qualityMax qualityMin priceMax price
West YorkshireA4e4912512803106
South East WalesA4e10014114133264
NottinghamWorkDirections6112612503245
North & Mid-WalesA4e9814114383229
Lincolnshire & RutlandTNG6115214133249
Lambeth, Southwark & WandsworthWorkDirections6014114163529
Greater ManchesterShaw Trust5614013313097
Forth Valley, Fife & TaysideTriage Central4711812973255
Edinburgh, Lothian & BordersWorkDirections3911713933248
East & West NorfolkShaw Trust5713611853261
Devon & CornwallA4e9213313403105
City & East LondonWorkDirections5713913633497
Central LondonWorkDirections5714115003555
Black CountrySeetec641209992652
Birmingham & SolihullWorkDirections4714811902719

POEM London Feedback

Districtsort iconWinnerAnnual startsMin scoreMax scoreOut ofMin priceMax priceWinning 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.