{meta} Agenda item - Request for Approval - Exception to Contractual Standing Orders - Liberty House and the Foyer plus provision to support No Wrong Door Model

Agenda item


Salford City Council - Record of Decision


I Councillor Hinds, Lead Member for Finance and Support Services and chairman of the Procurement Board, in exercise of the powers contained within the Council Constitution do hereby approve:


An exception to Contractual Standing Orders as permitted within the City Council Constitution for the reason(s) highlighted in the table below and the award of the Contract for (insert title of project/scheme/service or purchase of goods)as detailed in the table below:

Detail required


Title/Description of Contracted Service/Supply/Project

Semi and Independent Living Services for 16 – 25 year olds plus the details to develop the provision at the Foyer to support Route 29.

Name of Successful Contractor

Adullam & Places for People +

Supplier Registration Number

(to be supplied by Corporate Procurement)

Type of organisation

(to be supplied by Corporate Procurement)

Registered Charity

Status of Organisation

(to be supplied by Corporate Procurement)

Choose an item.

Contract Value

Liberty - £126,259

Foyer - £109,318


£69,413.76 – 4 block beds against The Foyer linked to Route 29


£17,000 – Additional member of staff to support at The Foyer

Per Annum (estimated average)

Contract Duration

6 months

Contract Start Date


Contract End Date


Optional Extension Period 1

Optional Extension Period 2

Who will approve each Extension Period?

Procurement Board (extension > £150k)

Contact Officer (Name & number)

Jennifer Walsh 0161 778 0533

Lead Service Group

People Services

Reason for CSO Exception

(select all that apply)

The goods / services / works are only obtainable from one provider and there is no other provider available to allow genuine competition

The execution of works or the supply of goods or services is controlled by a statutory body

Delivers Best Value to the Council


Special education, health or social care contracts, if it is considered in the Council’s best interests and to meet the Council’s obligations under relevant legislation

The execution of works or the supply of goods and services is required so urgently as not to permit compliance with the requirements of competition

Security works where the publication of documents or details in the tendering process could prejudice the security of SCC and Salford residents

Procurements made through, or on behalf of, any consortium, local authority, statutory or similar body, provided that tenders or quotations are invited and contracts placed in accordance with national or EU legislation.

Funding Source

Choose an item.



The reasons are


This proposal will reduce the spend on unregulated 16+ provision in the City.


This proposal will reduce the risks associated with unregulated provision.

By minimising the usage of this external market we gain greater control and oversight of quality via quality monitoring and regular contact with the Salford based provision.


The proposal will ensure that more Salford young people can remain in Salford

The proposal will ensure that the current existing service are able to operate at a good standard


The proposal will mean that Route 29 will have a 16+ specialist arm to the offer.


Options considered and rejected were


To keep the position ‘as is’ would result in further spend on Section 17 budget for those who there is a duty to support with housing aged 16/17 as we do not have enough sufficiency currently in the City for this age range.


There would not be an emergency service available for this age range which could leave young people placed out of Salford.


By not block booking the beds the provision will not benefit for the support and wrap around from Route 29.


By keeping the position ‘as is’ Route 29 will not have a specialist arm for 16/17 and those young people coming via a homelessness route.



Assessment of risk


If the exemption to extend is not agreed we would be unable to go to the market at the same time for all the provision which would could result in a fragmented service offer.


If the additional funding for block booking and additional staffing is not agreed then it will hinder the Route 29 service and limit the options for accommodation for Young People to move on to. There is a need in the City for the extra beds and we are paying private provider significantly more already out of existing Section 17 budget.


It would also result in only housing support being offered for the additional beds without the wraparound mechanism and ethos of route 29. This would impact on the level of support offered (less than the rest of the contract) and would compromise the offer.



The source of funding is


Liberty House and The Foyer existing projected budget (Extension)

Section 17 (Block bed bookings)

Route 29 (Additional staffing)


Legal advice obtained


Supplied by: Tony Hatton, Principal Solicitor, tel. 219 6323


Financial advice obtained

Contribution from Chris Smee Finance


Procurement advice obtained


Contribution from Chris Conway, Procurement,


HR advice obtained



Climate change implications obtained


Consultation with Mike Hemingway


Documents used

The following documents have been used to assist the decision process.

The relevant documents contain exempt or confidential information and are not available for public inspection

Contact details

Contact Officer:       Jennifer Walsh

Telephone number: 0161 778 0533


Please delete from the bullets below any which are not relevant


·       The Lead Member has been consulted and is supportive of the proposed contract.

·       The appropriate scrutiny committees to call-in the decision are the Children’s Scrutiny Panel and the Health and Social Care Scrutiny Panel



Signed:         BILL HINDS                                Dated: 11 March 2020

                    Lead Member



*         This decision was published on 11 March 2020

*         This decision will come in force at 4.00 p.m. on 18 March 2020 unless it is called-in in accordance with the Decision Making Process Rules.


Supporting documents: