Agenda and minutes

Christopher Edwards, Lisa Dymock as substitute. Jan Butler, Ann Webb as substitute. Cabinet Member Ian Chandler.

None.

No members of the public were present but questions were submitted from residents which were aired by the members during the main item.

Jane Rodgers, Penny Haywood (Ardal) and Samantha Harry (Ardal) introduced the report. Ceri York,Jenny Jenkins, Jane Rodgers and Nicola Venus-Balgobin answered the members’ questions.

• Were CIW and CQS inspection reports taken into account during the evaluation process?

No, inspection reports were not considered to allow new start-ups to apply. However, all applicants had to meet quality standards and be registered before the contract commenced.

• So toclarify, companies could tender who were not registered – with whom?
• Yes, companies that were not yet registered could still tender. The process excluded inspection reports to avoid disadvantaging new providers. While registration wasn’t required to apply, it was mandatory to meet quality standards under RISCO and the Social Care Act before the contract could begin. Inspection reports were also considered unreliable due to their time-specific nature.
• How did the previous provider score lower on quality despite their long service and local workforce?

The evaluation process was thorough and equitable, focusing on specific questions and criteria. Testimonials were not considered, but case studies were. The previous provider scored lower on quality despite their long service and local workforce because the evaluation process was highly detailed and structured. It involved 153 questions assessed by different groups of experienced officers, each focusing on specific areas of expertise. The process was designed to ensure fairness and consistency, with consensus meetings to discuss and agree on scores.

• Can you clarify the role that Ardal played in the procurement process?

Ardal supported the entire procurement process, including training, evaluation, and ensuring compliance with procurement regulations. They did not just collate and pass on pricing information.

• Was there a conflict of interest between Monmouthshire County Council and Ardal?

No, there was no conflict of interest. The separation of duties and oversight by Ardal ensured compliance with procurement standards and mitigated any potential conflicts.

• Will the final evaluation results and scoring breakdown be shared with tendering providers?

Yes, detailed breakdowns of scores and the advantages of winning bidders will be provided to all tendering providers.

• How was the 60% quality and 40% cost weighting reflected in the outcome?

Quality and cost were evaluated separately, with quality accounting for 60% of the final score. The evaluation process ensured that quality was assessed based on detailed criteria and evidence provided by bidders.

• Would it be right to say at that point you’re translating qualitative assessment into a quantitative ranking, but at the heart of it there’s necessarily a qualitative element?

Yes, that’s correct. While the evaluation process involves translating qualitative assessments into quantitative scores, the core of the process remains qualitative. Quality and pricing were assessed separately and only combined at the end to produce the final ranking.

• How does Monmouthshire County Council justify the process as transparent and in the best interest of service users?

The process was transparent, with clear communication and engagement with potential providers. The aim was to ensure sustainable, high-quality care and improve service delivery for users.

• Were service users and their families involved in subsequent stages  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

15th July 2025 at 10.00am.