Search      Advanced Search

UK-Birmingham: business and management consultancy and related services

Contract Award

General Information
Country:   United Kingdom
City/Locality:   BIRMINGHAM
Notice/Contract Number:   eu:50282-2010
Publication Date:   Feb 19, 2010
Buyer:   NHS WEST MIDLANDS
Original Language:   English

Contact Information
Address:   NHS WEST MIDLANDS
BIRMINGHAM, WEST MIDLANDS (ENGLAND)
United Kingdom
Web Site:   www.westmidlands.nhs.uk

Goods, Works and Services

 

Summary

      view in:

Notice Type: 2280 - Contract award
Regulation of Procurement: European Communities, with participation by GPA countries
EU Official Journal Publication: 35/2010, #50282-2010
Referenced Document Number: 299347-2009
Contract Nature: Service contract
Procedure Type: Restricted procedure
Type of Bid Required: Not applicable
Awarding Criteria: The most economic tender
Successful Bidder: NAME AND ADDRESS OF ECONOMIC OPERATOR IN FAVOUR OF WHOM A CONTRACT AWARD
DECISION HAS BEEN TAKEN: National Institute of Social and Economic
Research, 2 Dean Trench Street, Smith Square, London SW1P 3HE, UNITED
KINGDOM. E-mail: enquiries@niesr.ac.uk. Tel. +44 2072227665. URL:
http://www.niesr.ac.uk/.

Original Text

      view in:

CONTRACT AWARD NOTICE
Services
SECTION I: CONTRACTING AUTHORITY
I.1) NAME, ADDRESSES AND CONTACT POINT(S): NHS West Midlands, St. Chad's
Court, 213 Hagley Road, Attn: Paul Seamer, Birmingham B16 9RG, UNITED
KINGDOM. Tel. +44 1212131990. E-mail: paul.seamer@westmidlands.nhs.uk.
Internet address(es):
General address of the contracting authority: www.westmidlands.nhs.uk.
Address of the buyer profile: http://www.mytenders.org/search/
Search_AuthProfile.aspx?ID=AA19401.
I.2) TYPE OF THE CONTRACTING AUTHORITY AND MAIN ACTIVITY OR ACTIVITIES:
Body governed by public law.
Health.
SECTION II: OBJECT OF THE CONTRACT
II.1) DESCRIPTION
II.1.1) Title attributed to the contract: Measuring local health economy
productivity and assessing allocative efficiency.
II.1.2) Type of contract and location of works, place of delivery or of
performance: Services.
Service category No 11.
Main site or location of works, place of delivery or of performance: West
Midlands.
NUTS code UKG.
II.1.4) Short description of the contract or purchase(s): The West
Midlands Strategic Health Authority ("SHA") wishes to select a contractor
for the provision of analytical services to develop methods of:
Measuring the productivity of local health economies; and.
Assessing their allocative efficiency.
The SHA is treating these two objectives as separate, but related,
elements of a single project.
This project – Measuring Local Health Economy Productivity and Assessing
Allocative Efficiency – is one of a series of projects to have been set up
as part of an overall programme of work that is designed to ensure that
NHS organisations within the West Midlands are prepared for the impact of
the economic downturn on future funding flows, and that local health
economies are working together to ensure long-term financial
sustainability.
Measuring productivity.
NHS West Midlands has led a number of programmes aimed at improving the
productivity of NHS services. It should be noted however, that these
programmes have been designed to assist providers to identify
opportunities for productivity improvements at service or functional
levels. No attempt has been made to-date to assess the productivity of
complete health economies (1).
Following the publication of the Atkinson Review (2), the Department of
Health in conjunction with the University of York have produced a series
of reports on the measurement of NHS productivity (3). Whilst considerable
progress has been made, Derek Wanless concluded in his recent review of
NHS Funding and Performance that “Official measures of NHS productivity
are inconclusive”.
Notwithstanding these difficulties, NHS West Midlands wishes to make
comparative assessments of health service productivity by health economy
and over time.
We anticipate that this work would build on that carried out by the
Department of Health and University of York and that a series of pragmatic
assumptions, where possible with reference to published research, will be
needed where data is not available or is inadequate.
It is acknowledged that the productivity scores resulting from this work
will not be definitive, but it is our view that sharing indicative
productivity scores is an important step towards engaging health economies
in discussions about productivity and ultimately to moving towards more
accurate and robust assessments of productivity.
Assessing allocative efficiency.
To-date, efforts to improve NHS productivity have in the main been focused
on improving the technical efficiency of services and functions. We
believe that substantial opportunities exist to improve NHS productivity
through increased allocative efficiency.
Many hold for example, that investment in primary and secondary prevention
in the UK is inadequate and that savings could result from reallocating
budgets from treatment services to preventative services. Whilst some
benchmarking of investment levels has taken place, we are not aware of any
work that has been carried out to-date to estimate the optimal levels of
investment in primary and secondary prevention to ensure the best return
on a PCTs investment. We are however familiar with the work of Flessa (4)
on the optimal allocation of healthcare resources in developing countries
and believe this may provide a useful model for similar assessment in the
NHS.
The development of programme budgeting provides the NHS with new
opportunities to assess the appropriateness and efficiency of financial
allocations. DH has published a number of reports and has made web-based
resources available to support the comparison of financial allocations to
particular programme budgets between PCTs and to support the assessment of
associations between programme level expenditure and health outcomes.
Furthermore, we note with interest the work published by the Health
Foundation as part of their QQUIP research initiative on quantifying the
impact of healthcare expenditure on health outcomes (5).
NHS West Midlands wishes to identify major strategic opportunities to move
investment between programmes of spend to improve allocative efficiency.
NHS West Midlands is therefore inviting agencies to develop methods of
systematically identifying such opportunities.
(1) The term complete health economy is used to refer to natural
geographical groupings of PCTs together with the health services they
commission. There are 10 local health economies in the West Midlands.
(2) Atkinson T., 2005. Atkinson Review of measurement of government output
and productivity for the National Accounts, Office for National
Statistics.
(3) Dawson D. et al., 2005. Developing New Approaches to Measuring NHS
Outputs and Productivity, Centre for Health Economics (CHE) at University
of York & National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR);
Department of Health, 2005. Healthcare Output and Productivity: Accounting
for Quality Change, Department of Health; Office for National Statistics,
2006. Improvements in measuring health service productivity, Office for
National Statistics; Castelli A. et al., 2008. Measuring NHS Output
Growth, Centre for Health Economics (CHE) at University of York; Street A.
& Ward P., 2009. NHS Input & Productivity Growth 2003/04-2007/08, Centre
for Health Economics (CHE) at University of York.
(4) Flessa S., 2000. Where efficiency saves lives – a linear programme for
the optimal allocation of health care resources in developing countries,
Health Care Management Science 3 (2000) pp. 249-267.
(5) Martin S., Rice N., Smith P.C. 2007, The link between healthcare
spending and health outcomes, QQUIP The Health Foundation; Martin S., Rice
N., Smith P.C. 2008, Further evidence on the link between healthcare
spending and health outcomes in England, QQUIP The Health Foundation.
II.1.5) Common procurement vocabulary (CPV): 79400000, 79410000,
79300000, 79311400, 79330000, 73000000, 73200000, 73210000, 71600000,
71620000, 71621000, 72221000.
II.1.6) Contract covered by the Government Procurement Agreement (GPA):
Yes.
II.2) TOTAL FINAL VALUE OF CONTRACT(S)
II.2.1) Total final value of contract(s): Value: 175 000 GBP.
Excluding VAT.
SECTION IV: PROCEDURE
IV.1) TYPE OF PROCEDURE
IV.1.1) Type of procedure: Restricted.
IV.2) AWARD CRITERIA
IV.2.1) Award criteria: The most economically advantageous tender in
terms of
1. Understanding of issues and familiarity with relevant research.
Weighting: 15 %.
2. Experience in applying advanced analytical techniques in the health
economics field. Weighting: 25 %.
3. Proposed methodology. Weighting: 25 %.
4. Capacity to meet timescales. Weighting: 15 %.
5. Proposed costs and value for money. Weighting: 15 %.
6. Legal and contractual. Weighting: 5 %.
IV.3) ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION
IV.3.2) Previous publication(s) concerning the same contract: Contract
notice
Notice number in the OJEU: 2009/S 208-299347 of 28.10.2009.
SECTION V: AWARD OF CONTRACT
CONTRACT NO: 63123
LOT NO: - TITLE: Measuring Local Health Economy Productivity and Assessing
Allocative Efficiency.
V.1) Date of contract award decision: 8.2.2010.
V.2) NUMBER OF OFFERS RECEIVED: 5.
V.3) NAME AND ADDRESS OF ECONOMIC OPERATOR IN FAVOUR OF WHOM A CONTRACT
AWARD DECISION HAS BEEN TAKEN: National Institute of Social and Economic
Research, 2 Dean Trench Street, Smith Square, London SW1P 3HE, UNITED
KINGDOM. E-mail: enquiries@niesr.ac.uk. Tel. +44 2072227665. URL:
http://www.niesr.ac.uk/.
V.4) INFORMATION ON VALUE OF CONTRACT Total final value of the contract:
Value: 175 000 GBP.
Excluding VAT.
SECTION VI: COMPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
VI.2) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: (MT Ref:64096).
VI.4) DATE OF DISPATCH OF THIS NOTICE: 17.2.2010.
Please note that this notice is for your information only.
We try our best to have the most accurate and up-to-date information available on our web site, but we cannot guarantee that all of the information provided is error-free.
If you have any suggestions for updates/corrections for this notice, please let us know.