Agenda item

(To receive a report from Emma Golds, Senior Commercial and Procurement Officer, and James Chapple, Head of Registration, Celebratory and Coroners Service, which invites the Committee to consider and comment on the re-procurement of LCC Coronial Toxicology Services, prior to a decision being taken by the Executive Councillor for NHS Liaison, Integrated Care System, Registration and Coroners.  David Stocking, Coroners Services Manager and Stuart Partridge, Coroner’s Officer Supervisor will also be in attendance for this item)

Consideration was given to a report from David Stocking, Coroner’s Services Manager, and Emma Golds, Senior Commercial and Procurement Officer, on the re-procurement of LCC Coronial Toxicology Services prior to a decision taken by the Executive Councillor for NHS Liaison, Integrated Care System, Registration, and Coroners between 15 and 22 December 2023. Stuart Partridge, Coroner’s Office Supervisor was also in attendance for this item.

The Coroner’s Services Manager noted that the Council was legally obliged to certify and register deaths, and provide toxicology analysis under The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 which enabled the Coroner to fulfil their statutory role to provide coroners services in Lincolnshire.

The Senior Commercial and Procurement Officer informed the Committee that the Council currently held one toxicology contract operating with University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, which was currently valued at £140,000 per annum. The new contract was expected to run for a period of three years commencing on 1 August 2024 and ending on 31 July 2027. There would also be an option for the Council to extend by an additional period of two years.

Officers wished to reprocure the Toxicology contract by way of an Open tender to award a single supplier.

During its discussion, the following matters were highlighted:

·         The Committee recommended that, if not already done so, specific defined timescales for each type of test should be built into the contract.

Toxicology Tests

·         Concerns were raised about the timescales for toxicology test results and the impact on families waiting for these results. It was highlighted that it was clear from pre-market engagement that the timescales in the current contract were not realistic, which would explain why they had not been met and had created a backlog. As a result, realistic timescales for all types of cases had now been identified and these would be reflected in the new tender documentation. Although the timescales would be extended, this would make the caseload more manageable and lead to a quicker turnaround. It was confirmed that there would be different timescales for different types of tests.

·         In relation to the types of toxicology tests that could be undertaken, the pathologist would decide what toxicology samples they would need in order to determine the cause of death and the coroner would consent to that. This made it difficult to quantify the minimum amount of tests that could be requested, which was why there would be a flat fee for each case in the new contract.

Re-procurement of Contract 

·         With regard to the proposed length of the contract of three years with an option to extend for two years, it was confirmed that a longer-term contract could have been achieved for this contract as well. However, the market had changed quite a bit since the last tender process, and this was the first time using the open tender procedure. The aim was to have a stable contract that was fit for purpose but with flexibility should the market change again, or the Council’s requirements alter slightly. Procuring on a three-year plus two-year basis would provide flexibility to stop the contract at three years or continue for the additional two years, which would give time to reprocure again as the market kept evolving.

·         From the pre-market engagement, there were three responses received which were very good responses to the Council’s proposal. This gave confidence that responses would be received to the open tender, even though this was a narrow market. The current contract with University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust worked really well and it was anticipated that they would bid again.

Cost of Contract

·         Under the current contract, the Council paid on a per test basis. However, it was hard to predict demand for each type of test that would occur during the year as demand fluctuated. Pre-market engagement had indicated that pricing should be on a per case basis so that a flat fee was charged regardless of what was required. This should allow for better control of the budget as the overall volume of toxicology tests would be easier to predict.

·         In relation to whether the supplier would be paid a minimum amount for the year even if no tests were carried out, it was confirmed that there would be no minimum payment, so in any year the supplier may not receive a payment and every year the payment would differ slightly.

·         The transportation of specimens was included in the contract price and would usually be sent by secure mail. Some hospitals also had transportation that would take the samples to the toxicology labs.

·         With regard to whether the contract could include a percentage increase in anticipation of increasing costs and demand, it was confirmed that the aim was to ensure the contract contained enough flexibility as each year would vary which the supplier would be made aware of, and also for the potential merger with North and North East Lincolnshire coronial area.

·         In regard to what contingencies had been identified if the tender price came in higher than the £210,000 maximum budget, consisting of the £140,000 existing budget combined with a maximum £70,000 from wider public protection budgets, officers confirmed that they would look into this and provide a response.

RESOLVED

1.      That the Committee supports the recommendations to the Executive Councillor for NHS Liaison Integrated Care System, Registration, and Coroners as set out in the report; and

2.      That the additional comments made be passed on to the Executive Councillor in relation to this item.