Decision details

Mears is the current partnering contractor that provides responsive repairs, voids and planned works for the council's social housing stock. The contract is due to expire in March 2025. This is a complex contract to procure, therefore the process needs to start now.

The report seeks the authority for the council to enter into a new contract for works and services as follows: 

• A 10 year contract with an option to extend for a further 5 years
• For responsive repairs, voids, compliance, cyclical and planned works 
• Provide an element of service for the council's corporate properties.
• Provide an out of hours service for emergency repairs 
• Maintain a customer contact centre for tenants and leaseholders of the council to call to report repairs

Cabinet was therefore asked to authorise:

1. The letting of a 10 year contract, with provision to extend for a further 5 year period to enable a true alliance between contractors and client. This is for the provision of responsive repairs, voids, compliance, cyclical and planned works. This contract will also include an element of works for corporate properties.

Cabinet authorised the following:

1.  The letting of a 10 year contract, with provision to extend for a further 5 year period to enable a true alliance between contractors and client. This is for the provision of responsive repairs, voids, compliance, cyclical and planned works. This contract will also include an element of works for corporate properties.

The current contract is due to expire in March 2025, with no further rights to extend. 

If the Council did not procure a contract in time for the previous contract to expire, the Council would risk continuity of service provision; much of which is a legislative or regulatory requirement. Council would also risk being noncompliant with Local Authority procurement legislation and the Council’s own Contract Standing Orders (CSOs) if the payments for this service were to be outside of a contract.

Procure this contract using an open procurement campaign. This is not recommended as this is not the approach favoured by the market, meaning we may not be able to attract the contractors the Council would like to tender. 

Establish a DLO or LATCO for the provision of this service. These options are not recommended, for the reasons set out below:

• The Council did not have a depot and it would take quite a substantial investment to set that up; 
• The Council would need the extra officers to manage the  blue collar workers’ and fleet;
• Officers/space to purchase and store materials and plant - requiring procurement;
• Additional management for finance and  ICT;
• Initial TUPE issue as operatives transfer from the current contractor  -  TDC will be responsible for managing this process; 
• It wouldn't cope easily with peaks and troughs of work -  responsive repairs are very seasonal and weather sensitive and a DLO would not have the option to balance work across clients; 
• There will be a requirement to formally procure and manage sub contracts for skills and materials that the DLO does not  have, for example compliance disciplines like electrical safety, asbestos management, passenger lift  servicing and maintenance; 
• Further officers for contract management of subcontractors for works the DLO cannot pick up - for example, planned works/major voids.  For periods of high demand that could not be covered by the DLO; 
• Organisational capacity to manage a key service transition to an alternative service delivery vehicle during a period where the council is delivering a number of high profile projects (e.g. Levelling Up, Margate Town Deal).