Forensic Advocacy Services on behalf of SWYPFT & Humber

Overview

Lots (12)

• Lot 1: Independent advocates for patients using social care services

  Provision of independent advocacy services for secure mental health services. <br/><br/>Includes IMHA (Independent Mental Health Advocacy) and IMCA (Independent Mental Capacity Advocacy). Additional information: The awarding of this contract is subject to the Health Care Services (Provider Selection Regime) Regulations 2023. The provisions of the PCR15 do not apply. The standstill period begins on the day after the publication of this notice. Representations by providers must be made to the relevant authority by 16/09/26. Representations can only be made by providers party to the framework agreement (NOE.0627) who might otherwise have been a provider of the services.<br/>This contract has not yet formally been awarded; this notice serves as an Intention to Award under the PSR. Written representations should be made via Atamis.<br/>Decision-makers are clinical service leads, operational, procurement and finance staff from SWYPFT & HTFT. Moderation leads and project support are category and operational procurement staff from NOE CPC. A conflict of interest declaration process was carried out. No conflicts of interest were identified for individuals making decisions or among the evaluation/moderation team.<br/>The contract has not yet been concluded; signature will follow the standstill period in accordance with PSR. The Contract Concluded date is the date the Contract Award notice is published.<br/>The authority weighted the procurement, 10% Quality & Innovation, 40% Value, 10% and 15% Integration, collaboration & service sustainability, 15% Improving access, reducing health inequalities, & facilitating choice and 10% Social Value.<br/>The Authority determined the relative importance of the key criteria in line with PSR principles (Reg 4) and with a focus on achieving best outcomes for service users. The evaluation was structured to reflect the priorities in the specification: Value (40%) Given the contract’s multi-year nature and its impact on efficiency in the use of NHS resources, cost formed a significant part of the assessment, ensuring affordability & sustainability of service delivery. The Authority adopted an open‑book costing approach for this procurement to ensure transparency, proportionality, and financial sustainability in the provision of Forensic Advocacy Services across SWYPFT & HTFT. This approach was intended to:<br/>Avoid unsustainable under‑pricing,<br/>Provide clarity on true cost drivers,<br/>Enable informed decisions on affordability versus service scope.<br/> <br/>The successful provider ranked first, and the submitted pricing was fully compliant with the specification requirements and consistent with sustainable delivery for the contract term.<br/>Service Quality accounted for the largest proportion of evaluation weighting. This reflects the PSR key criterion relating to the quality and effectiveness of health care services and their ability to deliver safe, person-centred advocacy. Sub-criteria included:<br/>Quality & Innovation.<br/>The successful provider scored ‘good’. The response presented a clear mobilisation plan with defined tasks, milestones, and arrangements for continuity and engagement, demonstrating confidence in successful service implementation. The response was assessed as good and met the criterion to the standard described in the published scoring methodology.<br/>Integration, collaboration & service sustainability<br/>The successful provider scored ‘good’. The response provided a governance framework with processes for assurance, reporting, and compliance, offering confidence in safe and effective service delivery. The response was assessed as good and met the criterion to the standard described in the published scoring methodology.<br/>Improving access, reducing health inequalities, & facilitating choice<br/>The successful provider scored ‘excellent’. The response showed a strong commitment to supporting service user wellbeing through a person-centred approach and proactive engagement measures. The Authority assessed this as exceeding requirements in key areas and meeting the published scoring methodology to an excellent standard.<br/>Integration, collaboration & service sustainability<br/>The successful provider scored ‘good’. The provider outlined practical measures for maintaining service continuity during disruption and for managing a smooth and compliant exit at contract end. The response was assessed as good and met the criterion to the standard described in the published scoring methodology.<br/>Social Value.<br/>Two targeted questions (Workforce Wellbeing & Carbon Reduction) ensured providers demonstrated commitments with measurable outcomes.<br/>The successful provider scored ‘good’. The response presented a clear culture plan supported by examples of intended impact and a timed social value action plan. The response explained how workforce wellbeing initiatives would be implemented and how outcomes would be monitored, evidencing alignment with NHS priorities and providing assurance of delivery. The response was assessed as good and met the criterion to the standard described in the published scoring methodology.<br/>The successful provider scored ‘good’. The response demonstrated clear commitments to low-carbon travel methods and embedding sustainable travel within day‑to‑day service delivery. It described arrangements for monitoring and reporting and included the use of virtual appointments to support accessible service provision. The response was assessed as good and met the criterion to the standard described in the published scoring methodology.<br/>The successful provider demonstrated capability across all service delivery areas in line with PSR objectives.<br/>This weighting ensured price was balanced against the ability of providers to evidence quality controls, safe transition planning, resilience, & wider social value outcomes aligned to statutory requirements and NHS priorities. The successful provider scored the highest across all providers and compliance with all aspects of the evaluation criteria. This is an existing service, the successful provider is the incumbent.

  Won by Cloverleaf Advocacy

• Lot 2: Independent mental capacity advocates

  • Independent mental capacity advocates (as per the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and its Code of Practice)

• Lot 3: Independent mental health advocates

  • Independent mental health advocates (as per the Mental Health Act 1983 and its Code of Practice)

• Lot 4: Advocacy for Adult Secure Services

  • Advocacy for Adult Secure Services <br/>Secure services provide treatment for adults aged 18-years and over with mental disorders, these include mental illness (MI), personality disorder (PD) and neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD) including learning disabilities (LD) and autism. There are three levels of secure services with specific criteria for each, High, Medium and Low.

• Lot 5: Advocacy for Children and Young People

  • Advocacy for Children and Young People <br/>While it is anticipated that this procedure is for children and young people making or intending to make a complaint, it covers representations which are not complaints. For example, children and young people should be able to secure the support of an advocate in putting forward <br/>representations for a change to be made in the service they receive, or the establishment <br/>they live in, without this having to be framed first as a specific complaint.

• Lot 6: Advocacy for Women’s Health

  • Advocacy for Women’s’ Health <br/>Although women in the UK on average live longer than men, women spend a significantly <br/>greater proportion of their lives in ill health and disability when compared with men. <br/>Not enough focus is placed on women-specific issues like miscarriage or menopause, <br/>and women are under-represented when it comes to important clinical trials. There are also far too many cases where women’s voices have not been listened to; the responses to the Women’s Health Strategy for England from the Department of Health & Social Care found 84% of respondents felt that this was the case.

• Lot 1 - Independent advocates for patients using Social Care Services

  Independent Advocates for Patients Using Social Care Services<br/>Provides advocacy support to individuals navigating social care services, ensuring their rights and preferences are respected and upheld.<br/><br/>See Section VI.3 for list of entities eligible to utilise any resulting framework, subject to the approval of NOE CPC.

  £17,000,000

• Lot 2 - Independent Mental Capacity Advocates

  Independent Mental Capacity Advocates<br/>Offers advocacy for individuals who lack the mental capacity to make certain decisions, ensuring their best interests are considered and their voices are heard in decision-making processes.

  £17,000,000

• Lot 3 - Independent Mental Health Advocates

  Independent Mental Health Advocates<br/>Supports individuals with mental health issues by representing their interests, helping them understand their rights, and facilitating their involvement in treatment decisions.

  £17,000,000

• Lot 4 - Advocacy for Adult Secure Services

  Advocacy for Adult Secure Services<br/>Provides advocacy services for adults in secure settings (such as forensic mental health services), ensuring their rights are protected and their views are represented.

  £12,000,000

• Lot 5 - Advocacy for Children and Young People

  Advocacy for Children and Young People<br/>Delivers advocacy services tailored to the needs of children and young people, helping them to express their views and participate in decisions affecting their lives.

  £12,000,000

• Lot 6 - Advocacy for Health Inequalities (including, generic advocacy, women’s

  Advocacy for Health Inequalities<br/>Addresses health disparities by providing advocacy services for various marginalized groups, including women, black and minority ethnic communities, gypsies and travellers, the unemployed, the homeless, and individuals with terminal illnesses.

  £12,000,000

Award outcome

Awarded value

£997,840

Award date

3 September 2026

Contract period

— → 14 November 2028

Contract ending soon? Skim tracks incumbents and flags recompetes early. Start for Free to set up alerts.

How to win this tender

Skim reads the notice and every document attached to it, scores the fit against your company profile for a clear bid or no-bid call, then drafts each answer from your own evidence and past bids. You review, refine and submit — on time, with every requirement covered.

See exactly how Skim’s agents do this →

Comparing platforms? Skim is set against the alternatives for pre-tender intelligence, tender management software and bid management software.