Decision details

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST MADE FOR THIS ITEM:

None

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet, after considering the information within the exempt appendices:

1.    Approved the procurement of a multi-service call-off contract to support the delivery of void (empty property) refurbishment, compliance and remediation works across the Council's housing portfolio, as outlined in Section 1, for an initial five-year term with options to extend for up to two additional one-year periods (5+1+1).

2.    Noted that further Cabinet reports would be presented following completion of the procurement process, seeking approval to award the contracts. These reports would set out the outcome of the procurement, recommended contractors, contract values, affordability within approved budgets, and any associated financial implications for the Housing Revenue Account and General Fund.

Reasons for the decision

The Council continued to experience demand for void refurbishment, compliance and remediation works across a housing portfolio that included General Needs, Sheltered Housing, Temporary Accommodation, Hostels, Lodges, Acquisitions and Private Sector Leased properties managed by partner organisations. Properties that remained empty were unable to generate rental income and could incur additional costs relating to security, utilities, council tax and deterioration of the asset.

Delays in returning properties to occupation placed additional pressure on homelessness and Temporary Accommodation services by reducing the availability of housing stock and increasing the need for alternative accommodation arrangements. Given the range of property types, varying property conditions and differing service requirements, the Council required a flexible delivery model capable of responding to changes in demand and supporting the timely re-letting of properties.

The existing delivery model consisted of a combination of in-house resources and multiple contractor arrangements managed across different service areas. This resulted in separate commissioning arrangements, variations in performance management, differing specifications and pricing structures, and limited oversight of overall demand. A single multi-service contract was intended to provide additional capacity, improve coordination, standardise delivery and reporting arrangements, strengthen commercial oversight and reduce void turnaround times.

The anticipated scale and variability of demand across the housing portfolio indicated the need for a coordinated approach. The proposed procurement would establish a multi-provider call-off contract arrangement, enabling the Council to access additional capacity for void refurbishment, compliance and remediation works as required. No minimum value or volume of work would be guaranteed, and works would be commissioned only in response to operational requirements and within approved budgets. The arrangement was intended to provide flexibility, support value for money and assist in reducing rental income loss by returning properties to occupation more quickly.

Alternative options considered

Maintaining the existing arrangements

This option was not pursued. Retaining the existing delivery model would have continued the use of separate commissioning and contractor arrangements across housing services. This would have maintained pressure on in-house resources and limited the Council's ability to respond consistently to variations in demand.

Longer void periods could have reduced the availability of housing stock, increased costs associated with managing empty properties, reduced rental income to the Housing Revenue Account and General Fund, and resulted in higher repair costs where property conditions deteriorated. This option was not considered to provide the capacity or coordinated approach required to address service pressures effectively.

Short-term procurement arrangements

This option was considered but not pursued. While a series of short-term contracts could have provided additional capacity and maintained competition within the market, it would have required repeated procurement exercises and continued a fragmented commissioning approach.

The approach would likely have increased administrative costs, reduced opportunities for longer-term planning and supplier investment, and limited the Council's ability to establish consistent standards, performance management arrangements and pricing mechanisms. It was considered less effective in improving void turnaround performance, reducing rental loss and achieving value for money.

Fully in-sourced delivery model

This option was also considered but not pursued. The Council already operated an in-house voids service with a dedicated management structure and three teams of operatives, which was performing well against agreed targets. Historically, void refurbishment, compliance and remediation works had been delivered through a hybrid model combining in-house resources with external contractors to provide additional capacity, resilience and specialist expertise.

Although expanding the in-house service to undertake all works was considered, a fully in-sourced approach would have reduced flexibility in responding to fluctuations in demand. Demand for void works varied according to factors such as tenancy turnover, property condition, compliance requirements, housing acquisitions, regeneration activity and housing delivery programmes.

For example, neighbourhood moves schemes and regeneration-related moves could increase the number of void properties requiring inspection and refurbishment, while variations in property condition could significantly affect the scale and complexity of works required. As a result, both the volume and nature of demand could change considerably over time.

Maintaining sufficient in-house capacity to manage periods of peak demand would have required a substantially larger workforce than needed under normal operating conditions, creating a risk of underutilisation during quieter periods and reducing value for money. A fully in-sourced model would also have required significant investment and a lengthy mobilisation period to recruit, train and develop additional staff and management capacity.

The principal limitation of this option was its reduced flexibility and scalability. By contrast, the continuation of a hybrid model enabled the Council to retain its core in-house service while accessing external capacity when required. This provided greater flexibility, resilience and scalability, supported the timely return of homes to occupation and offered a more balanced approach to service delivery.