HQIP HCA 2000 Perinatal Mortality Review Tool.
Contract award notice
Services
Section I: Contracting authority
I.1)Name, addresses and contact point(s)
Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership
6th Floor, 45 Moorfields
For the attention of: Selina Eaton
EC2Y 9AE London
United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 2079977311
E-mail:
Internet address(es):
General address of the contracting authority: http://www.hqip.org.uk/
Address of the buyer profile: http://www.hqip.org.uk/
I.2)Type of the contracting authority
Body governed by public law
I.3)Main activity
Health
I.4)Contract award on behalf of other contracting authorities
The contracting authority is purchasing on behalf of other contracting authorities: yes
Scottish Government
ST Andrews House, Regent Road
EH1 3DG Edinburgh
United Kingdom
The Welsh Government
Major Health Conditions Policy Team, Healthcare Policy Division, Directorate of Health
Cardiff
United Kingdom
Section II: Object of the contract
II.1)Description
II.1.1)Title attributed to the contract
HQIP HCA 2000 Perinatal Mortality Review Tool.
II.1.2)Type of contract and location of works, place of delivery or of performance
Services
Service category No 25: Health and social services
Service category No 25: Health and social services
NUTS code UK
II.1.3)Information about a framework agreement or a dynamic purchasing system (DPS)
II.1.4)Short description of the contract or purchase(s)
HQIP has been requested to commission a Perinatal Mortality Review tool on behalf of the Department of Health in England and the Scottish and Welsh governments.
National and regional perinatal confidential enquiries into unexplained stillbirths have found sub-optimal care factors contributed to babies' deaths in 3 quarters of cases. Around half of deaths might have been avoided with better care. Enquiries show wide variation of ways in which maternity units review and learn from such deaths and therefore opportunities to avoid repeated mistakes are missed. When done well, the review process into why a baby dies can highlight areas where future care can be improved and also provide good information for parents about why their baby died. In fact, if the UK could match mortality rates achieved in Sweden and Norway, the lives of at least 1 000 babies could be saved every year.
The overarching aim of this programme is the development and maintenance of a web-based tool to implement standardised perinatal mortality reviews across NHS maternity and neonatal units in England, Scotland and Wales and provide training and on-going IT support for users.
The programme will comprise:
1. The development and maintenance of a web-based tool to facilitate the introduction of standardised perinatal mortality reviews across NHS maternity and neonatal units in England, Scotland and Wales. This tool will help clinicians to review the circumstances and care leading up to and surrounding each stillbirth and neonatal deaths in a systematic way, identify any sub-optimal care factors and then based on responses to the questions in the data-set, provide a grading of care, creation of a local action plan and allow organisations to identify themes across multiple cases to facilitate organisational change to reduce risk.
2. Training in use of the tool and on-going IT support for users.
3. Annual analysis of UK and country-specific wide data and reporting on themes and trends.
The contract for the programme will run for 3 years, with opportunities for the duration of the contract to be re-assessed at the end of each year subject to the availability of funding and an assessment by the Independent Advisory Group on the quality of delivery of the programme. There is also a potential to extend for up to a further 2 years.
National and regional perinatal confidential enquiries into unexplained stillbirths have found sub-optimal care factors contributed to babies' deaths in 3 quarters of cases. Around half of deaths might have been avoided with better care. Enquiries show wide variation of ways in which maternity units review and learn from such deaths and therefore opportunities to avoid repeated mistakes are missed. When done well, the review process into why a baby dies can highlight areas where future care can be improved and also provide good information for parents about why their baby died. In fact, if the UK could match mortality rates achieved in Sweden and Norway, the lives of at least 1 000 babies could be saved every year.
The overarching aim of this programme is the development and maintenance of a web-based tool to implement standardised perinatal mortality reviews across NHS maternity and neonatal units in England, Scotland and Wales and provide training and on-going IT support for users.
The programme will comprise:
1. The development and maintenance of a web-based tool to facilitate the introduction of standardised perinatal mortality reviews across NHS maternity and neonatal units in England, Scotland and Wales. This tool will help clinicians to review the circumstances and care leading up to and surrounding each stillbirth and neonatal deaths in a systematic way, identify any sub-optimal care factors and then based on responses to the questions in the data-set, provide a grading of care, creation of a local action plan and allow organisations to identify themes across multiple cases to facilitate organisational change to reduce risk.
2. Training in use of the tool and on-going IT support for users.
3. Annual analysis of UK and country-specific wide data and reporting on themes and trends.
The contract for the programme will run for 3 years, with opportunities for the duration of the contract to be re-assessed at the end of each year subject to the availability of funding and an assessment by the Independent Advisory Group on the quality of delivery of the programme. There is also a potential to extend for up to a further 2 years.
II.1.5)Common procurement vocabulary (CPV)
75122000, 85140000, 85000000
II.1.6)Information about Government Procurement Agreement (GPA)
The contract is covered by the Government Procurement Agreement (GPA): no
II.2)Total final value of contract(s)
II.2.1)Total final value of contract(s)
Value: 837 500,45 GBP
Excluding VAT
Excluding VAT
Section IV: Procedure
IV.1)Type of procedure
IV.1.1)Type of procedure
Open
IV.2)Award criteria
IV.2.1)Award criteria
The most economically advantageous tender in terms of
1. Management and governance. Weighting 10
2. Implementation plan. Weighting 15
3. Participation. Weighting 10
4. Data capture and quality. Weighting 15
5. Data security. Weighting 10
6. Data output. Weighting 10
7. Quality improvement. Weighting 10
8. Public/patient involvement. Weighting 10
9. Price. Weighting 10
1. Management and governance. Weighting 10
2. Implementation plan. Weighting 15
3. Participation. Weighting 10
4. Data capture and quality. Weighting 15
5. Data security. Weighting 10
6. Data output. Weighting 10
7. Quality improvement. Weighting 10
8. Public/patient involvement. Weighting 10
9. Price. Weighting 10
IV.2.2)Information about electronic auction
An electronic auction has been used: no
IV.3)Administrative information
IV.3.1)File reference number attributed by the contracting authority
HQIP NCA 2000
IV.3.2)Previous publication(s) concerning the same contract
Contract notice
Notice number in the OJEU: 2016/S 063-108537 of 31.3.2016
Section V: Award of contract
Contract No: HQIP NCA 2000V.1)Date of contract award decision:
V.2)Information about offers
Number of offers received: 4
Number of offers received by electronic means: 4
Number of offers received by electronic means: 4
V.3)Name and address of economic operator in favour of whom the contract award decision has been taken
The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford
Wellington Square
OX1 2JD Oxford
United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 1865289719
V.4)Information on value of contract
Initial estimated total value of the contract:
Value: 837 500,45 GBP
Excluding VAT
Total final value of the contract:
Value: 837 500,45 GBP
Excluding VAT
Value: 837 500,45 GBP
Excluding VAT
Total final value of the contract:
Value: 837 500,45 GBP
Excluding VAT
V.5)Information about subcontracting
The contract is likely to be sub-contracted: no
Section VI: Complementary information
VI.1)Information about European Union funds
The contract is related to a project and/or programme financed by European Union funds: no
VI.2)Additional information:
VI.3)Procedures for appeal
VI.3.1)Body responsible for appeal procedures
VI.3.2)Lodging of appeals
VI.3.3)Service from which information about the lodging of appeals may be obtained
VI.4)Date of dispatch of this notice:
31.1.2017