Tendering for Social Welfare Law ASA paper

Transcription

1 Tendering for Social Welfare Law ASA paper Adam Griffith July 2011

2

3 Table of contents 1 Introduction The results of the tender... 2 Who was successful? Consortia The size of contracts Were the tenders successful?... 6 The overall numbers... 6 Increasing access... 7 In terms of the stated aims of the tenders The LSC response so far Conclusion Appendix: The tender for Social Welfare Law (SWL) Birmingham Brighton Bristol Cambridge Cardiff Leeds Liverpool London Manchester Newcastle Nottingham Reading Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper i

4

5 1 Introduction 1.1 This paper attempts to analyse the results of the tender for social welfare law (SWL) conducted by the Legal Services Commission (LSC) in 2010 (as modified slightly in the early months of 2011). 1.2 An explanation of the tender process is contained in the appendix. 1.3 We are grateful to the LSC for providing us with significant amounts of information to enable us to produce this paper, particularly in relation to section 6: The LSC response so far. 1.4 We have set out the results of the tender exercise in spreadsheets, which are attached to this paper. The spreadsheets are divided according to the relevant LSC regional office. The information they contain is taken from data published by the LSC in February and March 2011, with the addition of some subsequent changes that have been notified to us by the LSC. We are grateful to Laura Muir at Citizens Advice and Vicki Storer at the Law Centres Federation for their assistance in preparing the spreadsheets. Subject to any transcription errors that may have crept in, we believe that the spreadsheets are reasonably accurate. 1.5 In relation to each procurement area (and access point where appropriate) the spreadsheets set out The number of new matter starts (NMS) which the LSC wished to award in each of the five SWL categories 1 The providers who were awarded NMS in each category and the number of NMS awarded The total number of NMS awarded in each category Where relevant, the difference between the number of NMS awarded and the number which the LSC wished to award. 1.6 The spreadsheets also set out the total number of housing cases that were subsequently awarded to providers with family contracts. 1 This information is taken from the procurement plans published by the LSC in 2010 Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper 1

6 2 The results of the tender 2.1 As far as the three main SWL categories are concerned, the total number of contract awards, and the type of organisation involved, can be summarised as follows: Office Debt Housing Benefits Total NfPs Sols Total NfPs Sols Total NfPs Sols Birmingham Brighton Bristol Cambridge Cardiff Leeds Liverpool London Manchester Newcastle Nottingham Reading TOTAL % of total 100% 77% 23% 100% 65% 35% 100% 79% 21% 2.2 As can be seen, the total number of awards is 364 in debt, 337 in housing and 367 in benefits. Since there were 201 bid areas (procurement areas or access points), this means that the average number of contracts in each category in each bid area is 1.7 or Not for Profit agencies (NfPs) hold the majority of contracts: 79% in welfare benefits, 77% in debt and 65% in housing. There are regional variations however: In the London region solicitors firms have similar numbers of contracts as NfPs in all three categories In the Leeds, Newcastle and Nottingham regions, solicitors firms have similar numbers of contracts as NfPs in housing. 2.4 The position in relation to community care and employment contracts can be summarised as follows Community Care Employment Total contracts Solicitor contracts 99 (67%) 118 (57%) NfP contracts 48 (33%) 90 (43%) 2.5 Since these contracts were tendered over 125 procurement areas, the average number of contracts per area is 1.2 in community care and 1.7 in employment. However, as we shall see, there were significant numbers of areas where no contracts were awarded in these categories. 2 Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper

7 Who was successful? 2.6 When the LSC first announced their proposals to tender for SWL (and other) contracts, concerns were expressed that the tender process might be dominated by a small number of large (regional or national) providers, to the detriment of local providers. These concerns were largely allayed by the selection criteria eventually adopted by the LSC, with their emphasis on experience in providing services with staff that were already in place. 2.7 The tenders did however invite bids in a number of areas where services had not previously been provided, and required joined bids in debt, housing and welfare benefits. Both these aspects of the tenders provided opportunities for providers that were able to operate on a regional or national basis. 2.8 Altogether, it appears that 455 organisations received contracts in one or more categories of social welfare law in one or more bid areas. Of these, 272 appear to be NfPs and 183 appear to be solicitors firms. 2.9 Of the NfPs, it appears that least 167 CABx and 44 Law Centres received contracts in SWL Seven providers received contracts in five or more procurement areas Shelter England have 43 contracts in 32 procurement areas. Of these contracts, 28 are just in housing, while 15 are in housing and one or more of community care, debt and welfare benefits The National Youth Advocacy Service has contracts in nine procurement areas. All the contracts are in community care only Shelter Cymru have contracts in all the 21 access points in the eight procurement areas in Wales. All these contracts are in housing only The Combined Hospitals Citizens Advice Bureaux have contracts in eight procurement areas in the North West (the Manchester and Liverpool areas), all of which are in community care Duncan Lewis Solicitors have contracts in eight procurement areas, seven of which are in the London region. Two of their contracts are for all five SWL categories. Six are in community care and/or employment only Blavo and Company Solicitors have contracts in six procurement areas, four of which are in London. Three of the contracts are for all five categories, two are for four categories and one is for two categories of law Bolton and District CAB have contracts in five procurement areas, all of which are in the North West (Manchester) region. Two of these contracts are in all five categories. The other three are in employment only. 2 Not all CABx and Law Centres have CAB or Law Centre in the name of the organisation. These numbers may therefore be underestimates. Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper 3

8 3 Consortia 3.1 The LSC allowed consortia bids to be made by groups of providers that wished to bid together to provide debt, housing and welfare benefit services. The extent of successful consortia bidding is indicated by the following table. Regional Office Number of bid areas in debt, housing and welfare benefits Number of bid areas containing consortia only in these categories Number of bid areas containing consortia and single bids in these categories Total number of bid areas containing consortia Birmingham Brighton Bristol Cambridge Cardiff Leeds Liverpool London Manchester Newcastle Nottingham Reading Total Percentage 100% 48% 19% 67% 3.2 The data published by the LSC states whether a successful bidder is part of a consortium, but does not state who the members of each consortium are. In most cases the answer is obvious from the data but there are some areas where there may be more than one consortium. All we can say for definite is that there are consortia in 132 areas, and that there are therefore at least 132 consortia. 3.3 Of the 132 areas with consortia, 86 areas contained consortia whose members are all NfPs, and 46 areas contain consortia involving NfPs and solicitors firms. We could not find any areas containing consortia involving solicitors firms only. 3.4 Consortia raise issues of contract management that are still under consideration within the LSC, and have yet to be discussed with the representative bodies. Some of these issues may become particularly acute if the government proceeds with its proposals to remove certain categories or sub-categories of SWL from the scope of legal aid, and if contract holders wish to withdraw from providing legal aid services in one or more categories before the end of their present contracts. 3 The total number of bid areas in this context is 197, not 201, as there were no successful bids in four areas. 4 Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper

9 4 The size of contracts 4.1 The tender process involved the LSC specifying for each bid area the maximum and minimum number of NMS that could be bid for in each category of law. Concerns were expressed that the process could lead to a few large contracts in some areas, if winning bidders were able to bid for all the NMS available. Concerns were also expressed however as to the small size of contracts that might result in some areas, due to the small number of NMS being available (particularly in community care and employment where the number available was often only 100 NMS), or to the small number that might be allocated to some bidders as a result of the selection process. 4.2 In an attempt to assess the size of contracts, we categorised contract awards in relation to the number of full time equivalent (FTE) staff that might be needed to fulfil them. The LSC had specified the maximum number of cases that one FTE staff member could be expected to handle in a year: 200 in community care, 250 in housing and 300 in debt, employment and welfare benefits. We decided therefore to divide contract awards into three sizes initially: Large more than 300 NMS nominally requiring more than one FTE member of staff Medium NMS nominally requiring % of a FTE member of staff Small fewer than 150 NMS nominally requiring less than half a FTE member of staff. 4.3 For the three main categories, of debt, housing and welfare benefits, the results of this categorisation were as follows: Regional office Debt Housing Benefits Large Medium Small Large Medium Small Large Medium Small Birmingham Brighton Bristol Cambridge Cardiff Leeds Liverpool London Manchester Newcastle Nottingham Reading Total % per category 34% 35% 31% 26% 37% 37% 28% 37% 37% Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper 5

10 4.4 The distribution of large, medium and small contacts (as defined) varies between the three different categories and between the 12 regions. Overall, however: 66% of debt contracts nominally involve no more than one FTE worker 74% of housing contracts nominally involve no more than one FTE worker 72% of benefits contracts nominally involve no more than one FTE worker 4.5 A high proportion of these contracts may therefore be at risk if one worker left and could not be replaced. Since the three categories have to be provided together, the loss of one worker could have knock-on effects on the supply of services in the other categories as well. 4.6 In community care and employment the vast majority of contracts were for fewer than 150 NMS. We therefore subdivided the small category into three subcategories. The overall results were then as follows: Community Care Employment Total contracts Large (301+ NMS) 0 (0%) 4 (2%) Medium ( NMS) 11 (7%) 16 (8%) Small ( NMS) 51 (35%) 44 (21%) Small (50-99 NMS) 40 (27%) 68 (33%) Small (20-49 NMS) 45 (31%) 76 (37%) 4.7 As can be seen, 93% of community care contracts and 90% of employment contracts nominally involve no more than half a FTE worker. A high proportion of these contracts may be vulnerable if one worker leaves, or ceases to do legal aid work. 5 Were the tenders successful? 5.1 It is easy to state the question. The problem is how to define success. We considered three possible aspects of success in terms of: The overall numbers of NMS made available Whether the tenders led to an increase in access Whether the tenders achieved their stated aims. The overall numbers 5.2 The total number of NMS made available in the tender process was significantly lower than the number originally proposed in the 2009 procurement plans In the original 2009 procurement plans The number of NMS proposed for debt, housing and welfare benefits together was 358,270 as compared to a total of 296,850 for the three categories advertised separately in 2010 The number of NMS proposed for community care was 14,877 as compared to 14,800 advertised in 2010 The number of NMS proposed for employment was 23,820 as compared to 18,470 advertised in See the appendix 6 Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper

11 5.4 These figures should also be compared to the number of NMS that were used. 5.5 According to the LSC, the total number of NMS used in , and the totals advertised and allocated in the tender were as follows: Category NMS used 2009/10 NMS advertised in 2010 NMS awarded in 2010 Debt 104, , ,956 Housing 104,491 86,390 86,739 Welfare benefits 111, , ,084 Community 8,459 14,800 11,103 Care Employment 14,779 18,470 16, These figures therefore suggest that The tender process was successful in reducing the number of NMS from the numbers proposed in 2009 In debt and welfare benefits the numbers of NMS allocated were slightly below those used in In housing the number of NMS allocated was significantly below the number used in a reduction of 17% In community care, the number of NMS advertised was very similar to the number proposed in the 2009 procurement plans, the tender process achieved an allocation that was 75% of those advertised, but it was still significantly (31%) more than the number used in 2009/10 In employment, the number of NMS advertised was significantly (22%) below the number proposed in 2009, the tender process achieved an allocation that was 89% of those advertised, but it was still significantly (12%) more than the number used in 2009/10. Increasing access 5.7 According to the LSC: There are 11 areas where contracted advice is now available in debt, housing and welfare benefits where it was not previously available in any of the three categories There are 62 areas where advice in all three categories is now available, where it was previously not available in one or two of these categories In community care, the volume of NMS awarded represents a 31% increase on that undertaken in 2009/10 (see above) and the number of offices at which clients can obtain such advice increased from 101 to 147 In employment, the volume of NMS awarded represents a 12% increase on that undertaken in 2009/10 (see above) and the number of offices at which clients can obtain such advice increased from 186 to 208. In terms of the stated aims of the tenders 5.8 In relation to debt, housing and welfare benefits we devised a five-fold classification, as follows A = NMS awarded in all three categories at 100% (or more) of the total advertised Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper 7

12 B= NMS awarded in all three categories at 75% (or more) of the total advertised C = NMS awarded in one or more categories at 50-74% of the total advertised (with the others at 75% or more) D = NMS awarded in one or more categories at less than 50% of the total advertised (with the others at 50% or more) E = no NMS awarded. 5.9 On this basis the results were as follows: Regional A B C D E Total Office Birmingham Brighton Bristol Cambridge Cardiff Leeds Liverpool London Manchester Newcastle Nottingham Reading TOTAL % of total 64% 21% 8% 5% 2% 100% 5.10 On these terms, the tender was completely successful in the 129 areas that achieved an allocation of 100% or more of the NMS advertised in the three main categories In the 42 areas where one or more allocation fell short by no more than 25%, the tender could be described as largely successful The tender was less successful in the remaining 30 areas 16 areas where one or more of the categories received an allocation of 50-74% of the NMS advertised 10 areas where one or more of the categories received an allocation that was less than 50% of the NMS allocated Four areas where no allocation was made In relation to community care and employment, we used a simpler classification system: A = NMS awarded representing 100% (or more) of the NMS advertised B = NMS awarded representing 75-99% of the NMS advertised C = NMS awarded representing 50-74% of the NMS advertised D = NMS awarded representing 1-49% of the NMS advertised E = no NMS awarded 5 Herefordshire, North Lincolnshire, Southampton and Warwickshire South 8 Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper

13 5.14 For community care, the results were as follows: Office A B C D E Total Birmingham Brighton Bristol Cambridge Cardiff Leeds Liverpool London Manchester Newcastle Nottingham Reading TOTAL % of total 64% 3% 6% 6% 21% 100% 5.15 The results here tended to polarise at the two extremes In 80 areas (64%) the tender was completely successful In 19 areas (15%) it was partially successful In 26 areas (21%) it was completely unsuccessful There are also clear regional differences, the tender being more successful in the Brighton, Bristol, Liverpool, London, Manchester, Newcastle and Reading areas, and noticeably less successful in the Birmingham and Nottingham areas, with the others in between For employment, the results were: Regional A B C D E Total Office Birmingham Brighton Bristol Cambridge Cardiff Leeds Liverpool London Manchester Newcastle Nottingham Reading TOTAL % of total 75% 6% 7% 4% 7% 100% Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper 9

14 5.18 This tender was clearly more successful than the tender for community care, with 75% of areas achieving an allocation of 100% or more, 17% achieving a partial success and only 9 areas (7% of the total) receiving no award. Again there are regional variations, though they are less marked than with community care. 6 The LSC response so far 6.1 We are grateful to the LSC for explaining to us the approach that they have taken so far, which can be summarised as follows. 6.2 In relation to the three main SWL categories, the LSC considers that the tender has largely been successful. In the great majority of areas all or most of the work has been awarded, and the LSC considers that any under-allocation can be managed through normal contract management processes. 6 There is a small number of areas where the tender has failed to secure sufficient access to advice, and the LSC considers those areas where 50% or less of the advertised work has been let as being at risk of providing insufficient access. The LSC has therefore concentrated on those areas. 6.3 In considering what action to take, the LSC has considered a number of factors including Whether provider and/or NMS volumes have in fact reduced from 2009/10 levels Whether any successful providers in the area are capable of delivering additional NMS What additional provision is available in the surrounding procurement areas or access points. 6.4 The LSC then decided on different courses of action depending on these factors, as follows Monitor through contract management where no or limited gaps in access were identified Invite Expressions of Interest where access gaps were identified and there was previous provision in the area Re-tender where access gaps were identified and there was no previous provision in the area Increase the NMS of remaining providers to the volumes tendered for where access gaps were identified following verification and a late withdrawal of contract offers. 6.5 Since the conclusion of the original tender the LSC has pursued these courses of action in relation to the areas where 50% or less of the NMS advertised in any of the three main categories has not been let. This has already led to new or increased awards of NMS in five areas, 7 and recent re-tender exercises in seven areas, 8 the results of which are yet to be announced. There are eight areas where the LSC has decided for the moment to monitor the situation through contract management. 9 6 See paras of the Standard Civil Contract Specification 7 Reading, West Berkshire & Wokingham; North Northumberland; East Northamptonshire & Wellingborough; Suffolk; Redbridge 8 North Lincolnshire; Oxfordshire; Warwickshire South; City of Westminster; Herefordshire; Rest of Cambridgeshire ; Southampton 9 Keighley; Cambridge; South Gloucestershire and North Somerset; South Holland; South Kesteven; Ashfield & Mansfield; Scarborough & Ryedale; Staffordshire West 10 Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper

15 6.6 In relation to community care and employment the LSC has taken a different approach. It assumes that a number of providers will be delivering work across a number of procurement areas and has therefore considered access to advice based on the regions of England and Wales, rather than concentrating on the procurement areas where these categories were tendered for. It concluded as follows: 6.7 In community care there are only two regions (Yorkshire and Humberside, based on its Leeds office and the East Midlands, based on its Nottingham office) where the number of NMS allocated were less than the number used in 2009/10. In Yorkshire and Humberside the number of NMS was 12.7% lower than the number previously used and the LSC plans to deal with this through normal contract management procedures. In the East Midlands the reduction was much greater (85%) but the LSC considers that the historical figures for this area were driven by provider behaviour and are not necessarily indicative of client need, and that normal contract management procedures will again be sufficient. 6.8 The LSC has however increased NMS allocations in community care in two procurement areas In employment, there are three regions where the number of NMS allocated is below the number used in 2009/10, with reductions of 15% in the West Midlands region (based on its Birmingham office), 12.4 % in the South East (based on its Brighton office) and 2.6% in the North West (based on its Manchester office). Given the size of these reductions, the LSC plans to deal with the situation through normal contract management procedures The LSC has however increased NMS allocations in employment in two procurement areas Conclusion 7.1 Given the different nature, and results, of the tenders, we need to consider them separately. 7.2 In debt, housing and welfare benefits we presently have a situation where 129 of the tenders were completely successful, in terms of the allocation of the NMS advertised 42 of the tenders were largely successful, with one or more allocation falling short by no more than 25% 16 of the tenders were partially successful, with one or more categories receiving an allocation of 50-74% of the NMS advertised 10 areas saw an allocation that was less than 50% of the NMS advertised in one or more categories Four areas received no allocation at all. 10 In Newham and Rotherham the LSC increased NMS awards in community care to providers whose bids were not satisfied in the original tender, following the withdrawal or failure to pass verification of other bids. 11 In Birmingham and in Bridgend, Cardiff and the Vale, the LSC increased NMS awards in employment to providers whose bids were not satisfied in the original tender, following the withdrawal or failure to pass verification of other bids. Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper 11

16 7.3 The LSC has conducted re-tender exercises in the four areas that received no allocation 12 and in three of the areas that saw an allocation of less than 50% in one or more categories The LSC is currently proposing that normal contract management processes will be sufficient and appropriate to deal with Eight areas where there was an allocation that was 50% or less of the NMS advertised in one or more categories (including 3 areas 14 where the allocation in question was exactly 50%) All the remaining areas where the allocation was more than 50% in all three categories. 7.5 We consider that the LSC was right to prioritise those areas that received an allocation of 50% or less in any of the three categories. We are concerned however about the LSC s reliance on contract management processes in eight of these areas, together with all the areas that received an allocation or more than 50% but less than 100% in one or more categories. There is a risk that many of these areas will end up with fewer NMS than the LSC considered that they needed. 7.6 It seems to us that what is needed is a clear policy position taken by the LSC that will encourage suppliers to provide as full a service as possible. 7.7 Where the NMS currently allocated are less than those advertised in the tender, the LSC should provide a commitment that additional NMS will be made available on request in each bid area, up to the maximum number advertised in the tender. This should include: A commitment that the LSC will not consider the NMS usage of other providers in a bid area before granting additional NMS to providers who request them. A commitment that the LSC will not consider the situation in neighbouring bid areas before granting additional NMS. 7.8 In addition, the LSC should confirm that it will consider applications for additional NMS where this would increase the allocation beyond the number of NMS advertised in the tender, particularly in those areas where the number of NMS advertised was lower that the number actually used in 2009/10. Of particular concern in this context is the number of housing NMS available in London. 7.9 In relation to community care and employment, the situation is more complicated due to the lower success rate of the tenders, especially in community care While the LSC s reliance on contract management processes is understandable, we are concerned about the number of areas where the tender was partially or totally unsuccessful It is interesting that the LSC has adopted a regional approach in considering the results of these tenders. This may suggest, with the benefit of hindsight, that tendering for small numbers of NMS in 125 procurement areas was not the best way to proceed, and that it might have been better to allow bids on a regional basis as well as on a procurement area basis. It may be, in any event, that the LSC should consider re-tender exercises on a regional basis, especially in those regions that fared particularly badly in the original tender process in these two categories. 12 Herefordshire, North Lincolnshire, Southampton and Warwickshire South 13 Oxfordshire, City of Westminster and the Rest of Cambridgeshire 14 Ashfield and Mansfield; Scarborough and Ryedale; Staffordshire West 12 Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper

17 7.12 Hanging over all of this, of course, are the government s proposals for reform of legal aid, including cuts in fees and the removal of certain categories and sub categories of law from scope. Some providers may vote with their feet and the LSC s contract management processes may come under increasing strain. There is a danger that efforts to shore up the existing supplier base may take precedence over efforts to improve the results of the tenders. It may be that new processes have to be devised, with the agreement of the representative bodies, to cope with the situation as it evolves. The future is not bright, but we can still learn lessons from the recent past. We hope that this paper will serve to illuminate both the tender process recently carried out and some of the issues that may arise in the near future. Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper 13

18 8 Appendix: The tender for Social Welfare Law (SWL) 8.1 The LSC defines SWL as consisting of five categories of law: debt, community care, employment, housing, and welfare benefits. Following a consultation on its proposals it decided to conduct a competitive tender process in 2010, in which providers could bid to provide specified numbers of cases, or new matter starts (NMS), in specified bid areas. England and Wales was divided into 134 procurement areas. Eight of these were covered by Community Legal Advice Services (formerly known as Community Legal Advice Centres (CLACs) or Networks (CLANs)) and were excluded from the process. One such service (in Portsmouth) was coming to an end and was made subject o a separate tender process. That left 125 procurement areas that were to be subject to the tender process. In relation to the three main categories debt, housing and welfare benefits the LSC decided that some procurement areas were too large and should be sub-divided into access points and bid for separately. The result of this process was that there were in fact 201 separate tenders for the three main categories of law, while community care and employment were to be tendered for on the basis of the 125 procurement areas. 8.2 There were therefore essentially three tenders carried out within the same process Tenders for debt, housing and welfare benefits (which had to be bid for together, either by single providers or by consortia) in 201 areas that were either procurement areas that were not subdivided or were access points within larger procurement areas Tenders for community care in each of the 125 procurement areas Tenders for employment in each of the 125 procurement areas. 8.3 We use the term bid area to refer to the area for which bids were invited in this process. 8.4 In each bid area, the LSC specified the number of cases, or NMS, that were available. Providers could bid for some or all of the NMS advertised. Where the number of NMS bid for exceeded the number advertised, the LSC applied selection criteria to decide who would be successful, and to what extent The number of NMS available in each bid area was set out in procurement plans. In the first version of these plans, issued in 2009, the LSC proposed that NMS should be allocated to each bid area to accord with previous usage, or with the number suggested by the LSC s indicative spend model, if greater, subject to certain minimum numbers in each category. Under this proposal the total number of NMS available would have increased significantly, and no bid areas would have been allocated fewer NMS in any category than were already being used by existing providers. As a result of financial constraints however the LSC were unable to keep to this proposal. Revised procurement plans were published in 2010 that proposed reduced numbers of NMS in several bid areas, which meant in many cases a reduction from the number that were currently being used. The reduction was most noticeable in relation to housing cases in the London region For a summary, see Adam Griffith 2010 SWL bid round: selection and allocation, Legal Action, May 2010, p8, available at 16 For details, see the ASA report Updated procurement plans in social welfare law, available at For a summary, see Griffith, A social welfare law bid round: what is on offer?, Legal Action, April 2010, p6, available at 14 Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper

19 8.6 Housing cases could also be bid for under a separate process, where providers bid for family cases, and were able to bid for housing cases in addition to those family cases, if they were successful. This process however was part of the main tender for family law that was held to be unlawful by the High Court. The LSC subsequently extended the existing family contracts, and certain providers were allocated specific numbers of housing cases in addition to their family cases The LSC originally published details of successful bidders in the SWL tender in January Revised details were published in March. Since the original award of contracts the LSC has continued with activity designed to improve the outcomes of the tenders, primarily by (a) increasing the numbers of NMS issued to successful bidders, whose previous bids had left NMS unallocated in the relevant bid area and (b) procuring further bids by inviting expressions of interest and/or by re-tendering for NMS in specific categories in specific bid areas. 8.8 The situation therefore remains fluid. The LSC has the power to increase NMS allocations to providers under what it refers to as normal contract management processes, as set out in its Standard Contract with providers 18, and we understand that they are continuing to do this. 17 The details of the NMS allocated in family and housing as at February 2011 are available on the LSC website at It should be noted that the number of housing cases was intended to reflect providers recent usage, and was not subject to a cap, as it had been in the family tender that was subsequently ruled unlawful by the High Court. 18 See paras of the Standard Civil Contract Specification. Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper 15

20 Birmingham CAB Y Shelter 1800 Y Birmingham Law Centre N Community Law Partnership N McGrath & Co N NYAS 246 Public Law Sols 94 Mayflower LLP 100 Stoke CAB N Keoghs etc 100 Wolverhampton CAB N Wolverhampton CAB N Wolverhampton CAB N NYAS 70 Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper 16 BIRMINGHAM A/B APs F&H Debt Hsg Bens CC Emp Consortia Birmingham A Total Outcome % where short 95% City of Stoke on Trent A Total Outcome City of Wolverhampton A

21 Coventry Law Centre Y Coventry CAB Y Shelter 75 Y Dudley CAB Y Talbots Legal Advice Centre N Wolverhampton CAB 60 Worcestershire AP Wyre Forest CAB 400 Y Worcester CAB Y Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper 17 Total Outcome % where short 99% 86% 50% Short on employment. Coventry A Total Outcome Dudley B Total Outcome % where short 0% 60% Short on employment. No CC. Herefordshire & Worcestershire B

22 Shelter 150 Y Sandwell CAB Y Wolverhampton CAB 37 Silks 103 Shropshire AP A4U N Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper 18 Total Outcome Herefordshire AP Total Outcome % where short 0% 0% 0% Total Herefordshire & Worcestershire Outcome % where short 0% 0% No CC or emp Re-tender for Herefordshire by Sandwell B Total Outcome % where short 0% No CC Shropshire etc B

23 CAB Shropshire Y TJ Legal Services Limited 75 Y Total Outcome % where short 76% 88% 88% Telford & Wrekin AP A4U N CAB Shropshire N Total Outcome % where short 76% 87% Chelmsley CAB Y Shirley CAB Y Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper 19 Mortimers Sols 35 Clarkes Sols 32 Clarkes Sols 32 A4U 50 Total Shropshire Outcome % where short 50% 99% Short on CC. Solihull B Total Outcome % where short 95% 0%

24 East Staffs AP East Staffordshire CAB N South East Staffordshire CAB N Total Outcome % where short 92% West Staffs AP Stafford & Stone CAB Y The Chase CAB 325 Y Total Outcome % where short 87% 50% Walsall CAB N Wolverhampton CAB 65 CMHT 35 Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper 20 No CC Staffordshire B Total Staffordshire Outcome % where short 0% Benefits short in West Staffs. No CC. Walsall A Total Outcome % where short 72% 0%

25 Warwickshire North AP Bedworth CAB N Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper 21 Short in housing. No CC Warwickshire B Warwickshire South AP Total Outcome % where short 0% 0% 0% Warks Emp Rights 200 Total Warwickshire Outcome % where short 0% Re-tender for Warks South by No CC

26 Brighton Housing Trust Y Brighton CAB Y Bosely & Co 30 East: Hastings & Rother Brighton Housing Trust 530 Y Citizens Advice Y Hastings Advice 510 Y West: Eastbourne etc Brighton Housing Trust Y Eastbourne CAB 450 Y Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper 22 BRIGHTON A/B APs F&H Debt Hsg Bens CC Emp Consortia City of Brighton & Hove A Total Outcome % where short 30% Short in emp East Sussex B NYAS 240 Eastbourne CAB 30 Holden & Co 75 Total East Sussex Outcome

27 Canterbury CAB Y Canterbury HAC 250 Y Shepway CAB Y Thanet CAB Y Shelter N Fosters Law Fairweather & Co 50 East: Ashford & Maidstone Maidstone CAB N Shelter N Total Outcome % where short 82% 98% West: Sevenoaks etc Tunbridge Wells CAB N Total Outcome % where short 79% Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper 23 Kent Coast B Total Outcome Mid and South West Kent B Gill Turner & Tucker 173 Tunbridge Wells CAB 47 Total Mid & South West Kent

28 Neves Scott N Medway CAB Y Swale CAB Y Shelter N Blavo & Co N Surrey Law Centre N Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper 24 Outcome % where short 0% No CC North Kent & Medway B Total Outcome % where short 83% 24% 38% Short in CC and employment. Surrey B Total Outcome % where short 84% 99%

29 Bournemouth & Poole A Shelter N Total Bournemouth & Poole Outcome % where short 0% City of Bristol etc A Bristol Avon & Bristol Community Law Centre Y South West Law Y North Bristol Advice Centre Y Bristol Debt Advice Centre 1104 Y South Bristol Advice Service Y St Pauls Advice Centre 413 Y Total Outcome S Glos & N Somerset North Somerset CAB Y South Gloucestershire CAB 175 Y Total Outcome % where short 39% Wards 30 Bobbetts Mackan 43 Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper 25 BRISTOL A/B APs F&H Debt Hsg Bens CC Emp Consortia No employment

30 City of Plymouth A Plymouth CAB Y Shelter 850 Y Total City of Plymouth Outcome % where short 0% 0% Cornwall & Isles of Scilly A East Cornwall CAB Cornwall Y Shelter 150 Y West Cornwall CAB Cornwall Y Shelter 400 Y Conroys Follet Stock 50 Cornish Venning Chellows 50 Total Cornwall & Isles of Scilly Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper 26 Total City of Bristol Outcome % where short 74% Short on debt in S Glos & N Somerset Short on employment No CC or employment

31 Outcome Devon & Torbay A East Devon etc Bideford & District CAB N Exeter Exeter CAB Y Shelter 180 Y South Hams etc South Hams CAB Y Torbay CAB 645 Y Shelter 410 Y Follet Stock 20 WBW Solicitors WBW Solicitors Conroys 42 Brewer Harding & Rowe 30 Hooper & Wollen 95 Total Devon & Torbay Outcome Dorset B East Dorset Shelter Y Christchurch CAB Y North Dorset CAB 240 Y Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper 27 West Dorset

32 Shelter Y Dorchester & District CAB Y Total Outcome % where short 67% Total Dorset Outcome Gloucestershire A East Glos Cheltenham & District CAB Y Shelter 220 Y West Glos Gloucester Law Centre Y Shelter 439 Y Gloucester & District CAB Total Gloucestershire Outcome Somerset A BANES & Mendip Will Rolt Solicitors Y Bath & District CAB Y Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper 28 Shelter 100 Short on benefits in West Dorset National Youth Advocacy Service 100

33 Mendip CAB 290 Y Total Sedgemoor etc Taunton & District CAB Y Sedgemoor CAB Y South Somerset CAB Y Shelter N Gareth Webb 55 Y Total Outcome % where short 91% Total Somerset Outcome % where short 0% Wiltshire B Rest of Wiltshire North Wilts CAB N Shearer & Co N Total Outcome % where short 93% Swindon Shearer & Co N Wiltshire Law Centre N Total Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper 29 Somerset Community Care Matters 100 No employment

34 Pierce Glynn 40 Pinniger Finch & Co 30 Sylvester Mackett 30 Total Wiltshire Outcome % where short 40% Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper 30 Outcome % where short 94% Short on CC

35 Bedfordshire B Bedford etc Luton Law Centre 61 Y Bedford CAB Y Noble Solicitors N Luton Rights - TUC Centre 63 Y Total Outcome % where short 83% 97% Luton Luton Law Centre Y Luton CAB Y Noble Solicitors N Luton Rights - TUC Centre Y Total Outcome Luton Law Centre Luton Rights - TUC Centre 110 Total Bedfordshire Outcome % where short 25% Cambridgeshire B Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper 31 CAMBRIDGE A/B APs F&H Debt Hsg Bens CC Emp Consortia Short on CC

36 Cambridge Cambridge CAB N Outcome 0 0 % where short 38% Peterborough Peterborough CAB N Rest of Cambridgeshire Peters and Co Solicitors N Outcome % where short 18% 65% 77% Archer & Archer 47 Ginn & Co 343 National Youth Advocacy Service 100 Total Cambridgeshire Outcome East Essex B Saxon CAB N Saxon CAB N Saxon CAB 157 Y Saxon CAB Y Saxon CAB Y Colchester CAB Y CAB - Tendring Y Shelter 303 Y Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper 32 Short on benefits in Cambridge. Short on debt, housing and benefits in Rest of Cambs. Re-tender for Rest of Cambs deadline

37 Fisher Jones Greenwood Y Southend on Sea CAB Y Southend on Sea CAB 75 Y Southend on Sea CAB 75 Y Pleass Thompson & Co 30 Paul Robinson & Co 60 Blackhouse Solicitors 190 Total East Essex Outcome Norfolk B Great Yarmouth Yare Valley & District CAB Y Shelter 130 Y King's Lynn & West Norfolk Norwich & West Norfolk CAB Y Shelter 130 Y Norwich Norwich & West Norfolk CAB Y Shelter 1000 Y Rest of Norfolk Norwich & West Norfolk CAB Y Yare Valley & District CAB Y Shelter 250 Y Rudlings & Wakelam 30 IEI Solicitors 112 Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper 33

38 Yare Valley & District CAB 30 Norton Peskett 30 Total Norfolk Outcome % where short 0% 75% North Hertfordshire B Rest of Hertfordshire Shelter N Stevenage Stevenage CAB N Total North Hertfordshire Outcome % where short 0% 85% South Hertfordshire B Dacorum etc Shelter 160 Y Dacorum District CAB Y St Albans etc Shelter 160 Y Dacorum District CAB y Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper 34 No CC No CC

39 Blavo & Co Solicitors Addison Oliver Moore Solicitors Arkrights 30 Total South Hertfordshire Outcome Suffolk B North East Suffolk CAB Y Ipswich & District CAB Y Financial Inclusion & Advice Service Y Total Suffolk Outcome % where short 47% 92% 0% West Essex A Brentwood & Basildon Saxon CAB N Addison Oliver Moore Solicitors N Total Outcome Chelmsford Saxon CAB 120 Y Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper 35 Short in housing. No CC. Braintree etc Saxon CAB

40 Chelmsford CAB Y Harlow & Epping Forest Harlow Welfare Rights & Advice N Thurrock Thurrock CAB N Outcome % where short 94% Blackhouse Solicitors 187 MWP Solicitors 57 National Youth Advocacy Service 50 Fisher Jones Greenwood 50 Total West Essex Outcome Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper

41 CARDIFF A/B APs F&H Debt Hsg Bens CC Emp Consortia Bridgend, Cardiff & The Vale A Bridgend Shelter Cymru 100 Y Vale of Glamorgan CAB Y Cardiff Shelter Cymru 575 Y Cardiff CAB Y Riverside Advice Y Cardiff Law Centre Y Total The Vale of Glamorgan Shelter Cymru 250 Y Vale of Glamorgan CAB Y Passmores 50 Sinclairs 100 Total Bridgend, Cardiff & The Vale Outcomes % where short 50% Central Wales B Ceredigion Shelter Cymru 100 Y Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper 37 Short on employment

42 Cardigan and District CAB Y Powys Powys CAB Y Shelter Cymru 200 Y Total Central Wales Outcome % where short 0% 0% Neath, Port Talbot & Swansea A Neath, Port Talbot Neath CAB 284 Y Shelter Cymru 75 Y Shelter Cymru 75 Y Jestyn Jeffrys A R Harris & Partners 130 Y Port Talbot CAB 200 y Neath Port Talbot Welfare Rights Unit 216 Y Total Ty Arian Ltd Salter Kelly Solicitors 85 Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper 38 No CC or employment Swansea Swansea CAB Y Shelter Cymru 260 Y Ty Arian Ltd N Total Outcome % where short 90%

43 Total Neath, Port Talbot & Swansea Outcome North East Wales B Denbighshire Denbighshire CAB Y Shelter Cymru 250 Y Rhyl & District Benefit Advice Shop 270 Y Flintshire Flintshire CAB Y Shelter Cymru 250 Y Wrexham Wrexham & District CAB Y Shelter Cymru 320 Y Allington Hughes Solicitors N Total Outcome % where short 87% National Youth Advocacy Service 100 Gamlins 52 Total North East Wales Outcome North West Wales B Conwy J H Hughes & Co Y Tendering for Social Welfare Law: ASA paper 39