Decision details

1.     To agree that Appendix A and B is not for publication on the basis that they contain information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information) as set out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

2.     To approve the procurement strategy for a new contract for the provision of a contact centre applications system. The procurement will be through a call off from RM6285 under a direct award process.

3.     To note that the contract will be for an initial period of 5 years commencing on 2 March 2026 with the option to extend for a period of up to 3 further years. Indicative costs are outlined in the exempt Appendix A – Tables 1 and 2, and Appendix B – Tables 1 and 2.

1.     The LBHF intends to procure a modern, cloud-based contact centre platform that is secure, flexible, and capable of scaling to meet future service demands. This solution will play a key role in enhancing the Council’s digital service delivery, ensuring seamless integration with existing systems, and maintaining uninterrupted support for residents beyond the current contract’s end in March 2026. The procurement will also consider user experience, accessibility, and alignment with LBHF’s broader digital and customer service transformation objective.

2.     The council is procuring a unified, AI-powered digital engagement platform that supports LBHF’s strategic goals for digital transformation, operational efficiency, and enhanced resident experience.

3.     The platform will need to consolidate contact centre operations, case management, process automation, and citizen self-service into a single, integrated solution. The platform must support omnichannel communication, intelligent automation, and seamless integration with existing systems to future-proof the council’s digital infrastructure.

Option 1: Decommission the service or requirement – Not recommended.

1.     Decommissioning the contact centre platform is not recommended due to the       

critical role they play in enabling responsive and inclusive services to residents. This platform manages high volumes of enquiries efficiently and supports timely responses to residents across various council services.

Risks include:

·       Reduced accessibility for vulnerable residents with urgent or complex needs, including those who are digitally excluded.

·       Increased pressure on frontline teams due to the absence of automated communication tools.

·       Disruption to service continuity, particularly in departments reliant on integrated contact centre functions.

·       Decline in resident satisfaction, due to slower response times and reduced service quality.

2.     Retaining and enhancing this service aligns with the council’s strategic objectives to foster equity and ensure inclusive access to council services without disruption.

Option 2: Deliver the supplies, services, and/or works in-house (make/buy decision) – Not recommended.

3.     Internal delivery of a contact centre platform is not recommended due to several limitations:

·       Insufficient in-house expertise, and resources to support the required scale and complexity.

·       Operational risks, including potential service disruptions, reduced performance, and slower response times.

·       Cost inefficiencies associated with recruitment, training, infrastructure, and ongoing support.

·       Limited scalability and innovation in house compared to external suppliers with a proven track record in delivering these solutions.

·       Misalignment with strategic priorities which favour technology-enabled service delivery through specialist cloud suppliers, allowing internal teams to focus on core service delivery.

Continuing with an experienced external supplier ensures service continuity, quality, continuity, and alignment with strategic goals.

Option 3: Use an existing contract, established by the Council, to provide the supplies, services, and/or works – Not recommended.

4.    This option is not recommended as there is currently no existing Council  

       contract that offers a comparable scope or service provision to meet the specific

       requirements of the contact centre platform.

Option 4: Undertake a fully regulated competitive and compliant procurement process, advertised to the market – Not recommended.

5.     Undertaking a fully regulated competitive tendering exercise would require the

        Council to conduct extensive due diligence to ensure full compliance with  

        procurement regulations. This process is resource intensive and would.

        introduce time and capacity pressures and, ultimately, disrupt contact centre

        services.

6.     In contrast, calling off from an existing compliant framework offers a more 

        efficient route to market. These frameworks have already undergone

        competitive tendering, compliance checks, and quality assurance, thereby

        reducing procurement risks, ensuring value for money, and enabling timely

        supplier appointment. On this basis, a fully regulated competitive process is not

        recommended.

Option 5: Procure using a compliant framework, Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS), or Dynamic Market – Recommended.

7.     This option of using a compliant framework is recommended as it offers a

        compliant, efficient, and strategically aligned route to market without the risk of   

        impact to service continuity.