Connect to work clarification questions and responses

Question

Response

Over the 5 year period, it appears the unit cost works out at approximately £2500 and less than £2000 over the first years. The DWP indicative unit cost over the lifetime of the programme for Suffolk County Council suggested a unit cost of £4000. Please could you confirm the final unit cost

We are unclear from the Grant guidance whether the authority intends to award a singular grant to one contractor for the full funding, or if it intends to award multiple grants to multiple suppliers each with a part share of the full funding. If the latter, please can you confirm the maximum number and financial value of grants which could be awarded and how any potential overlaps between grant holders (e.g., operating geographies) might be mitigated?

Please can you clarify the year-by-year funding available. You have provided a table showing the indicative contract value p/a alongside the minimum contract starts p/a. This, however, calculates as having a different “unit price” per year (e.g., Year 1 value £300,000 and 150 starts = £2,000 per start on average, Year 5 value = £750,000 and 25 starts = £30,000 per start on average). We realise that the grant is not necessarily based on a unit price, but it would nevertheless please be helpful to better understand the authority’s financial assumptions which underpin the table provided.

Please will the Council confirm that subcontractors are allowed?

Please will the Council confirm that subcontractors are allowed?

Please will the Council clarify whether they plan to award this contract to one provider or multiple providers; if it’s the latter, how many awards will be made?

Further to our CQ and your response regarding Social Value stating, “A Social Value response is required”, please will you clarify how and where this response should be submitted, given that there is no Assessment Question on Social Value.

Please include this is section 2.6 Governance with narrative of organisational/programme specific Social Value aims

Please can the commissioner clarify the question weightings? The question titles used within the grant guidance document and the grant application form do not correlate. Please can the commissioner also confirm if there will be a question on social value? This is referenced in the grant guidance but not included in the grant application form.

Scores will be weighted as follows: Understanding of the Suffolk context 20%, Experience of delivering employment support to the cohorts described 20%, Employer engagement 15%, Needs of project participants 15%, Approach to Quality Assurance 5%, Risk management 5%, Timeframe 10%, Social Value (not scored) - please add any organisational or programme specific Social Value narrative to Section 2.6 Governance.

Please can the commissioner provide us with a draft Agreement so that we can review the terms and conditions for this opportunity? If the commissioner is unable to provide the terms and conditions, please can the commissioner confirm that this bid submission is non-binding?

SCC will provide the template that is to be used, however the specific Grant terms and conditions are yet to be finalised, SCC can confirm that any bids are non-binding

Is there a deadline for the close of clarifications to be raised by?

Clarification Questions will be answered until COP 30th July 2025

Thank-you for the clarification responses. With regards to the unit price, you suggest the Unit Cost is an average of £3,525 over the lifetime of the project. Apologies, but please could you clarify how you have reached this average?

The calculation for the average of £3525 has been calculated by DWP as follows £3525 = Total Grant Costs across duration/total participants across duration

Please could you confirm if the wordcount for 2.6 Governance will be increased, considering the additional social value narrative that has now been requested?

Yes, an additional wordcount of 200 may be added to cover Social Value narrative.

Please could the commissioner clarify the potential size of reduction in funding due to underperformance as referenced in section 8. payments and reconciliation of the grant guidance?

Connect to Work delivery is grant funded and will operate under a reimbursement of allowable costs incurred model. Grant recipients will be required to submit claims for allowable costs incurred. Payments will be made quarterly. If providers are not delivering in line with their required delivery profile, SCC will reserve the right to reduce and reallocate funds, these will be proportionate in line with the required Performance Measures - see attached document.

Will Suffolk County Council run a CTW Steering Group / Board, or will they be envisaging the provider will establish this?

Yes, a Programme Board is in place in SCC and Provider(s) will be invited to attend when appropriate

Further to your response to clarification questions regarding social value please could you consider extending the word limit to question 2.6 to enable bidders to effectively respond to the governance question and provide a suitably detailed narrative on our specific social value aims.

Yes, an additional wordcount of 200 may be added to cover Social Value narrative.

In the Grant Guidance document, page 4, there is a warning that funding may not continue beyond the end of Year 3, but providers would need to work with participants on caseload until the end of their programme. What is the latest month in year 3 when the commissioner would advise providers that funding would not continue beyond the end of year 3? And is it expected that referrals would cease at that point?

It is expected that funding will continue until March 2030, however if for any reason the funding is cut short then providers would be informed by the close of Q1 in Year 3 and all new referrals would cease at that point.

You have stated that if providers are not delivering in line with their required delivery profile then “SCC will reserve the right to reduce and reallocate funds” and that this will be “proportionate in line with the required Performance Measures”. We assume, in due course, that SCC will produce detailed draft T&Cs to this end, clearly defining the criteria and trigger points of any reduction/reallocation mechanism and how specifically “proportionality” will be defined and calculated. We assume too that any preferred bidder(s) will have an appropriate opportunity to be consulted on such draft T&Cs prior to a grant award being accepted. Please can you confirm.

SCC will provide T's and C's within the Grant Agreement and we can confirm that there will be an opportunity for provider(s) to review and discuss.

Please will the council allow graphics and diagrams in the written responses, and if so, will these be excluded from the word count?

Graphics and Diagrams are allowed, and these are exempt from the wordcount

Your Grant Guidance document states “This is revenue spend; no part of the funds can be used for capital expenditure.” However, your Allowable Costs documents states “Costs incurred in relation to IT hardware used for the grant. Please include the full capital cost and no depreciation/amortisation for this category. Allowable – Yes”. Please will the council confirm that capital costs for IT hardware for staff (e.g., laptop, mobile phone) are allowed.

Capital costs for IT hardware for staff (e.g., laptop, mobile phone) are allowed.

Section 1.1 it asks for details of lease premises. Can the council please explain which details are required?

Please include the addresses of any venues in Suffolk that would be utilised to deliver Connect to Work, please also include any co-delivery venues

Please can the commissioner confirm whether we can roll over annual contract value funds each year?

Connect to Work delivery is grant funded and will operate under a reimbursement of allowable costs incurred model. Grant recipients will be required to submit claims for allowable costs incurred. Payments will be made quarterly.

Please can the commissioner confirm the date of first payment?

Payments will be made quarterly in arrears; therefore the 1st payment is anticipated to be November 2025

Please can the commissioner confirm, should the programme end in March 2028, whether this will be the end of all provision or the end of referrals i.e. will providers be expected to continue delivery beyond this date for participants currently on programme?

If the programme ends in March 2028, there will be an expectation to complete the 'live' participants, however, there will be no 'new' participants

Please can the commissioner confirm whether starts can be overachieved and rolled over to the following year? (i.e. overachievement in year 1 contributing to achievement of starts targets in year 2).

Overachievement is allowable year on year, however these starts cannot be carried over to the following year.

Re 2.4 (b) Please describe how you support any particular cohorts of economically inactive people into work, explain outcomes and how you tailor provision appropriately/meet needs and address barriers. Could the Council please clarify what they mean by 'any particular cohorts of economically inactive people' and what they would like to see within this 500 word response. Are you looking for e.g. a model Connect to Work journey for one of the priority cohorts, or a case study of how we have supported an individual from a priority cohort previously, or something else?

Please refer to the Priority Groups as outlined in the Grant Guidance - you may provide a delivery model and example of previous delivery or narrative describing your methodology of supporting economically inactive cohorts.

Please can the commissioner confirm if the programme funding does not continue beyond March 2028, what will be the date of last referral?

It is expected that funding will continue until March 2030, however if for any reason the funding is cut short then providers would be informed by the close of Q1 in Year 3 and all new referrals would cease at that point.

You have indicated that the Year 1-3 grant (confirmed funds) is £3,455,096 with 1,895 starts (i.e., an average of £1,823 average per participant). For Year 4-5 (not confirmed funds) the funding is £3,346,560 with 806 starts (i.e., an average of £4,152 average per participant). We know, as you have already clarified, that the grant is not based solely on a unit cost per participant. That said, as a bidder we must base our own due diligence and modelling assumptions on the funding that is assured – we can’t assume that the Year 4 and 5 extensions will by default be triggered. On that basis, the confirmed funds per head are extremely low (when compared to CtW contracts in other authorities) and threaten to undermine service viability. To that end, please can we ask SCC to reconsider either a) confirming a greater level of funding or, if that is not possible, then b) adjusting the volume profile to better align with an overall average cost per participant (e.g. a closer alignment of annual funding and starts around the overall average of £2,629 p/a).

There is no further funding, the profile has been approved by DWP, however we will seek advice from our Relationship Engagement Lead at DWP on your query

Please could the commissioner confirm whether 'Q1 in Year 3' the date by which we would be notified of funding being cut and when referrals would therefore cease, refers to March 2028 (as per calendar years) or June 2027 (as per delivery profile)?

The programme runs Financial Year, so will follow the delivery profile

In the Authority's Grant Application Form, it states ' We expect providers to have a ‘Good’ fidelity score, where they have already been delivering against the BASE and/or IPSPC models, we expect a ‘Good’ fidelity score as a minimum benchmark' and question 2.2 asks for bidders' 'latest fidelity report'. We currently deliver 10 IPS-AD services, including in Suffolk, but have not had what we consider a recent assessment by IPS Grow. We have an assessment in early August for which we are confident we will receive a 'good' fidelity score based on our internal assessment, with our IPS Grow result and report expected w/c 18th August. Would the Authority accept our internal assessment report (showing 'good' fidelity) as sufficient evidence of 'good' fidelity score, as part of our response to question 2.2; and accept the formal report being sent to you after bid submission, during w/c 18^th August?

Yes, we can confirm that you meet the requirements for Fidelity

Can the Authority please clarify whether they intend to award a single grant contract or multiple grant contracts? The Grant Guidance suggests multiple grants will be awarded, for example, ‘Successful applicants will need to attend inception meetings’

We are looking for contractor(s) that can cover the entire geographical region with physical coverage in the larger populated areas of Ipswich/Lowestoft and Bury St Eds any overlap would likely be around the ability to provide IPS/SEQF models. We do not want to create unnecessary overlap but aim to allocate contract(s) that meet the needs of participants.

With regards clause 12.3, could the commissioner please amend clause 12.3 to limit the indemnity to the Recipient’s obligations under this Grant Agreement only and exclude the mention of third parties. As this is a very wide indemnity drafted widely to capture every possible eventuality, we ask the commissioner to exclude liability to directly damages only.

The Grant Agreement shared is in draft form, therefore terms and conditions are not as yet confirmed, therefore this request will be taken into consideration

Would the commissioner consider amending clause 12.4 so that the liability is limited for both parties to the amount of the Grant

The Grant Agreement shared is in draft form, therefore terms and conditions are not as yet confirmed, therefore this request will be taken into consideration

Would the commissioner advise what the termination notice period will be for clause 14.4 please?

Either Party may terminate this Grant Funding Agreement at any time by giving at least 3 months’ written notice to the other Party.

Would the Commissioner please advise if there is a material change in costs over the course of the programme will it be possible to put a business case forward for additional funding as there is no mention of this within the partnership grant 2025 template.

A business case would be considered, this would need to be submitted by the Accountable Body (SCC) to the DWP for review

Would the commissioner consider putting a mitigation clause into clause 12 section of the contract that would apply to both parties.

The Grant Agreement shared is in draft form, therefore terms and conditions are not as yet confirmed, therefore this request will be taken into consideration

Q2.5 asks how bidders assure quality and improve programmes. One of the bullet points is "your approach to partnership working". Please could the Council clarify whether this is specifically in relation to improving programmes or whether it is seeking wider information about our partnership working.

Please provide narrative on how you assure the quality of delivery and any required improvements with your partner organisations

Q2.5 asks bidders how they assure quality in delivery and how they have improved the quality of programmes they have worked on. Please could the Council clarify whether for the second part of the question you are looking for specific examples of improvements we have made on other programmes or the systems in place to make improvements?

Please provide specific examples if you have them, if not please provide the mechanisms in place to implement improvements

Please can the commissioner confirm that should referrals cease at the end of year 3 quarter 1, starts targets will be amended to reflect this? i.e. 252 starts by end of year 3 quarter 1.

we can confirm that starts will be amended if the contract ceases before the expected end date of March 2030

Can the commissioner advise, are bidders allowed to expand the mitigation margin of the risk table within question 2.7 Risk Management, to better fit the narrative?

Yes

“Thank you for your response to the CQ regarding the partnership working element of Q2.5 confirming bidders should provide narrative on how they assure the quality of delivery and any required improvements with "your partner organisations". We would be grateful if you could further clarify who "your partner organisations" refers to. Does this refer to subcontractors a bidder has who are delivering the service, e.g. how we assure quality of their delivery; or wider partners who we may engage in our continuous improvement activity; or other organisations (if so please specify). Many thanks.

Subcontractors, including any Supply Chain Organisations that deliver the service/project

Are you ideally looking to appoint a single lead provider to deliver across Suffolk, potentially working with specialist subcontractors?
Or are you open to a mixed model, with several providers delivering the programme across different areas?

At this stage of the process, we are open to both of your forementioned approach points and welcome bids from a variety of providers.

Please could you confirm that informing the provider by the close of Q1 in Year 3, that the contract will finish on 31 March 2028, and that all new referrals would cease at 30 June 2027, will be detailed in the contractual documents provided on award.

Timelines including closure of the programme will be confirmed in the Grant Agreement

The Partnership Grant Template 5.5 requires the provider to provide our annual report within 3 months of the end of the financial year. Since our annual report contains our statutory accounts, this is subject to external audit and will not be available within 3 months. Please could you consider deleting (no later than three months after the end of the year in question) and replacing it with (as soon as practicable following publication)

The Grant Agreement shared is in draft form, therefore terms and conditions are not as yet confirmed, therefore this request will be taken into consideration

The Partnership Grant Template Section 7 refers to Subsidy Control – please could you confirm that the grant for CtW will not be considered a subsidy under the Government’s Subsidy Control Regime.

Subsidy Control is Not Applicable for Connect to Work

The Partnership Grant Template 9.3.2 and 9.3.3 gives the Council rights to access the provider’s Board papers and attend meetings of their Board – since these meetings would be commercially sensitive and confidential and unlikely to have specific relevance to the delivery of the Suffolk CtW contract please could you consider deleting these from the final contractual documents

The Grant Agreement shared is in draft form, therefore terms and conditions are not as yet confirmed, therefore this request will be taken into consideration

The Partnership Grant Template 9.14 gives the Council rights to observe recruitment to all senior managements posts by the provider – please could you consider deleting this clause from the final contractual documents, as those posts would not have specific relevance to the Suffolk CtW contract.

The Grant Agreement shared is in draft form, therefore terms and conditions are not as yet confirmed, therefore this request will be taken into consideration

We note that for a response to be evaluated as outstanding (10) it must (among other things) be: comprehensive and insightful, highly tailored to local context, include clear evidence of past success with measurable outcomes, and inspire high confidence. For most of the questions the word limit only provides space for a high-level overview, meaning bidders will struggle to meet these criteria. The scoring potential in some cases will be restricted to 5-7 Satisfactory, as even scoring 8-9 requires a level of detail that is difficult to fit into the word limits provided. We appreciate we may have misinterpreted the level of detail that the Council is seeking but would be grateful if the Council would: a) consider increasing word limits to enable bidders to answer comprehensively with clear evidence/examples, OR b) clarify its expectations around the level of detail required to achieve the Good/Outstanding evaluation criteria.

The Authority acknowledges the challenge of balancing comprehensive responses with concise word limits. However, we can confirm that we do not intend to increase the word limits. The limits are designed to ensure fairness and consistency across submissions, while encouraging clarity and precision in responses.

We do, however, appreciate the importance of clarity around evaluation expectations. To support bidders, we have ensured that the evaluation guidance clearly outlines how responses will be assessed within the constraints of the word limits, including what is considered a Good or Outstanding response.

We note that those that we have received have been responded to via email and relate only to the CQs raised by our organisation. Therefore, please can the commissioner confirm if other bidders have also submitted CQs and, if so, if all CQs received, and all responses given, will be shared with all bidders to ensure fairness and transparency?

Q2.6 governance suggests bidders include details of Project Management in their description of governance arrangements. Please could the Council clarify whether they see Project Management as the general management of the contract, or does this refer to project management during mobilisation (which is covered in Q2.8).

The Authority expects bidders to interpret Project Management within governance arrangements in a manner that reflects their overall approach to ensuring effective delivery. This may include aspects of contract management, mobilisation, and ongoing oversight, as appropriate to the bidder’s proposed methodology and structure.

The guidance states this will be a grant and therefore outside of scope for recoverable VAT as per HMRC rules.

However, part 3, Exclusions of the Grant Guidance document states 'Where the applicant is VAT registered and/or exempt, VAT should be recovered directly by the applicant from HMRC and cannot be included or claimed as part of project costs'.

Please could the commissioner confirm the VAT treatment for CtW Suffolk?'

The amount awarded in the Grant Funding Agreement is the total amount that may be payable by The Authority, and no additional amount shall be payable to account for any VAT that a provider may have to pay to HMRC (or such equivalent body). If the provider incurs VAT from Third Party suppliers, they must claim this back themselves. VAT costs should not be passed on to The Authority and VAT costs do not constitute Allowable Costs. If VAT is incurred and cannot be reclaimed, providers would be expected to absorb this cost.

On the 9 July we asked a CQ asking whether the council will be releasing a CQ log with questions from all bidders, which was confirmed that you would be circulating one weekly, however, we have not yet received a log.

To ensure transparency, all clarification questions can be viewed on the Suffolk County Council's Connect to Work webpage