NHS England – Midlands (West) (referred to as the Commissioner) awarded a contract to InHealth Intelligence for the provision of Diabetic Eye Screening Programme (DESP) across Shropshire and Staffordshire following a Competitive Process.

Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (Directive 2014/24/EU)

V1.3: This is a Provider Selection Regime (PSR) intention to award notice. The awarding of this contract is subject to the Health Care Services (Provider Selection Regime) Regulations 2023. For the avoidance of doubt, the provisions of the Procurement Act 2023 do not apply to this award.The standstill period begins on the day after the publication of this notice. Representations by providers must be made to the relevant authority by 12 (midnight) on Friday 20th March 2026. This contract has not yet formally been awarded; this notice serves as an intention to award a contract under the competitive process of the PSR.Written representations need to be sent via the Atamis e-tendering portal, Project Reference: C384799 - Diabetic Eye Screening Programme (DESP) across Shropshire and Staffordshire.The award decision makers are Screening Governance Group and Regional Commissioning Group .The evaluation panel consisted of NHS England – Midlands (West) personnel: -Senior Finance OfficerSenior Finance Manager Public Health Contracts ManagerSenior Information Governance ManagerConsultant Public HealthSenior Commissioning ManagerScreening coordinatorScreening Contract Manager Screening ManagerAssistant Contract ManagerAssistant Screening CoordinatorContracts ManagerTwo potential conflicts of interest were flagged as part of this process. The two conflicts of interest were reviewed by the Project Lead who agreed that the two members who identified potential conflicts of interest were to remain as part of the evaluation panel.The perceived conflicts of interest were mitigated against as no prior information or contractual information regarding the Provider was taken into consideration when evaluating. The panel members who did identify perceived conflicts of interest were never the sole voice on any scores as each question had more than one panel member and was the questions were discussed in depth as part of a robust moderation process.The Basic Selection Criteria was scored on a Pass/Fail or For Information basis. The Key Criteria was scored on a weighted questions basis as follows:1. Quality and Innovation 25.00%2. Value 20.00%3. Integration, Collaboration & Service Sustainability 30.00%4. Improving access, reducing health inequalities and facilitating Choice 15.00%5. Social Value 10.00%The weightings for the 5 key criteria were determined by the procurement panel to give appropriate relative importance to each of the sections equally in line with the commissioning expectations for the service. These were assessed on a scored basis (0-5), with the exception of the Value Key Criteria which was scored, as per the evaluation criteria set out within the procurement documentation.The awarded Provider has been selected as they have met all requirements of the Basic Selection Criteria and scored the highest overall out of 100% against the published Key Criteria (listed above). → This is a Provider Selection Regime (PSR) confirmation of contract award notice. This contract has been awarded under the Health Care Services (Provider Selection Regime) Regulations 2023. For the avoidance of doubt, the provisions of the Procurement Act 2023 do not apply to this award.This contract has now been formally awarded using the competitive process.The contract was signed 6th October 2026. The contract commenced on 1st January 2027 and is scheduled to end 31st December 2035. The total contract value for the full term of the contract is £28,758,774.50Two conflicts of interest were flagged as part of this process. The two conflicts of interest were reviewed by the Project Lead who agreed that the two members who identified potential conflicts of interest were to remain as part of the evaluation panel.The perceived conflicts of interest were mitigated against as no prior information or contractual information regarding the Provider was taken into consideration when evaluating. The panel members who did identify perceived conflicts of interest were never the sole voice on any scores as each question had more than one panel member and was the questions were discussed in depth as part of a robust moderation process.No representations were received during the standstill period.