Livv Housing Repairs and Voids Framework: Supplier Guide

Livv Housing Group has launched a four-year Repairs and Voids Contractor Framework worth an estimated £41.64 million including VAT. The framework will supplement Livv’s in-house maintenance team across approximately 13,000 homes, primarily in Knowsley, with work potentially extending across the wider Liverpool City Region and other parts of the North West.

The live tender is considerably more developed than the earlier market engagement exercise. Livv has split the requirement into 32 separately awarded lots: 16 covering responsive repairs in occupied properties and 16 matching lots for void properties. Suppliers can bid for one or more lots, giving both multi-trade contractors and specialist firms a potential route onto the framework.

For contractors, the key decision is therefore not simply whether to pursue the Livv framework, but which combination of repairs and voids lots best matches the way your business actually operates.

Quick facts

How are the 32 lots structured?

Livv has effectively created two parallel workstreams.

Lots 1 to 16 cover repairs, meaning responsive maintenance carried out in occupied homes. These include:

• joinery
• general building and multi-trade works
• gas
• plumbing
• standard electrical works
• specialist solar electrical works
• air source heat pumps
• infestation and environmental works
• drainage
• solid fuel
• damp proofing and plastering
• brickwork
• windows and doors
• groundworks
• painting and decorating
• flooring.

Lots 17 to 32 cover the same trade areas for void properties.

The distinction matters. Although a plumbing repair remains plumbing work whether a property is occupied or empty, the operational demands can be quite different. A responsive repair may depend heavily on resident appointments, access, communication, safeguarding and rapid attendance. Void works are more likely to be driven by coordination with other trades and the need to bring an empty home back to a lettable condition quickly. Livv has recognised this by tendering and awarding the two workstreams separately.

Should you bid for both repairs and voids?

For suppliers capable of both, there is an obvious attraction in bidding for the corresponding pair of lots. A joinery contractor, for example, could pursue both Joinery – Repairs and Joinery – Voids. But there is no requirement to mirror your bids.

A business that performs particularly well on planned void turnarounds may have stronger evidence for the void lot than for high-volume responsive work in occupied homes. Conversely, a contractor with a mature scheduling system, mobile operatives and an established customer-facing repairs service may be much better positioned for the occupied-property route. That makes lot selection an evidence question, not just a capacity question.

Before choosing how widely to bid, look at what your recent contracts can actually demonstrate. If most of your strongest examples relate to empty-property refurbishment, stretching those examples across a responsive repairs submission may leave important gaps around appointments, residents and emergency response.

The evaluation differs between repairs and voids

Another point worth noting is that Livv has applied different evaluation weightings to the two workstreams.

For Lots 1 to 16, covering repairs, the tender is weighted:

• 60% quality
• 40% cost

For Lots 17 to 32, covering voids, the balance is:

• 50% quality
• 50% cost.

That difference should influence how bidders approach the competition. On the repairs lots, there is particularly strong reason to invest in the quality response. Livv is not simply comparing rates. Contractors need to show that their operating model can deliver responsive work reliably across occupied homes.

For voids, quality remains important, but commercial competitiveness has equal weighting. That makes it especially important to understand the cost base behind the service before submitting rates. A contractor bidding across both workstreams shouldn't assume that the same bid strategy will work equally well for each.

What evidence is likely to matter for responsive repairs?

Livv already has an in-house maintenance team of around 120 operatives. The framework is intended to provide additional contractor capacity rather than replace that internal service. That context is useful when preparing evidence. A contractor may need to demonstrate that it can respond flexibly when Livv requires additional capacity, rather than relying on a predictable fixed volume of work.

For occupied-property repairs, useful evidence is likely to include examples of:

• managing appointments and keeping residents informed
• operating across a dispersed housing stock
• meeting repair priorities and attendance timescales
• controlling no-access visits and repeat appointments
• completing work correctly on the first visit where possible
• dealing with complaints, vulnerable residents and safeguarding issues
• providing sufficient labour when demand increases unexpectedly.

The strongest examples will show what happened operationally, not simply state that your company has delivered social housing repairs before.

Voids need a different story

Void-property work creates a different set of pressures. The objective is generally to return an empty property to a required standard efficiently so it can be re-let. A delay to one trade can hold up several others and extend the period in which the property produces no rental income. For the void lots, bidders should therefore consider evidence around turnaround times, sequencing and coordination.

If you regularly work alongside other contractors or an in-house maintenance team, explain how handovers are managed. If your operatives discover additional work once they enter a property, show how this is reported and approved without unnecessarily delaying the programme.

Performance information can be especially useful here. Examples might include average completion times, percentage of works completed within target, defect levels or reductions in return visits.

Some specialist lots are relatively small

The £41.64m overall framework value shouldn't be treated as an indication of the likely scale of every individual lot. There is considerable variation. For example, some of the specialist void lots have comparatively modest estimated values, while broader repairs categories such as general building carry a much larger share of the overall framework.

That reinforces the importance of looking at the lot-level opportunity rather than the framework headline. For a specialist SME, a smaller lot may still be attractive if it closely matches existing operations and can be serviced efficiently from the current workforce. Equally, pursuing multiple small lots can create disproportionate tendering and mobilisation work if they sit outside your core offer. The notice explicitly identifies the framework as suitable for SMEs, and there is no overall cap on the number of suppliers appointed.

How will work be awarded after the framework goes live?

Livv can award call-off contracts with or without further competition. The notice also confirms that the form of contract will be a JCT Measured Term Contract and that prices will be set for each 12-month period. Price increases will be accepted subject to a cap at CPI.

For suppliers, this means securing a framework place is only part of the commercial picture. You should understand how your rates perform over the first year, how inflation could affect your delivery costs and whether the framework remains workable if work volumes fluctuate. The notice does not guarantee a particular size or duration for individual call-offs.

This is particularly relevant for businesses considering several lots. Winning more places on the framework only creates value if you have the resources and commercial model to service the work when it arrives.

Watch the TUPE position

The notice also flags that TUPE may apply to some work awarded through the framework. Livv cannot yet identify which contractor or staff would be affected because this depends on the eventual lot allocation and ranking of successful bidders. If TUPE liability becomes clear after award, it may require adjustments to pricing or contractual terms.

Bidders should therefore avoid treating TUPE as a boilerplate compliance point. If it could affect the lot you are pursuing, make sure the relevant people within your business understand the potential workforce and cost implications before commercial assumptions are finalised.

Preparing a Livv framework submission

The structure of this framework makes it relatively accessible, but that doesn't mean every contractor should bid widely. A more focused approach is likely to start with three questions:

1. Which trades are genuinely core to your business?
   Choose lots where you already have credible staff, systems and experience rather than adding peripheral services simply because the framework allows multiple applications.
2. Is your evidence stronger for occupied repairs or voids?
   The two workstreams should not be treated as interchangeable.
3. Can you support your pricing for the type of work involved?
   A responsive service with travel, appointments and short-notice jobs has different cost pressures from programmed activity in empty properties.

The Livv opportunity is particularly interesting because the 32-lot structure allows suppliers to be selective. The strongest submission is therefore unlikely to be the one that tries to cover the most ground. It will be the one that makes a credible case for the specific repair or void services the bidder is equipped to deliver.

Thornton & Lowe's construction bid team can support individual trade submissions or a coordinated response across several lots, including method statements, evidence development and final tender review.