Local Government Lawyer Home Page

Sharpe Edge Webpage Banner

Welcome to Sharpe Edge, Sharpe Pritchard’s local government legal hub on Local Government Lawyer.

Sharpe Edge features news, views and analysis from our team of specialist local government lawyers working at the heart of the latest legal developments. Sharpe Edge platform is also the only place where local government lawyers can get e-access to two law books by our Head of Local Government Rob Hann: The Guide to Local Authority Charging and Trading Powers (‘LACAT’) and The Guide to Local Authority Companies and Partnerships (‘LACAP’).



Slide background

The Government’s response to the Transforming Public Procurement consultation: what will change and what will not?

Juli Lau, Colin Ricciardiello, Beth Edwards and Natasha Barlow analyse the Government’s response to the Transforming Public Procurement consultation.

<a href=

On 6th December 2021, nearly a year after the Green Paper on public procurement reforms was published, Cabinet Office released its response (the ‘Response’) to the 619 consultation responses it received. Having submitted a detailed response in March, our article earlier this year summarised the key reform proposals and below, members of the Sharpe Pritchard Procurement Working Group outline the development of proposals that Government intends to proceed with, as well as those it has chosen not to pursue.

Chapter 1: Procurement that better meets the UK’s needs

Government intends to press on with a new set of procurement principles to replace the previous EU principles, but these will be divided into ‘principles’ and ‘statutory objectives’. The principles will be transparency, fair treatment of suppliers and non-discrimination, while the statutory objectives will be promoting the importance of fair and open competition, maximising public benefit, value for money and integrity. At this stage, the Response does not expand on how the principles and statutory objectives are to be applied differently in practice.

The Response amends proposals for a unit to oversee public procurement. The new Procurement Review Unit will sit within Cabinet Office and will focus on investigating systemic or institutional breaches of the procurement regulations, and making recommendations for future compliance. It will not have power to intervene in any specific procurement decisions.

Chapter 2: A simpler regulatory framework

Government intends to go ahead with consolidating the various procurement regimes into a single framework, but in response to consultation responses, some flexibilities of the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016 (UCR) and Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011 (DSPCR) will be retained for those sectors.

Utilities will be bound by the new legislation in so far as they are carrying out prescribed relevant activities (which will be broadly as currently defined under the UCR). A number of exemptions currently available to utilities will be retained, such as contracts awarded to affiliated undertakings, certain supply of water and energy contracts, the use of qualification systems, and the ability to make modifications without a financial cap.

While the Response does not explicitly refer to the eight years currently available to frameworks under the UCR, it does confirm that utilities will be allowed to award longer “closed” frameworks, to be consistent with their current flexibility and sector-specific regulatory needs.

The Response promises a full suite of national security exemptions for sensitive procurement. It also acknowledges that specific provisions will cover the definition, valuation and duration of concession contracts.

We had raised a number of these sector-specific issues in our response, and we look forward to seeing how these will be addressed in legislation.

Chapter 3: Using the right procurement procedures

A key element of the Green Paper was the replacement of the current procedures with three new ones: the flexible procedure, open procedure and limited tendering procedure. While acknowledging concerns about the complexity and potentially increased burdens for contracting authorities, Government intends to press on with this change.

The Green Paper’s proposal to add ‘crisis’ as a ground for using the limited tendering procedure is being retained as a concept, although the intention is to consider granting a new power to a Government Minister to ‘declare when action is necessary to protect life’, so that limited tendering rules apply.

The paper also proposed the removal of the Light Touch Regime for “social and other services”. Following responses concerned that this would lower the value threshold for key social service contracts, an amended version will now remain in place.

Chapter 4: Awarding the right contract to the right supplier

The majority of the changes proposed in Chapter 4 will be implemented, such as the proposal to amend Most Economically Advantageous Tender to Most Advantageous Tender. While retaining the basic requirement that award criteria should be linked to the subject matter of a contract, Government intends to use secondary legislation to require (or permit) contracting authorities to take into account policy priorities that may not be directly related to the contract subject matter.

Interestingly, Government is proposing to introduce a power to disapply s17 of the Local Government Act 1988 in certain circumstances – this is in response to concerns raised (including by this Firm) that local authorities are required to comply with obligations under such legislation which may not always align with proposals under the new procurement regime, e.g. criteria not linked to subject matter.

The centrally managed debarment list, and changes to the grounds for excluding suppliers from procurements, including the wider grounds on which poor past performance can be taken into account, are intended to be taken forward, with a new exclusion framework to provide clearer guidance on this issue.

Chapter 5 – Using the best commercial purchasing tools

The Response confirms that proposed reforms to the Dynamic Purchasing System will be introduced (albeit renamed “The Dynamic Market”), including making the system available for all types of procurements (rather than just common goods and services), and new suppliers being added at any point.

Government intends to proceed with creating “open frameworks” which can be established with a maximum term of eight years (and multiple joining points). Following consultation, however, the maximum period that an open framework can be kept closed to new joiners will be five years rather than the three originally proposed. This represents a relative increase to the current maximum four years for frameworks under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR), which would now apply to “closed frameworks” under the new regime, with exceptions for utilities.

Chapter 6 – Ensuring Open and Transparent Contracting

In response to concerns (mostly from contracting authorities) about the resource intensity of the proposals, as well as issues around commercial sensitivity, Government has made the following amendments to the Green Paper proposals in relation to the publication of procurement data to a central platform using the Open Data Contracting Standard:

  • There will be no requirement to disclose tenders submitted due to concerns this could prejudice future competitions.
  • Publication of contract documents will initially only be required for those valued above £2 million. These documents can be redacted to address confidentiality.
  • The publication of beneficial ownership details will not apply to all bidders, only successful bidders.
  • A reduction in the scope and extent of publication of evaluation documents. (See Chapter 7.)

Chapter 7:  Fair and Fast Challenges for procurement decisions

The Green Paper consulted on making procurement challenges quicker and more accessible by a variety of proposed measures.

The Response confirms that the following will not be introduced:

  • Independent review by the contracting authority;
  • Tribunal to deal with low value claims;
  • Primacy of pre-contract remedies over post-contractual damages; and
  • Cap on damages.

Some of the proposals in this Chapter are still under review:

  • Potential options to replace the American Cyanamid test (used when considering suspension-lifting applications under PCR Regulation 96(1)(a)) are still being considered, but it is envisaged that the new test would be a single limb test centring on the overriding consequences on the interests at stake. That may translate into who is prejudiced the most by lifting/ending the suspension, akin to the balance of convenience test under American Cyanamid.
  • The exploration of reforms to improve access and reduce timescales continues, alongside the Ministry of Justice and the Civil Procedure Rules Committee.

The two key proposals that will be implemented are:

  • The removal of the automatic suspension in crisis and extreme urgency, but with requirements to publish a contract award notice and subsequently contract details; and
  • The removal of mandated debrief letters.

The publication process for contract award decisions would instead be as follows:

  • Award Notice stating the intention to award, anticipated value, identity of all bidders and a standstill period;
  • Provision of some of the winning bidder’s redacted evaluation documents to all bidders;
  • Each bidder to receive its own unredacted evaluation documents to enable comparison against the winning bid; and
  • Voluntary individual debrief letters can additionally be provided.

Giving the documents at (ii) and (iii) above moves towards the codification of the Technology and Construction Court’s guidance on pre-action conduct to provide a challenger with the key decision material, which is in turn taken from the decision in Roche Diagnostics v. Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust [2013] EWHC 604(TCC).

This may be less of a step change for authorities who are already providing this level of evaluation information with standstill letters, but still places a burden on authorities to ensure compliance with both the publication and redaction requirements.

Chapter 8 – Effective Contract Management

Government has decided to introduce its proposals on contract management reform, with some changes to address concerns raised.

Suppliers deep in the supply chain will have more direct access to contracting authorities when supply chain payment issues occur, but must first evidence their attempts to resolve these issues.

There will be more flexibility to amend contracts in times of crisis, but with new provisions specifically targeting the amendment of complex contracts. The less stringent grounds currently available for changes under the UCR will also be maintained for utilities, and defence and security contracts will be afforded the maximum level of flexibility in recognition of Ministry of Defence requirements.

The new mandatory contract change notices will only need to be published for changes over specified thresholds, and the proposed cap on profits for contract extensions will not be introduced.

Next steps

The earliest that the new regime will come into force is 2023, with a six-month prior notice period, and it is expected that secondary legislation and supporting guidance will be published in similar time frames. Meanwhile, the Cabinet Office intends to deliver a detailed learning and development programme to assist with the transition.

Our Procurement Working Group is keeping a close eye on developments while we await the draft legislation, and through our knowledge-sharing networks we aim to provide regular briefings to clients, in readiness for changes which will affect contracting authorities and utilities, as well as their suppliers and contractors alike.

Juli Lau is a Legal Director, Colin Ricciardiello is a Partner, Beth Edwards is a Paralegal and Natasha Barlow is a Trainee Solicitor at Sharpe Pritchard LLP.

For further insight and resources on local government legal issues from Sharpe Pritchard, please visit the SharpeEdge page by clicking on the banner below.

sharpe edge 600x100

This article is for general awareness only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. The law may have changed since this page was first published. If you would like further advice and assistance in relation to any issue raised in this article, please contact us by telephone or email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


LACAT BookFREE download!

A Guide to Local Authority Charging and Trading Powers

Written and edited by Sharpe Pritchard’s Head of Local Government, Rob Hann,

A Guide to Local Authority Charging and Trading Powers covers:

• Updated charging powers compendium          • Commercial trading options

• Teckal ‘public to public’                                    • Localism Act


LACAT BookAvailable to buy:

A Guide to Local Authority Companies and Partnerships

An invaluable, comprehensive toolkit for lawyers, law firms and others advising
on or participating in Local Authority Companies and Partnerships”

- Local Authority Chief Executive


  More Articles

<a href=

Levelling up – A new opportunity for further devolution in England?

Rob Hann explores the Government's 'levelling up' policy and looks at whether it is an opportunity for further devolution in England.
<a href=

Time limits for commencing proceedings in procurement challenges

Colin Ricciardiello discusses a landmark procurement challenge judgment on the time limit for commencing proceedings.
Icons Hazard

The Revised National Planning Policy Framework: Better design, greener outcomes?

Alastair Lewis and Sarah Wertheim outline the latest National Planning Policy Framework changes and explain how future developments will be impacted by the new rules.
<a href=

Loose talk costs money: Oral agreement to forego liquidated damages was valid

Michael Comba outlines and analyses a contract dispute resolution: Mansion Place Ltd v Fox Industrial Services Ltd [2021] EWHC 2972 (TCC)
<a href=

Procurement reform – an update

Radhika Devesher and Natasha Barlow provide a summary of the proposed and enacted changes to the UK procurement regime post-Brexit.
Icons Court

The Public Procurement Review Service Report: Procurement Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

Juli Lau and Beth Edwards examine some of the most common procurement pitfalls and provide a checklist of points for local authorities to bear in mind in order to avoid costly errors.
<a href=

JCT Dispute Adjudication Board Rules: a case of “three’s a crowd”?

Peter Jansen who specialises in construction law and dispute resolution, examines the roles and functions of the JCT’s Dispute Adjudication Board and highlights some key considerations for parties planning to adopt the Rules in their JCT contracts.
<a href=

The Electric Vehicle Revolution or…

Emily Knowles discusses new legislation on the requirement of electric vehicle charging points, and its potential impact on the Electric Vehicle Revolution.
<a href=

Consultation on the Electronic Communications Code – What’s Changing?

Lillee Reid-Hunt outlines the legislative changes to the Electronic Communications Code.
Icons Court

You Must Adjudicate First NEC3 imposes obligation to adjudicate first before commencing court proceedings.

Michael Comba discusses NEC3 imposing an obligation to adjudicate first before commencing court proceedings.
Icons Court

Rocking aground the Christmas tree

Clare Mendelle and George Dale discuss and solve a common construction scenario, looking at the position under the Contract, and how the Employer should deal with the Contractor's request.
Icons Hazard

Adequacy Decision Granted to the UK

Charlotte Smith considers two recent adequacy decisions and explains how this affects existing data practices.
<a href=

Managing employees with long COVID and employees who have anxiety about returning to the office

Julie Bann and Victoria Smith consider how Long Covid may be treated under existing employment laws and provide compliance guidance for employers.
<a href=

Environment Act 2021: What Does it Mean for Waste Authorities?

Sally Stock, Juli Lau, Ellen Painter and Beth Edwards discuss notable changes made to the Environment Bill 2021-2022, which received Royal Assent on the 9th November.
<a href=

ESG and its relevance to the public sector

Peter Collins and Sydney Chandler discuss the growing importance of Environmental, Social, and Governance criteria in public procurement.
<a href=

JCT 101: Time and Punishment

Rachel Murray-Smith, Clare Mendelle and Laura Campbell discuss a common Construction scenario regarding the Practical Completion of a project, and the position under the unamended JCT DB 2016.
Icons Court

The importance of due process, communication and fairness in employee conduct investigations – what you need to know.

Julie Bann and James Hughes discuss the importance of fairness in employee conduct investigations, taking a look at the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham -v- Mr S Keable case.
<a href=

Becoming More Inclusive: VAT and Public Procurement

Juli Lau, Natasha Barlow and Beth Edwards examine the recently published Public Procurement Regulations 2021, focussing upon amendments to the thresholds within various procurement regimes.
<a href=

The LADs are Alright

Laura Campbell discusses liquidated damages in construction contracts, focussing upon the long-running Triple Point saga which ended in the Supreme Court this year.
<a href=

Procurement Policy Note 08/21

Juli Lau and Beth Edwards outline Procurement Policy Note 08/21, recently published by the Cabinet office.
Icons Court

Hard Times: Improving Air Quality with Clean Air Zones

Rob Hann and James Goldthorpe examine the introduction of Clean Air Zones to improve air quality across the UK.
<a href=

Autumn Budget Spending Review 2021 – What Public Bodies Need To Know

Rob Hann and James Hughes examine the Autumn Budget Spending Review 2021, looking at what Public Bodies need to know.
<a href=

Net Zero – What’s new for local authorities?

Steve Gummer and Sophie Drysdale look at two major climate publications: the Heat and Buildings Strategy and the Net Zero Strategy.
Icons Hazard

Jumping to conclusions: Final Statements, liquidated damages and material breaches of natural justice

Michael Comba looks at a recent Technology and Construction Court case that provides useful guidance on the JCT’s procedural requirements on disputing Final Statements.
Icons Court

Three times one equals one: Several disputed payment applications amount to a single dispute

Michael Comba considers a case in which the High Court dismissed an employer’s argument that an adjudicator lacked jurisdiction because the referral concerned three separate payment applications and, therefore, comprised three separate disputes.
<a href=

Warm feelings or hot air: the Heat and Buildings Strategy and Heat Networks

This week the government published its Heat and Buildings Strategy (Strategy). This contained vital innovations and essential step changes in terms of how heating is provided, writes Steve Gummer.
<a href=

Procurement reforms: update from Cabinet Office

Rob Hann, Nicola Sumner and Juli Lau assess the Cabinet Office's update on the progress of the government's public procurement reforms.
Icons Court

Bond, Performance Bond. Delivering value for the Public Sector?

Justin Mendelle examines whether public sector clients achieve value for money from the provision of performance bonds.
Icons Hazard

Not so personal messages: R. (on the application of Good Law Project Ltd) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and Abingdon Health Plc [2021] EWHC 2595 (TCC)

Nicola Sumner, Juli Lau and Beth Edwards look at The Good Law Project's challenge of the direct award by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care of three contracts for the production and supply of rapid Covid-19 antibody tests (the “Contracts”).
<a href=

Insolvency – Termination and Beyond

Rachel Murray-Smith and Clare Mendelle consider the potential warning signs of, and the compliant manner for dealing with, contractor insolvency.
Icons Court

Settlement agreements – waiving Personal Injury claims

In the case of Farnham-Oliver v RM Educational Resources LTD, the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court allowed a Personal Injury claim (“PI claim”) to be pursued by an employee against his former employer despite the parties signing a Settlement Agreement in respect of an Employment Tribunal claim on the same issue. Julie Bann and James Hughes report.
Icons Hazard

Mandatory Vaccination for Care Home Workers in England – Update

Rachel Murray-Smith and Francesca Gallagher look at the detail of the government's guidance on compulsory vaccination for care staff.
<a href=

Make your mind up! Liquidated Damages clause upheld despite Employer’s challenge

In the recent case of Eco World Ballymore (EWB) v Dobler[1] , an Employer took the unusual position of challenging their own entitlement to liquidated damages (LDs) on the ground that the LDs provision constituted an unenforceable penalty clause. Clare Mendelle and James Goldthorpe investigate.
<a href=

Are Collateral Warranties Construction Contracts? Timing is Key.

Clare Mendelle and Anna Sidebottom examine the recently decided case of Toppan v Simply[1], which has provided guidance on when collateral warranties may be considered “construction contracts” under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and so give the warranty holder the right to adjudicate.
Icons Court

Climate emergency or climate catastrophe?

Rob Hann asks how central & local government departments and councils can work together more effectively to combat the challenges to achieve net zero by 2050.
Slide background