Tender definition

View the related checklists about Tender

EU operational resilience—timeline

EU operational resilience—timeline This timeline shows key developments relating to EU operational resilience requirements for financial services firms from January 2024 onwards. For earlier developments, see Operational resilience—timeline [Archived] 2025 Date Source Document Description 15 April 2025 FSB FSB finalises the common Format for Incident Reporting Exchange (FIRE) The Financial Stability Board (FSB) has published its finalised format for incident reporting exchange (FIRE), which aims to standardise and streamline cyber and operational incident reporting. Developed with private sector collaboration, FIRE addresses fragmentation in reporting requirements across multiple jurisdictions and supports phased implementation. It is interoperable with existing systems and applicable to a wide range of incidents, including those involving third-party service providers. The initiative promotes convergence in cyber incident reporting, reduces the reporting burden for firms, and improves communication among authorities.See: LNB News 15/04/2025 37. 24 March 2025 European Commission COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) …/... supplementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards specifying the elements that a financial...

Grounds for challenge in a public procurement process—checklist

Grounds for challenge in a public procurement process—checklist This Checklist examines the grounds for challenge in a public procurement process. Procurement challenges are restricted by time limits and bidders need to be aware of how to rectify any breaches as soon as possible. This Checklist sets out the limitation period under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), SI 2015/102 and the relevant factors that can affect the date this starts. This Checklist also pinpoints potential grounds for challenge in relation to Selection Questionnaires, invitations to tender and standstill letters. Limitation in public procurement proceedings Procurement challenges are subject to relatively short limitation periods. It is therefore important that bidders are alive to potential breaches arising during the procurement process itself. Where a breach occurs, an analysis as to what, if any, action the bidder wishes to take must be undertaken quickly. The courts have consistently held that a bidder that chooses to sit on its hands and await the outcome of the procurement process will not be able to...

View the related flowcharts about Tender

Procurement process—flowchart—worked example

Procurement process—flowchart—worked example This Procurement process flowchart shows the order in which a procurement may take place, together with the elements to be considered to ensure that a transparent and suitable procurement process is followed. It also identifies Precedents available to assist you with the procurement process. This Flowchart is a worked example and is not intended to be definitive. Different organisations may well have very different processes, but it provides a good starting or reference point. The contract value figures have been included for illustrative purposes only. See also Precedent: Procurement policy—internal. Note 1 When deciding whether or not you can use a supplier who has previously supplied goods/services to another part of the organisation you should consider: • satisfaction with the supplier • uniformity or standardisation requirements • price efficiency/economies of scale • desirability of reducing reliance on one supplier Note 2 See Precedent: Confidentiality agreement—one-way—pro-discloser. Note 3 The contract value limits shown in this workflow are illustrative examples only. These limits will need to be adjusted...

View the related practice notes about Tender

Indications on sentence

Indications on sentence Judicial independence is fundamental to the rule of law. The integrity of the criminal justice system depends on a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. Alongside these fundamental principles exists the need to ensure justice is carried out expeditiously and there is a recognised need for discussions on plea to take place. An advance indication as to likely sentence is part of this process. The potential advantage of gaining an indication on sentence in advance is that the defendant can make a better informed decision about whether to plead guilty or not. The Attorney General's guidelines on the acceptance of pleas emphasises the importance of transparency in the conduct of justice and, in particular, sets out a formalised process for the provision of indications on sentence in the Crown Court. These are generally known as 'Goodyear indications'. The Court of Appeal issued guidelines that amount to the introduction of a formalised procedure of advance sentence indication in R v Goodyear. These are...

Part 36 offers—split trial cases

Part 36 offers—split trial cases This Practice Note considers Part 36 offers in split trial cases noting the additional factors that are relevant when making or receiving a Part 36, particularly with regard to disclosure and acceptance of Part 36 offers. Note, CPR 36.12, CPR 36.16(3)(d) and CPR 36.16(4) contain additional specific rules relevant to Part 36 offers in split trial cases. Why have specific provision for split trial cases? CPR 36.2(3) confirms that a party can make a Part 36 offer in respect of 'the whole or part of, or any issue that arises in a claim, counterclaim or other additional claim, or an appeal or cross appeal from a decision made at trial'. It is clear and, indeed, anticipated that parties may make Part 36 offers which are limited to individual issue(s) and which may be decided at separate trials. Examples might be a Part 36 offer limited only to liability or quantum or on a specific issue such as, eg limitation. Equally, the offeror...

View the related precedents about Tender

Letter accompanying Invitation to tender—competitive procedure with negotiation

Letter accompanying Invitation to tender—competitive procedure with negotiation STOP PRESS: As of 24 February 2025, the main provisions of the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023) are in force. Procurements begun on or after this date must be carried out under PA 2023, whereas those begun under the previous legislation (the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016, the Concession Regulations 2016, and the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011) must continue to be procured and managed under that legislation. See Practice Note: Introduction to the Procurement Act 2023—PA 2023. PCR 2015 as assimilated law PCR 2015 are EU-derived domestic legislation and therefore assimilated law under sections 2 and 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. For practical guidance on the status and interpretation of assimilated law, see Practice Note: Assimilated law. [On headed paper] [Insert date] [Insert address of bidder] Dear [[Insert contact name] OR [Insert name of

Letter to successful supplier after end of the standstill period

Letter to successful supplier after end of the standstill period STOP PRESS: As of 24 February 2025, the main provisions of the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023) are in force. Procurements begun on or after this date must be carried out under PA 2023, whereas those begun under the previous legislation (the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016, the Concession Regulations 2016, and the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011) must continue to be procured and managed under that legislation. See Practice Note: Introduction to the Procurement Act 2023—PA 2023. PCR 2015 as assimilated law PCR 2015 are EU-derived domestic legislation and therefore assimilated law under sections 2 and 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. For practical guidance on the status and interpretation of assimilated law, see Practice Note: Assimilated law. [Insert name of successful tenderer] [Insert address of successful tenderer] [Date] Our ref: [Insert contracting authority's reference] Your ref: [Insert successful tenderer’s reference] Dear [insert organisation or representative...

View the related q&as about Tender

When can a local authority procure a different supplier to carry out works if the current provider hasn’t performed all aspects of the contract?

When can a local authority procure a different supplier to carry out works if the current provider hasn’t performed all aspects of the contract? Article 73 of Directive 2014/24/EU (the Public Contracts Directive) is implemented into English law by the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), SI 2015/102. Article 73 of the Public Contracts Directive and PCR 2015, SI 2015/102, reg 73 provide for the situations in which a public contract may be terminated. Strictly, breach of the contract by the contractor is not one of the situations in which the contract can be terminated but it follows from ordinary principles of contract law, which are for national law, that a breach of contract may allow the innocent party to repudiate and therefore terminate the contract In that situation,

How are head office overheads and loss of profit assessed as part of a contractor's claim for loss and expense?

How are head office overheads and loss of profit assessed as part of a contractor's claim for loss and expense? What is a claim for loss and expense? Under a construction contract, a contractor will usually be entitled to claim loss and expense where it suffers delay or disruption to the progress of the works, due either to matters within the employer's control or to breaches of contract by the employer. Claims for loss and expense are commonly brought under various different headings (see Practice Notes: Loss and expense and Loss and expense claims—practical tips), two of which will usually be a contractor's claim for overheads (also known as prolongation costs) and for loss of profit. On what basis can a claim be brought? Contractors often believe that an entitlement to claim overheads and loss of profit (as well as other heads of loss and expense) automatically follows from an entitlement to an extension of time. This is not usually the case and each claim must...

View the related News about Tender

DESNZ publishes ministerial letter on early OFTO decommissioning approach

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) has published a letter from the Minister for Energy, Michael Shanks MP, to the Chair of the Energy Networks Association (ENA) Offshore Transmission Owner (OFTO) forum, Roger Morgan. The letter sets out DESNZ’s approach to decommissioning plans for early OFTOs—specifically those in Ofgem’s tender rounds one to six that fall within DESNZ’s remit. Shanks confirmed that partial decommissioning is likely to be acceptable for these early OFTOs, meaning some infrastructure may remain in situ, subject to ongoing monitoring and any necessary remediation post-decommissioning. However, each project will be subject to further assessment, considering environmental conditions, risks, costs, and current technological capabilities before proceeding under the standard section 108 process for individual decommissioning programmes.

The logistics of lifting the automatic suspension—the use of the American Cyanamid test in an application to lift an automatic suspension under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (Unipart Group Ltd and another company v Supply Chain Coordination Ltd)

Public Law analysis: Supply Chain Coordination Ltd (SCCL), the state-owned entity managing the NHS Supply Chain, applied to lift the automatic suspension following challenges by unsuccessful tenderers (Unipart Group Ltd (Unipart) and D.H.L. Supply Chain Ltd (DHL)) in relation to a logistics services procurement governed by the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), SI 2015/102. The Honourable Mr Justice Constable in the High Court granted SCCL’s applications to lift the automatic suspension. The courts have been called upon to consider dozens of applications to lift automatic suspensions pursuant to PCR 2015, SI 2015/102, reg 96, with the majority resulting in the suspension being lifted. Consistent with that trend, the court in this case lifted the suspension—reinforcing the pattern of decisions favouring contracting authorities where public interest and service continuity arguments carry weight. Furthermore, the case discusses the requirements for when a tenderer is considered ‘definitively excluded’ (PCR 2015, SI 2015/102, reg 86(7)(b) and 86(8)). Written by Tom Ward, associate, and Andrew Dean, partner, at Bird & Bird.