Pre-procurement considerations

This subtopic contains a range of resources focussing on some of the key considerations for contracting authorities before starting a public procurement exercise, with particular focus on public procurement procedures under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), SI 2015/102.

This practical guidance relates to the pre-Procurement Act 2023 regime

This subtopic contains a range of resources for contracting authorities conducting a public procurement exercise commenced before the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023) came into force on 24 February 2025. In-scope procurements begun on or after this date are governed by PA 2023. Under the transitional and savings provisions for PA 2023, the previous regimes continue to apply to the extent necessary to allow contracting authorities to complete and manage procurements commenced before PA 2023 came into force (ie ongoing procurements).

This subtopic contains a range of resources for reference by contracting authorities before starting a public procurement exercise, with particular focus on public procurement procedures under PCR 2015. Since new in-scope procurements are now subject to PA 2023, these resources are of mainly historic relevance (for reference in pre-PA 2023 procurements

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Public Law News

A consent order has the effect of a ‘judgment’ for the purposes of engaging the cost consequences in CPR 36.17 (Thomas v Secretary of State for the Home Department)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The parties to a claim for unlawful detention agreed damages in the sum of £16,000. This was a sum higher than four Part 36 offers previously made by the claimant. The parties submitted a consent order recognising the agreed quantum in full and final settlement. The issue of costs was not agreed. The court held that the usual cost consequences in CPR 36.17 applied. The true effect of the consent order was to enter judgment in favour of the claimant. It was immaterial that the Order did not use the word ‘judgment’, that the order was agreed by way of settlement, or that there had not been a trial resulting in a judgment by a court. Written by Kyran Kanda, barrister at St Philips Chambers.

Administrative Court dismisses judicial review of asylum seeker accommodation decision R (Coventry City Council) v Home Secretary

Public Law analysis: The Administrative Court has dismissed a claim for judicial review challenging the lawfulness of the Home Offices’s actions in placing asylum seekers in accommodation in the claimant’s local authority area. The Secretary of State’s (SSHD’s) actions were taken in purported exercise of her powers derived from and in purported performance of her duties under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (‘the 1999 Act’). The claimant accepted that it was appropriate for a number of asylum seekers to be accommodated in its area but said that the number being accommodated there was excessive. The claimant said that the SSHD’s failure to reduce the number of asylum seekers accommodated in Coventry more quickly and her placement of further asylum seekers were both unlawful. The SSHD accepted that the number of asylum seekers accommodated in Coventry should be reduced. She contended that she was moving to implement a policy under which asylum seekers were accommodated more widely throughout the UK. However, she denied that there was any unlawfulness in the action she had taken thus far. Written by Rowena Wisniewska Sethi, barrister at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square Chambers.

Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments 46th Report of Session 2024–26: 3 SIs reported

The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (JCSI) has reported three statutory instruments: two for defective drafting and one for failure to comply with proper legislative practice.